Institutional Report 


This report is large! (approx. 1 meg.)  Please be patient with the download time.

Section headings and subheadings are linked.  Click on the one you wish to read.


Table of Contents

Section I -- Overview of the Institution

Mission
Accreditation

Awards

Characteristics of the University
Characteristics of the College of Education
Mission of the College
Faculty
Grants and Research
Technology
Service to the Region
Assessments
Service to Schools
Globalization and Diversity

Summary of Activities Since the Last Visit

Program Data Report

Section II -- Conceptual Framework

Description of the Conceptual Framework
Theme
Teacher Education
School Administrators
School Counselors
College of Education Programs
Knowledge Base
Development of the Conceptual Framework
Relationship of the Conceptual Framework to Standards

Section III -- Evidence for Meeting Each Standard

Standard 1.  Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions

Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates
Content Knowledge for Other School Personnel
Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates 
Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates 
Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other School Personnel
Dispositions for All Candidates
Student Learning for Teacher Candidates 

Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel

Standard 2.  Assessment System and Evaluation

Assessment System
Teacher Education Program 

Unit Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
Use of Data for Program Improvement

School Administrator Program

Unit Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
Use of Data for Program Improvement

School Counselor Program

Unit Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation
Use of Data for Program Improvement

Standard 3.  Field Experience and Clinical Practice

Collaboration Between Unit and School Partners
Professional Development for Supervisors
Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experience and Clinical Practice
Site Selection and Placement Procedures
Nature of Field Experience

Candidates' Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions to Help All Students Learn

Standard 4.  Diversity

Diversity in the Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experience
Experiences Working with a Diverse Faculty
Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates
Experiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools

Standard 5.  Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

Qualified Faculty
Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching
Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship
Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service
Collaboration
Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance

Unit Facilitation of Professional Development

Standard 6.  Unit Governance and Resources

Unit Leadership and Authority
Unit Budget
Personnel
Workload
Part-time Faculty
Professional Development
Unit Facilities
Academic and Research Support
Quality of Practicum Sites/Field Experiences
Unit Resources including Technology
Technology Facilities and Equipment

Distance Education Facilities

Appendix

Specialty Areas with National Recognition
Southeast Missouri State University College of Education Organizational Chart 2001-2002

List of Tables

Table 1:  Faculty Professional Growth and Scholarship 
Table 2:  Program Data Report   
Table 3:  2000-2001 Praxis and Praxis II Score Ranges and Means
Table 4:  2000 Praxis Scores for Middle/Secondary Education
Table 5:  Program and Professional Standards
Table 6:  Unit Policies and Practices      
Table 7:  College of Education Full-Time Faculty    
Table 8:  College of Education Faculty with Earned Doctorates
Table 9:  Faculty Professional Development and Related Expenditures 

List of Figures

Figure 1:  Conceptual Framework for Teacher Education
Figure 2:  Conceptual Framework for School Administration
Figure 3:  Conceptual Framework for School Counseling 
Figure 4:  Evaluation of Admission and Exit Requirements to Southeast Missouri State and the College of Education  
Figure 5:  Evaluation of Admission Requirements to the Educational Administration Program
Figure 6:  Evaluation of Program Requirements for Educational Administration
Figure 7:  Evaluation of Admission Requirements to the Counseling Program
Figure 8:  Evaluation of Program Requirements for School Counseling
Figure 9:  Feedback Schema for Unit Assessment Program

Institutional Report Submitted to the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education

 

Section I -- Overview of the Institution

In the academic year, 1998-1999, Southeast Missouri State University celebrated 125 years of service to its region, the State of Missouri, and the nation.  Southeast was established as the Missouri Normal School for the Third District in 1873 and remains the only four-year institution within its service region between St. Louis and Memphis.  Cape Girardeau is also the economic center for the region.

Mission

The mission statement of Southeast Missouri State University reads, “The purpose of the University is to provide students with high-quality, accessible and affordable educational programs responsive to the needs of the region, the nation, and the world.  Southeast is an “engaged” university supporting a wide array of research and public service programs that enrich and extend the learning environment.”

Accreditation

Southeast Missouri State University was first accredited by the North Central Association as a teacher training institution in 1915 and has held continuous accreditation for the past 85 years, for a program array which now includes the Master’s and Educational Specialist degrees (North Central Association Self-Study can be found at http://www.semo.edu/ncate/exhibit. The University was reaccredited in 2000.  We have enjoyed continuous accreditation by NCATE since its initial approval in 1992.  Southeast is one of only two programs in Missouri to have its counseling program accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).  In 1997, CACREP awarded the counseling program with the maximum seven-year accreditation.  Also, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) has approved all of our teacher education programs. 

Awards

In 1999, the College of Education received The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) Best Practice Award in Global and International Education and in March 1997 we received Honorable Mention for Exemplary Practice in Global/International Teacher Education from AACTE.  In 1994 the White House Teach America Program, which establishes national goals for education, recognized the College of Education for its contributions to the advancement of national priorities.  Since the inception of the teacher education field based program, Southeast Missouri State University College of Education has been a two-time winner of the Christa McAuliffe Showcase for Excellence Award of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities.  The programs honored with this award were the Elementary Education Block program in 1989 and the Kindergarten Science and Mathematics (KSAM) hands-on science program for elementary teachers in 1994. 

Characteristics of the University

Southeast Missouri State University is a regional comprehensive university serving approximately 9300 students.  Southeast offers programs through its six academic units:  the Donald L. Harrison College of Business, the College of Education, the College of Health and Human Services, the College of Liberal Arts, the College of Science and Mathematics and the School of Polytechnic Studies.  Additionally, a general education program is found in the School of University Studies, leadership and organizational support for graduate education is found in the School of Graduate Studies, and off campus courses and programs are administered by Extended Learning.  It serves the region by offering courses in four centers.  The University maintains a commitment to a variety of disciplines and fields of study.  However, nowhere is that commitment felt more strongly than in the College of Education.  In 1994 Southeast Missouri State University once again demonstrated its commitment to teacher preparation by becoming an invited member of the Renaissance Group.  This national group consists of 34 institutions that have made teacher preparation a priority.  The Renaissance Group recognizes that the education of teachers is an all campus responsibility and that the entire University shares the responsibility for preparing quality teachers.  Southeast has maintained an active involvement by, among others, hosting the conference in 1998 and participating in several Renaissance Group supported grants; and through service on the Executive Board of its Provost and Education Dean.

Characteristics of the College of Education

The College of Education consists of the Departments of Elementary, Early and Special Education, Educational Administration and Counseling, Physical Education, and Middle and Secondary Education. Other components that contribute to the excellent learning environment of the College of Education include the Deans Office, the Advising Center, the Field Experiences Office, International Programs, the Missouri Assessment Center and the Regional Professional Development Center, the Teacher-Work Sample Partnership, the Technology Use in the Classroom Initiative, Reading Recovery, the state wide Early Literacy Program and the Instructional Resources and Technology Center.

Mission of the College

The mission of the College of Education is to prepare teachers, administrators and counselors for Missouri schools, and non-school personnel in the areas of community counseling, higher education, sport management and dance. 

The priorities of the University and the College of Education are:  to provide top quality academic programs with a liberal arts education core; to enhance access to a wide range of education programs throughout our service region; to provide service to the region; and to enhance the University community.

Faculty

The College of Education maintains high quality faculty who have received numerous honors in and outside of the University.  In the 1999-2000 academic year, one of the faculty received the Outstanding Teacher of the Year award at the University level.  This outstanding faculty consists of 45 full-time members who teach courses in professional education, advise professional education students, or administer portions of the professional education program(s). Of those, 44 (97%) hold the doctoral degree.  Faculty have received their terminal degrees from major research universities, such as, Vanderbilt University, Columbia University, Indiana University and the University of Illinois.  All teach, supervise or both in areas in which they have both advanced preparation and experience. 

Fourteen percent of the faculty holds professor rank, 28% hold associate professor rank, 40% hold assistant professor rank and 17% hold instructor rank. The data reflects a gender distribution consisting of 27 females (64%) and 15 males (36%). The College of Education has 42 full-time faculty members: one is African American, one is Latino, one is Native American, two are Asian, and two are of other minority origin for a total of 16.6% minority faculty.  Of the 30 dually appointed specialty area faculty, three are Black, not Hispanic origin, one is Hispanic, one is Native American, one is of other minority origin for a total of 20% minority faculty. In addition, 50% of the dually appointed faculty members are female. Of the 75 full-time and part-time faculty members in the College of Education, 17.3% are classified as minority.

Table 1:  Faculty Professional Growth and Scholarship

Department

Number of Faculty

Number Involved

Books/
Chapters

Articles/
Creative Work

Presentations

Extern Grant

Intern Grant

Editorial Boards

Ed. Admin. & Counseling

14

14

11

58

175

4

5

4

Elem., Early & Spec. Education

14

13

19

77

255

28

10

2

Physical Education

5

5

4

9

62

4

9

 

Secondary Education

6

5

2

6

37

1

1

2

TOTAL

39

37

36

150

529

37

25

8

Over the past five years, current faculty members have presented at international/ national conferences, published a number of books, many articles, and worked with numerous grants, exemplifying a high level of teaching, research, and service.  They have also provided leadership in a number of state, national, and international organizations and have served on editorial boards for various professional journals.  This is evidenced by Table 1 and by the faculty vita, which can be found at: http://www5.semo.edu/ncate/vita

Grants and Research

Our focus in the College of Education rivals any institution that seeks to be on the cutting edge of the latest thinking and research in preparing knowledgeable and effective teachers.  Faculty have obtained over $1.7 million in externally funded grants, which ranks us second in the University.  Also, Jeanine Dobbins facilitates the School Wide Early Literacy Intervention Program and the Reading Recovery Program.  Further, the Project BASE program specifically recruits non-native English speakers to the area of teacher education.  These grants have provided us with the means to accomplish many of our goals in the area of technology, diversity, performance based assessment, service to schools and ultimately an increase in the learning of children.  These grants include the following:

·        
Renaissance Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant (US DOE Grant)
·        
Beginning Teacher Assistance Program
·        
Technology Use in the Classroom Initiative (InTIME) (US DOE Grant)
·        
Southeast Regional Professional Development Center (State Grant)
·        
Missouri Assessment Project (MAP 2000) (State Grant)
·        
Improving Math in Missouri (State Grant)
·        
Mathematics Resource Center (NSF Grant)
·        
Missouri Mentoring Program (State Grant)
·        
Missouri Initiative for Improving Student Performance in Mathematics (State Grant)
·        
Select Teachers as Regional Resources program (STARR) (State Supported Grant)  
·        
State Wide Early Literacy Intervention Program (State Grant)
·        
Reading Recovery (State Grant)
·        
Adult Literacy (State Grant)
·        
Eisenhower Science Multi Media Development Project (US DOE Grant)
·        
Project on Augmentative Learning in Special Education (US DOE Grant)
·        
Goals 2000 Fine Arts Grant (US DOE Grant) 
·        
TACTICS Program 
·        
Bilingual Advanced to Strengthen Education -- Project BASE (http://www5.semo.edu/projectbase/)
·        
Project INTERACT (http://www5.semo.edu/interact/geninfo.html)
·        
Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)
·        
eTHEMES
·        
Blindness Skills
·        
Special Education Paraprofessional Reimbursement Program
·        
Special Education Teacher Reimbursement Program
·        
A+ Schools
·        
Professional Development Schools Project (University Grant)
·        
Counselor Reimbursement Assistance Program
·        
DESE Satellite Office
·        
Character Education

Technology

The use of technology has reached dramatic and indispensable levels at Southeast. We truly believe that the use of technology is the wave of the future and that each teacher and student must be prepared and comfortable with its use to effectively work in the 21st century. This includes our national technology grant, Technology Use in the Classroom Initiative (InTIME).  This grant is a $2.3 million Catalyst Grant from the United States Department of Education to prepare preservice teachers to use technology.  It also provides training and support to methods faculty who are seeking to model exemplary use of educational technology in order to prepare pre-service teachers to use technology when they teach.  Our college has a technology committee, which assists faculty to infuse technology into our teaching, while acting as models for all future teachers. We have an Instructional Resources and Technology Center and three computer labs including one dedicated to graduate students.  Special attention has been given to keeping these labs updated with the latest technology.  The Center for Scholarship in Teaching and Learning provides workshops for faculty throughout the academic year on the uses of technology.  All faculty have access to digital cameras, cam recorders, LCD panels, projectors, “smart” classrooms with smartboards, and other types of technology.   Further, the University provides funds to keep faculty office computers upgraded with the current technology (currently all faculty have Pentium III computers).  The College of Education currently teaches numerous Interactive Television (ITV) classes, six on-line classes, and thirty web-supported courses.  Several College of Education faculty use on-line videos to model innovative teaching strategies in real classroom settings.

Service to the Region

Southeast recognizes that the world of higher education is changing and that higher education cannot rely on traditional students to come to campus to live and study.  Therefore, we have developed and maintained extensive articulation agreements with 11 area community colleges. This constitutes articulation agreements with all community colleges in the region including several colleges from neighboring states.  The “Southeast PM” program is maintained to allow students to attend university classes in the evenings and on weekends.  We have developed and maintained outreach centers in our service area including facilities in Sikeston, Malden, Kennett, and the newest one as of October 2000, in Perryville.  We continue to offer classes by Interactive Television (ITV).  This allows students in satellite classrooms to interact with the instructor and fellow students.  The College of Education has also developed a new Secondary Master’s program, which uses both the ITV and web-based instruction to beam simultaneously to five regional centers.  We have also increased our efforts to provide on-line and web based courses and programs.  We are currently working cooperatively with other Missouri institutions of higher learning to provide a totally web based master’s program in elementary education.

Southeast also recognized the need to provide an option for individuals from other disciplines to change to a teaching career and have worked with DESE to establish an Alternative Certification Program.  We are also adding a web-based component to the Alternative Certification Program, thus allowing students to obtain certification virtually exclusively through the Internet.  Currently, over a hundred individuals are participating in this program.

Assessments

Southeast asserts that each teacher candidate has a firm foundation in the content that they teach and we provide the assessments to verify this assertion.  We have further recognized the need to more extensively assess candidate performance in teaching. To this end, we have joined the Renaissance Group supported, US Department of Education funded, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant.  This grant provides the means to both conduct research with ten universities through teacher work sampling (as developed in Portland, Oregon) and to establish standards for performance-based assessments.  This work-sampling project has received national attention and faculty have presented workshops on our participation at major national conferences.  Further, we are well on our way to implementing portfolio-based assessment procedures for all teacher candidates as required by DESE’s MoSTEP standards.  The MoSTEP standards maintain significant consistency with the Interstate New Teacher Assessment Consortium Standards (INTACS).         

Service to School 

Southeast takes its responsibility seriously in providing service to the region and enhancing the skills of teachers and other school professionals that currently work so diligently in schools.  We maintain numerous partnerships with P-12 schools.  For example, our professional development schools in Sikeston (early childhood), Charleston (middle school) and Jackson (special education) provide ongoing in-services for teachers. We continue to host the STARR Teacher Program (http://www4.semo.edu/rpdc/starr.html).  The Regional Professional Development Center has been a mainstay in the area for many years.  The statewide Early Literacy program and Reading Recovery programs continue to serve children. It should be noted that in 2000, the director received the highest award from the North America Reading Recovery Council.  The university also supports a DESE satellite office.  We also host the Southeast School Counselor’s Association, the Superintendents Steering Committee, and the Local Administrators for Special Education (LASE) meetings.

Southeast Missouri State University, with the assistance of the College of Education, sponsors a charter school (Lift for Life) in the city of St. Louis.  This allows us, as professional educators, to explore alternative paradigms in providing quality education and effective learning environments for children.

Globalization and Diversity

Southeast continues to make efforts and find success in its attempts to increase diversity in the college and to provide students with an international and global perspective.  In the Fall of 2000, we hosted the Executive Board Meeting of the World Council for Curriculum and Instruction (WCCI) and founded the first student chapter of the organization.  We continue to provide our teacher candidates with opportunities for international student teaching through the Renaissance Group Program at Northern Iowa, and through our long time project in Wales.  Further, as noted above, we have increased the diversity among our faculty.  It is likely that each teacher candidate in the college will have several faculty who speak other languages and who come from different backgrounds and cultures.  The University has an established reputation for the delivery of a quality program in the Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL).  Faculty has responded to the identified needs by traveling to St. Louis on a weekly basis for 11 years to deliver training through workshops and courses.  The Director of the program serves at the state, regional, and national level in a variety of capacities and is well recognized for her work in the development of TESOL training programs.  The current TESOL option has received state and national recognition for its content and recently was granted graduate recognition by DESE.  Project BASE is a major federal grant to prepare language minorities as teachers. 

Summary of Activities Since the Last Visit

The College of Education has focused on many initiatives since the last review.  They are shown in the college strategic plan which is frequently updated to reflect both university and college priorities. A major priority is to maintain two national accreditations by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP); and state approval of 37 certification areas.  Priorities include program and course updates, service to the region, technology, globalization and diversity and student learning.   A Cooperative Doctoral program has been established with the University of Missouri in Columbia.  The first cohort began with seven students and the second and third cohorts each contained eleven students.  Seventy-five percent of the first cohort of new doctoral students finished their dissertations in the spring of 2000. We are enjoying growth in both undergraduate and graduate programs.  Further the implementation of the off campus and ITV courses has been an increasing focus for the graduate programs.  Work has continued with schools from St. Louis to the Bootheel in a variety of cooperatives.  The international program efforts continue to gain national recognition and accolades.  With all of our advancements, improvements, and honors, our foundational purpose remains to train and educate exemplary school administrators, counselors, and teachers.  

Table 2: Program Data Report

Program Name

Award Level

Program Level Initial or Advance

Number of Students

Agency or Association Reviewing Program

Status of National and State Program Review

1998

1999

2000

 

Program Review Submitted

Current Status

Elem. Ed

BA

Initial

531

648

 685

ACEI

  Yes

Recognition*

Early Child

BA

Initial

168

210

  227

NAEYC

  Yes

Recognition

Except. Child

BA

Initial

51

69

 73

CEC

  Yes

Recognition

PE K-12

BA

Initial

90

102

  118

AAHPERD/ NASPE

  Yes

 Recognition

Art

BA

Initial

25

26

  33

n/a

 

No Review

Biology

BA

Initial

47

48

  46

NSTA

  Yes

Recognition

Business

BA

Initial

42

42

  38

n/a

 

No Review

Chemistry

BA

Initial

14

n/a

  14

NSTA

  Yes

Recognition

Earth Science

BA

Initial

8

n/a

  8

NSTA

  Yes

Recognition

English

BA

Initial

83

82

  94

NCTE

  Yes

Recognition

Family & Cons Scien

BA

Initial

16

22

  21

n/a

 

No Review

French

BA

Initial

4

4

  5

n/a

 

No Review

German

BA

Initial

1

3

  4

n/a

 

No Review

Instrum Music

BA

Initial

50

47

  61

NASM

Previous

Recognition*

Math

BA

Initial

64

55

  65

NCTM

  Yes

Recognition

Physics

BA

Initial

2

2

  4

NSTA

  Yes

Recognition

Social Studies

BA

Initial

99

112

  112

NCSS

  Yes

Recognition

Spanish

BA

Initial

18

20

  15

n/a

 

No Review

Speech

BA

Initial

16

17

  24

n/a

 

No Review

Indust Tech.

BA

Initial

10

n/a

  13

n/a

 

No Review

Vocal Music

BA

Initial

21

28

  34

NASM

Previous

Recognition*

Middle School

BA

Initial

35

59

  69

NMSA

  Yes

Recognition

Totals

1402

1603

1784

 

 

 

Master of Arts Area

Program Name

Award Level

Program Level Initial or Advance

Number of Students

Agency or Association reviewing program

Status of National and State Program Review

1998

1999

2000

 

Program Review Submitted

Current Status

Elem Admin.

MA

Adv.

58

73

107

ELCC

  Yes

Recognition

Elem Ed.

MA

Adv.

51

36

47

n/a

 

No Review

Except Child Ed.

MA

Adv.

12

16

21

n/a

 

No Review

School Counsel.

MA

Adv.

53

60

79

n/a

 

No Review

Second Admin.

MA

Adv.

53

70

99

ELCC

  Yes

Recognition

Middle and Secondary Education

Business Ed.

MA

Adv.

 1

2

5

n/a

 

No Review

Mid. Level Ed.

MA

Adv.

4

4

5

n/a

 

No Review

Physical Ed.

MA

Adv.

1

0

0

n/a

 

No Review

Social Studies

MA

Adv.

n/a

1

0

n/a

 

No Review

Educational Administration and Counseling

Specialist in Ed.

 

Adv.

80

109

162

ELCC

 

Recognition

Doctoral

 

Adv.

7

13

  14

n/a

 

No Review

Totals

356

424

 583

 

*Recognition with a Conditional Status -- See Appendix for list of Specialty Areas with National Recognition

Section II -- Conceptual Framework

Description of the Conceptual Framework

The Southeast Missouri State University College of Education seeks to prepare teachers, administrators and counselors by developing the skills and competencies needed by its students to become educated persons and successful, competent professionals.  The overall goal for the College is “Excellence and Distinction in all Programs and Services.”  The conceptual framework identified by Southeast Missouri State University College of Education’s professional community is best denoted as the Preparation of Competent, Caring, Reflective Professional Educators.  Thus the theme of the College revolves around The Competent, Caring, Reflective Professional Educator, Administrator or Counselor.”  This section of the report describes the conceptual framework, its development, and its relationship to professional education standards.

Theme

It is the collaborative belief of the faculty of the College of Education at Southeast Missouri State University and the professional community of educators who work with the College to prepare future educators of all levels that any overarching statement or theme must encompass a vision for the entire college and its constituent parts. That vision, encapsulated within a theme statement, is to prepare the pre-service teacher and to encourage and support the professional teacher, the administrator and the counselor in their efforts to at all times be, act and believe as caring, reflective and competent professionals in their respective domains.

Given that such a vision is an amalgam resulting from divergent constituencies, even within the broad field of education, it is important for us to be clear on what constitutes the foundational pieces on which this vision rests. While the primary tenets of this vision are our collective belief that to be a professional in education, including the different modalities of teaching, administration and counseling, one must perforce be caring, reflective and competent in both the personal and professionals senses, equally important are the penumbra components that we believe are both required and evoked by those three attributes. These components are to be found in the collegially derived descriptions for teacher education, administrator education and counselor education. We have distilled the heart of our visions for each of these areas as separate descriptions, because we felt that while intertwined in the College and in the field, each approaches the key components in a manner and through curricular and pedagogical means commensurate to that field.

The general theme of the vision as noted above is that each of these areas endeavors to nurture and prepare the pre-service student and challenge and stimulate the continuing professional to be a caring, reflective and competent professional, which includes continuous endeavors to creatively incorporate technology throughout their individual subject area fields, to promote understanding and appreciation for diversity, and to demonstrate the continuous effort to develop, utilize and assess proficiencies according to the best standards as evidenced in professional, state and national standards.

Teacher Education (see fig. 1) 

Southeast Missouri State University has built its teacher education programs upon certain fundamental principles:

First, it is our belief that professional teachers are caring, reflective, competent and knowledgeable of the human condition, the world, and the subject matter they profess to teach. Teachers must know and understand the physical, psychological, social, and aesthetic dimensions of human life and their implications for ethics, culture, human values and perceptions. They must understand the diverse social, cultural, political, and physical environments in which human life exists and be able to create instructional opportunities that are adapted to the diverse learner. (Commitment to Diversity, NCATE, 2000; MoSTEP, 1999) Teachers must understand and be able to communicate the essential knowledge, ideas, concepts, questions, arguments and methods of the teaching field; and thus individually develop the professional commitments and dispositions professed by all educators. Teachers must recognize the importance of and be able to affect long range curricular planning, its implementation and assessment (MoSTEP, 1999). Further they must understand and be able to implement a coherent approach that connects reflectively curriculum planning, pedagogical implementation and instruction, and follow-up and assessment.  Thus creating in the constructivist sense, a coherent feedback loop for life long teaching improvement, so as to maintain a continuous improvement in the learning environment and experience for the P-12 student. At the same time, they must understand the various local, state and national standards that guide education today and be able to continuously develop and align their curriculum, instruction and assessment within the parameters set by these standards. Competent, reflective and professional teachers must be well versed in the methods of inquiry in their academic discipline as well as in terms of teaching (MoSTEP, 1999). The principle sources of this knowledge are the experiences of the teacher, a sound liberal education, and for those who teach in the secondary school, a thorough grounding in the academic discipline that they teach.

Second, caring, reflective, competent professional teachers must be skilled in the art of teaching. To teach is to make it possible for someone else to learn something in a particular setting. The understanding of effective verbal, non-verbal, technological and media communication is integral to this process, as is an understanding of student learning and development so as to provide learning opportunities that meet the diverse intellectual, social and personal needs of all students (MoSTEP, 1999). Developing the necessary skills of teaching requires the investigation of (a) the components of the act of teaching; (b) motivating and managing diverse individuals involved in learning; (c) the means to facilitate and assess both the teaching and the learning to ensure the continuous development of all students and the teacher.  It includes acquiring the knowledge of and ability to use continuously changing informational and educational technology in the classroom.  It means a thorough understanding of the historical, philosophical, and social contexts of education and schooling in American society; the individual characteristics of learners and gauging their respective abilities to learn; and the role of the family, community, culture and other influences on learning and teaching. It absolutely requires the understanding of the diverse impacts of culture, ethnicity, linguistic heritage and socioeconomic background on learning, teaching, human interaction, values and human relations. Cultivating the skills of teaching through observation involves more than merely viewing the act of teaching; it also means being able to draw connections between what is studied about the act and what is observed - being able to connect theories of teaching and human development with the practices associated with both. Becoming a skillful teacher through experience requires application of and reflection on the knowledge of human development, of the subject to be taught, and of teaching itself.

Third, caring, reflective, competent professional teachers are active learners who strive to make active, literate, reflective, and life-long  learners of their students. Active learning means to expand, refine, and enrich that which one knows by constantly seeking to know more about the world and others; reflective learning means to engage one’s knowledge about the world and others critically and analytically, and including self-assessment of teaching goals, responsibilities and effectiveness. Literate teachers who are active and reflective learners serve as excellent role models for their students. Teachers who understand what it takes to learn and reflect actively are better able to produce students, who are active and reflective learners, a primary goal/aim of the teacher education program in the College.

Fourth, the caring, reflective and competent educators who make up the faculty of the College of Education and the community schools of its service region are fully cognizant of the need for continuous evaluation of their efforts as instructors as their program as a whole. Additionally, assessment data is used to evaluate teacher candidates’ learning, ability to apply what they have learned in a P-12 setting and assess the impact of their teaching on student learning. As a college, we believe in the positive attributes of assessment and feedback to facilitate and develop effective teaching, teacher candidate learning and program efficacy. In pre-service teacher preparation, all individual programs (Early, Elementary & Special Education; Middle & Secondary Education; Physical Education) have developed defined assessment plans guided by the criteria and quality indicators mandated by state education and legislative agencies, regional and national accreditation bodies, and national level professional associations. The capstone assessment experience for preservice students is the MoSTEP (Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs, 1999) portfolio, but students are also introduced to other assessment processes used in Missouri schools, such as the Missouri Performance Based Teacher Evaluation (MPBTE, 1998) instrument, Missouri Assessment Program (MAP, 1997) and the Show-Me Standards. At the same time, pre-professionals are being taught and are beginning to use procedures, such as the Teacher Work Sample (Renaissance Grant, 1999), that focus on the classroom student’s learning as the point of evaluation rather than teacher methodology. The essence of all levels and places of our evaluative efforts is primarily recursive in that we believe that all assessment must operate within the cycle of teaching and learning.

Although these principles underpin the preparation of professional teachers in the College of Education, it is also shared by all of the education community at Southeast Missouri State University and the teachers, counselors and administrators in the many partnership schools in the region. All involved with this shared vision believe strongly that they are not sufficient for achieving the goal of producing professional teachers - it is only under the actual conditions of teaching that one can become a competent, caring, reflective education professional. Nevertheless, important steps toward that ultimate goal can be taken by cultivating the program’s principles in actual classroom settings under the guidance of master teachers. Prospective teachers thus have experience with progressively more complex teaching situations with diverse students, from aiding teachers to assuming full responsibility for the learning of all students, as an integral part of their undergraduate teacher education program.  

Southeast recognizes that increasingly most teachers will have more than one college degree. Every effort is made to influence the professional teacher to be a continuous learner. Graduate teacher education seeks to assist graduate students in education in furthering their knowledge and understanding of teaching and learning, the content of the subjects they teach, the nature of curriculum and pedagogy, the learner and human development and the place of school as an institution in the life of our society. Briefly put, graduate teacher education is perceived by the faculty of the College as a continuation of the goals, vision and purposes represented here as to undergraduate pre-service professional preparation. The style and breadth of dispositions believed to be essential to the caring, reflective and competent teaching professional at the preprofessional level are equally so at the new and continuing professional levels.

In addition to forming the foundation of the teacher education programs at Southeast, the principles of caring, reflective, competent and professional teaching also underlie the graduate programs in Educational Administration and Counseling. The knowledge and understanding of teaching that comes from adhering to these principles constitutes an intellectual milieu for clearly comprehending the problems of school administration and counseling. It is the habit and practice of active and reflective learning, moreover, that enables these professional educators to deal effectively with the principles of teaching as well as with the fundamental principles of each of these professional educational programs.

School Administrators (see fig. 2)

The vision of the Educational Administration program in the College of Education is to prepare professional school leaders who are caring, reflective, competent and knowledgeable of the education process and who are prepared to meet the challenges of education in the twenty-first century. The goal is to produce “Leaders for Learning” (Wagner, 2001). This vision is carried out through a curriculum based on the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC, 1996) and the Educational Leader Constituents Council (ELLC, 1996) standards; quality instruction which is largely problem-based; and an internship that begins during coursework and extends into the field experience where students work supervised by multiple practicing administrators and university faculty.

An effective professional school leader is skilled in leadership, management, and policy development.  Therefore, the program is committed to a problem-based approach to instruction that will develop school leaders who have the skills and dispositions to guide schools and communities in developing a shared vision and a common purpose for their respective schools (Houston, 2001); leaders who can collaborate with and facilitate discussions among all stakeholders within school communities; who can motivate constituents to perform at a high level; and who can create a sense of community. The program is also committed to developing leaders who value: high levels of learning for all; continuous school improvement; students becoming contributing members of society; professional development as an important part of school improvement; an informed public; the importance of diversity in the educational setting; and ethical principles in the decision making process. In addition to these values, school leaders must develop knowledge in the areas of school finance, school law, curriculum, and supervision as well as other management skills necessary to the well being of educational organizations. Educational leaders must also be able to understand the teaching and learning process and make management decisions that enhance that process. The program also integrates into the curriculum, information and problems that utilize technology in many ways including the collection and analysis of data for the purpose of making informed educational and management decisions in schools.  

The program for the development of school leaders at both the building level and the district level involves activities, case studies, scenarios, and problems that are related to the ISLLC Standards (1996) and the ELCC Standards (1996). The candidates are assessed through the use of assignments identified in the course syllabi, entries in the internship portfolios, exams, the School Leadership Licensure Assessment (SLLA) for building level administrators, the School Superintendent Assessment (SSA) for district level administrators and follow-up alumni survey.  These assessment tools are used to determine the individual knowledge, skills, dispositions and competencies of candidates and practicing school leaders and are also used to increase the effectiveness and efficacy of the program with the ultimate goal of improving the learning environment for P-12 students. 

School Counselors (see fig. 3)

A caring, reflective, competent professional school counselor is skilled in fostering healthy psychological and emotional development and enhancing the learning and social environment of students. The counselor offers the intellectual and emotional support that assists students in developing the necessary skills to become productive citizens. The school counselor guides students in learning to explore options in life and in understanding and accepting responsibility for themselves and the consequences of their actions. The counselor complements and unifies the efforts of the family, the community, and the school faculty and administration on the student’s behalf.

The art of school counseling evolves from study, observation, and experience. It builds upon the knowledge of the diverse historical, philosophical, and social contexts of school learning and counseling, and the Missouri Counselor Education Standards (MoCoEd, 1999) and the Council for Counseling and Related Education Program Standards (CACREP, 1994). The study of school counseling includes an in-depth examination of the physical, intellectual, and psychological growth of human beings, of the diversity of how and under what conditions they learn, how learning progresses into the higher education environment, how cultural diversity impacts students, and the means by which human psychological growth is fostered and evaluated.  These include: professional and ethical orientation; counseling theories; the helping relationship; developmental theories; career development; group process and practice; research and assessment; social, cultural and diversity understanding; and supervised experience.

The study of the guidance dimension of counseling requires investigating the means and resources needed for career preparation; goals, objectives, and organization of curricula; ways and means of planning and implementing school guidance programs, including the effective uses of informational and educational technology; methods and resources for consultation about the well-being of the student; and utilization of appropriate legal, ethical, and professional standards. This knowledge must then be applied to the observation of counselors at work and to actual counseling experiences.

The program for the development of school counselors involves supervised experiential learning activities, and collaborative case studies related to the Missouri Counselor Education Standards (MoCoEd, 1999) and the Council for Counseling and Related Education Program Standards (CACREP, 1994). Counselor candidates are assessed through the use of assignments and experiences identified in the course syllabi, the internship portfolios, exams, the Counselor Preparation Comprehensive Exam (CPCE) and follow-up alumni survey.  These assessment tools are used to determine the individual knowledge, skills, dispositions and competencies of candidates and practicing alumni counselors are also used to increase the effectiveness and efficacy of the program with the ultimate goal of improving the learning environment for P-12 students.

College of Education Programs

The faculty of the College of Education at Southeast Missouri State University has designed professional education programs that recognize the potential demands of the 21st Century and reflect the University Mission Statement.  This statement reads, “The purpose of the University is to provide students with high-quality, accessible and affordable educational programs responsive to the needs of the region, the nation, and the world.  Southeast is an “engaged” university supporting a wide array of research and public service programs that enrich and extend the learning environment.” Each program promotes the principles of competent, caring, reflective, professional practice in teaching, school administration, and guidance and counseling, respectively. Each program contains a carefully organized and integrated sequence of courses in which knowledge and skills learned at one level serve as a foundation for further learning and reflection at subsequent levels. Each program blends theory and practice in progressively complex field experiences. Each infuses technology in increasingly complex dimensions into student experiences and learning. Each places a priority on increasing the number of candidates who are representative of the diverse rural and urban communities that the university serves. Finally, to ensure the development of competent, caring, reflective practitioners, each program is built around a performance-based model. These models are standards-based and include the Missouri Performance Based Teacher Evaluation, the Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs, the Performance Standards for Education Professionals, Interstate New Teacher Assessment System Consortium (NTASC), NCATE standards, and specialty area and national board standards. School administration programs use the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Education Leadership Competencies, ISSLIC, and those of the appropriate administrator assessment center. The guidance and counseling program uses the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Competencies for Counselors and the Standards of the Council on Accreditation of Counseling and related Educational Programs.

All of these professional education programs contribute to meeting the educational challenges of the 21st Century by working with others in the university and the region to produce caring, reflective, and competent teachers. Southeast Missouri State University is dedicated to continuing a proud tradition of producing quality educators who have and will continue to shape the future of their communities, their state, and their nation through their dedicated, selfless devotion to students and education.

College of Education -- Adopted April, 2000
Revised January, 2002

Knowledge Base

Houston, P. (February, 2001). Superintendents for the 21st century: It's
not just a job it’s a calling
. Phi Delta Kappan. pp. 429-433.

Locke, D. C., Myers, J. E., & Herr, E. L. (2001).  The Handbook of Counseling.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Wagner, T. (January, 2001). Leadership for learning: An action theory for
school change
. Phi Delta Kappan. pp. 378-383.

What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future.  (1996).  Report of the National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. New York.

Development of the Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework, A Competent, Caring, Reflective Professional Educator, was initially proposed by the Conceptual Framework Committee in 1999/2000.  The Conceptual Framework Committee was charged with reviewing the current conceptual framework and note changes needed to reflect updated unit, professional, and state standards and assessments; and to develop a conceptual framework that indicated a shared vision, coherence, professional commitments and dispositions, commitment to diversity, technology, and candidate proficiencies aligned with professional and Missouri state standards.  Members of the Conceptual Framework Committee (http://www4.semo.edu/education/committees/conceptual/) were representative of all teacher educational programs within the college, and the committee sought input from a wide range of constituents including university students, professionals working in local schools, and colleagues working in areas other than teacher education (e.g., school administration and counselors). 

While committee members participated in reflective dialogue through which existing practices and proposed changes were reviewed, critiqued, and questioned in the context of developing a vision for how the college would improve preparations of professional educators.  Members used personal experiences, professional literature, data describing outcomes of our preparation programs, and statements from members of the professional community during these deliberations.  One challenge was identifying the essential elements for each preparation program while respecting the diverse philosophies and viewpoints found within individual programs.

The two-year effort by the Conceptual Framework Committee yielded a number of recommendations, one of which was to use the framework of competent, caring, and reflection to strengthen the knowledge, experience, and performance of all students involved with the professional preparation programs in the College of Education.  As a result, a competent, caring, reflective professional educator became the theme of the committee’s report submitted to the entire College of Education faculty in spring 2000.  The report was adopted by the faculty, and A Competent, Caring, Reflective Professional Educator then became the basis for the college’s conceptual framework.

The competent, caring, reflective professional educator as a conceptual framework has itself been continually tested as a viable basis for work done in the college.  During the most recent revision of the college’s philosophy statement, faculty again considered the relevance of this framework and agreed that competent, caring, reflection remains the key focus for our work.  This work is defined by our shared professional commitment, the knowledge bases we use in our work (e.g., teaching, research, and services), and the outcomes we look for in individuals who complete our degree and certification programs.

Relationship of the Conceptual Framework to Standards

The increasing emphasis on professional standards for educators that focus on resultant dispositions and praxis of program graduates has reinforced the relevance of the College’s emphasis on a synergistic meld of the themes of competence, caring, and reflection as the grounding artifice of its conceptual framework.  As the lists of expected achievement indicators and competencies issued by government and professional groups become more detailed and elaborate, it is clear that only a competent, caring professional who assiduously reflects on his/her teaching and continued educational and professional development is and/or will be capable of meeting the intent of those standards.  For an institution as large and diverse as the College of Education at Southeast Missouri State University, the broad applicability of competencies, caring, and reflective learning supports its utility as a purposeful conceptual framework that all constituents may apply to their work. Competencies, caring, and reflection are directly linked to the MoSTEP (Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education, State of Missouri, 1999) standards for beginning preparation programs.  These standards consist in general of ten Quality Indicators that are repeatedly reflected in the curricular and assessment approaches used in all undergraduate programs within the College.  Specific instances of how the conceptual framework influences work within programs will be found in evidence provided by the programs.  

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework for Teacher Education

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework for School Administration


Figure 3: Conceptual Framework for School Counseling

 

Section III --  Evidence for Meeting Each Standard 

Standard 1 – Candidate Skills, Knowledge and Dispositions

 Standard 2 – Program Assessment and Unit Capacity

Standard 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

 Standard 4 – Diversity

Standard 5 – Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

 Standard 6 – Unit Governance and Resources

Standard 1 – Candidate Skills, Knowledge and Dispositions

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.  Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards (http://www5.semo.edu/ncate/instreport/alignment%20index.htm).

Candidates in professional preparation programs at Southeast Missouri State University are required to meet the following:

  • Professional organization content standards
  • State Professional standards identified by the Missouri State Board of Education and the Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP), Counseling Standards for Preparation and Certification (MOCOED), and Administrator Standards for Preparation and Certification (ISLLC Standards).

Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers)

At Southeast Missouri State University, teacher candidates for initial certification know and demonstrate their content knowledge in the subject area they plan to teach by their ability to explain and apply principles and concepts important to their discipline.  All initial certification programs have clearly identified the professional organization standards they meet and aligned their specific content knowledge criteria to meet Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP).  All candidates in initial certification programs must complete course work in content areas as prescribed by the appropriate learned society.  MoSTEP Standards address content knowledge in every discipline P-12.  Evidence of content knowledge for teacher candidates can be found in student teaching evaluations and student portfolios.  Further evidence of candidate content knowledge can be found in lesson and unit plans developed in various methods courses and included in candidate portfolios.  Electronic versions of some materials are available for view on program Web pages (http://www5.semo.edu/ncate).  For those not available in electronic form, hard copies are available for review in the NCATE/MoSTEP Exhibit Room. 

Candidate mastery of content knowledge is documented through a variety of course-related assignments.  For example, candidates in secondary social studies education demonstrate their content knowledge by preparing lessons illustrating each of the ten themes of the National Council for Social Studies standards and the Missouri Framework for Social Studies.  They also prepare a content-rich, research-based unit that infuses multicultural and global perspectives. 

Evidence of content knowledge for candidates in advanced programs can be found in course assignments, research projects, graduate papers, and theses.  For example, in the elementary education program, candidates develop an inquiry-based unit of study that requires them to integrate and apply their content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge by creating lessons and activities that promote the development of students’ knowledge of content around a central theme.  In the reading program, candidates complete research papers on a self-selected area of interest that relates to literacy.  The papers must include research questions, a thorough review of literature, identification of patterns across the research on literature, and conclusions.

Praxis and Praxis II scores indicate demonstration of content knowledge.  Every candidate for initial certification takes the Praxis II examination either prior to or during student teaching.  Also, beginning Fall Semester, 1998, the new Praxis II was administered for a small group of students in Elementary and Early Childhood Education, however no Exceptional Child Education majors took this exam.  By fall, 2000, only students in the Elementary program took the new exam. See Table 3 for a complete listing of the score ranges and means for both tests.   (Early Childhood Minimum Passing Score=500; 50th percentile=660; Exceptional Child Minimum passing score=490; 50th percentile=630.  Minimum cut-off score for Elementary Education with the new PRAXIS is 164.)  Table 4 presents the Praxis scores for Middle/Secondary Education.

Table 3: 2000 Praxis and Praxis II Score Ranges and Means

Year

Number of Students

Program

Score Range

Mean

 

2000

27

Early Childhood

560-730

671

131

Elementary  (PRAXIS II)

164-200

180

11

Exceptional Child

510-720

591

Table 4: 2000 Praxis Scores for Middle/Secondary Education

Middle/Secondary Education (average)

Department

Base

2000

2000

 

 

Average Score

Passing Rate

Art Ed.

153

171.6

 

Biology

156

167

98%

Business Ed.

550

635.7

 

English

158

170.6

98%

French

500

n/a

 

Home Econ.

560

650

 

Math

137

155.5

100%

Music Ed.

151

164

92%

PE  (7-12)

153

n/a

 

PE (K-12)

153

163.2

83%

Soc. Studies

152

171

100%

Spanish

158

178.5

 

Speech

530

n/a

100%

Tech. Ed.

570

n/a

91%

Evidence of P-12 student learning for both initial and continuing teacher candidates can be found in the reflective journals that candidates maintain as part of their course requirements.  These materials are found in candidate portfolios that are available in the NCATE/MoSTEP Exhibit Room.  For each lesson candidates teach, they must complete a reflective analysis of the lesson including student content knowledge.  Preservice teachers must reflect on and assess their strengths and weaknesses, plan the next steps for student learning, and suggest changes for lesson delivery.  Student teachers must provide evidence that their students are learning.  Student teachers record individual student progress and with the cooperating teacher, prepare progress reports that are made available to the school principal and parents.

Content Knowledge for Other School Personnel

Candidates for other professional school roles know their fields as shown by their ability to use, explain, and apply principles and concepts delineated in professional and state standards.  See Table 5 for a listing of preparation programs for other professional school personnel and the relevant standards for each program.  Candidates must provide evidence of content knowledge through their coursework, tests, research projects, and portfolios.  Sample student work documenting content knowledge for other professional school personnel is on display in the NCATE/MoSTEP Exhibit Room.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers)

The pedagogical content knowledge required of candidates completing initial and continuing certification programs at Southeast is defined by state and national standards.  Both standards require that candidates apply their content area to teaching.  All of the initial and continuing certification programs are align with recommendations by national content area organizations.

To ensure that candidates meet these pedagogical content requirements, all certification programs use a variety of state and course assessments.  To complete a program, candidates seeking initial certification must (a) pass the PRAXIS II examination(s) in their content area or specialty, (b) successfully complete a series of tasks developed by the individual program faculties, and (c) submit a teaching portfolio demonstrating competence in the ten Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs.  The tasks focus primarily on pedagogical content such as analyzing and correcting student misconceptions.  Teachers in continuing certification programs must complete Missouri Approved program of courses to demonstrate competence.

Candidates completing initial and continuing certifications have access to a variety of courses that focus on pedagogical content knowledge.  Methods courses in specific content areas (e.g., mild/moderate disabilities, reading, and mathematics) are available at both undergraduate and graduate levels.  The individual program folios provide specific examples of these courses.  Candidates demonstrate pedagogical content knowledge through a variety of performance-based assignments.  Evidence of these activities is included in student portfolios that are displayed in the Exhibit Room.  Candidates in initial and advanced certification programs must complete multiple field experiences in which they have the opportunity to apply their pedagogical content knowledge in school contexts.

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers)

The professional and pedagogical knowledge required of candidates completing initial and continuing certification programs at Southeast Missouri State University is defined by state and national standards.  Initial certification candidates must meet all the Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP).   Other school personnel must meet the Missouri Standards for their individual programs.  Counselors must meet the Missouri Standards for Counselor Education (MoCOED).  Administrators must meet the Missouri Standards for School Leadership (ISLLC).  In addition, all initial and continuing certification programs are aligned with recommendations of national organizations.

To ensure that candidates meet these professional and pedagogical requirements, all certification programs use a variety of state and course assessments.  Candidates in initial certification programs must (a) pass the PRAXIS II, (b) successfully complete the courses for the specific program, and (c) submit a teaching portfolio demonstrating competence in the 10 Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs.  Portfolios require candidates to analyze and reflect upon their teaching; to adapt instruction for students with special needs; to develop collaborations with other teachers, parents, and community members; to use technology in instruction; and to identify professional development needs based on weaknesses.  Missouri is in the process of adopting portfolios for other school personnel.  School counselor portfolio and Praxis requirements will have gone into effect in September 2001. The timetable for implementing Educational Administration portfolios is still being determined.

Candidates and teachers completing initial and continuing certifications have access to a variety of courses that focus on pedagogical and professional knowledge.  These courses address general pedagogical issues such as school and classroom cultures, curriculum, classroom management, social and cultural problems, communities and families, and technology.  See individual program folios for specific lists of these courses.  Candidates complete a variety of performance-based activities that document their pedagogical and professional knowledge.

In addition to their coursework, candidates gain professional knowledge through their participation in student organizations, such as the Student Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), Dance Club, Physical Education Club, SMSTA, Kappa Delta Pi, International Reading Association, Student National Education Association, Chi Sigma Iota, and WCCI.  Most programs give students an opportunity to attend and/or present at annual meetings.

Finally, candidates in initial and continuing certification programs must complete multiple field experiences in which they have the opportunity to apply professional and pedagogical knowledge in various school contexts.  A listing of required field and clinical experiences is also located at http://www5.semo.edu/studentteach

Professional Knowledge and Skills for other School Personnel

Southeast’s College of Education offers academic program options in several areas other than teacher education.  Included are professional certificate and graduate degree programs to prepare educational administrators (i.e., principals, superintendents) and school counselors.  Folios for these programs are available in the Exhibit Room.

Faculty who provide instruction and organize learning experiences in each of these programs engage in an ongoing process of aligning expectations for candidate performance and knowledge acquisition with state licensure standards and with performance standards established by national professional associations.  A list of these programs and the relevant professional standards for each program is identified in Table 5.  Throughout this process, faculty members work to ensure that candidates are well grounded in their future job responsibilities.  This is accomplished through learning activities that are incorporated into required coursework including field-based practicum/internship and related experiences that candidates must complete.  Knowledge about the context of the position is also required through course-based assignments that require candidates to interview employed professionals and to explore how professional knowledge is incorporated into the on-the-job work of the person being interviewed.

Table 5:  Program and Professional Standards

Programs Offered at Southeast Missouri State University

Program Standards Approved by NCATE

Status of National Programs

Administration

 

 

Elementary Principal

ELCC

Recognition Pending 2002

Secondary Principal

ELCC

Recognition Pending 2002

Superintendent

ELCC

Recognition Pending 2002

Vocational Supervisor

N/A

 

Early Childhood Education

NAEYC

Recognized

Elementary Education

ACEI

Recognized

K-12 Education

 

 

Art

N/A

 

French

N/A

 

Spanish

N/A

 

Music

N/A

 

Physical Education

AAHPERD/NASPE

Recognized

Middle Level Education

 

 

English Language Arts

NCTE

Recognized

Mathematics

NCTM

Recognized

Science

NSTA

Recognized

Social Studies

NCSS

Recognized

Secondary Education

 

 

Biology

NSTA

Recognized

Business

N/A

 

Chemistry

NSTA

Recognized

Earth Science

NSTA

Recognized

English Language Arts

NCTE

Recognized

Industrial Technology

N/A

 

Mathematics

NCTM

Recognized

Physics

NSTA

Recognized

Social Studies

NCSS

Recognized

Speech/Theatre

N/A

 

Vocational Consumer & Family

N/A

 

Special Education

 

 

Behavior Disordered

CEC

Recognized

Learning Disability

CEC

Recognized

Mentally Impaired

CEC

Recognized

Support Personnel

 

 

School Counselor

N/A

 

School Psychometry

N/A

 

Based on information from NCATE Status of National Program Reviews, June 21, 2000.

Knowledge regarding the student, family, and community circumstance is acquired through practicum/internship experiences, job site visitations, assigned course readings, and course discussions.  The circumstances of student, family and community life in both rural and urban Missouri are emphasized, although regional and national issues regarding the topic are also explored.  Special emphasis is provided to ensure that candidates understand the life circumstances of economically disadvantaged children and families and the life circumstances of minority families and children because of the responsibilities candidates will have in working with these populations.  With the increasing numbers of Hispanic workers employed in Missouri on a seasonal and ongoing basis, emphasis is also given to serving the educational needs of this population.

Candidates are required to become conversant with the use of electronically accessible databases and to use these resources in completing program assignments.  Several computer labs are housed within the college, in Scully Building and in Dempster Hall.  Candidates on an individual basis and also in required courses use these facilities.  Beyond what is incorporated into a candidate’s curriculum of study, staff members from the Instructional Resources & Technology Center (IRTC) are also available to assist candidates in the use of technology.  Emphasis is also given to ensuring that candidates have the ability to use research and technology to support student learning and school improvement.  In the program to prepare educational administrators, for example, candidates are required to identify a real school “problem”, collect data from the school context that is pertinent to the problem, and identify research and best practice information that relates to the problem.  Candidates then develop a strategic plan to address the problem and articulate that plan in a report, the Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (CSIP).

The professional service responsibilities within each program curriculum are identified.  Candidates are expected to be able to articulate how any given professional service activity contributes to and reinforces student learning within the context in which the service is delivered.  Distinctions are made between the service to the students and families, service to the community, service to regional and state agencies, and service to the individual’s profession itself, which includes affiliating with and participating in appropriate state and national professional organizations.

Dispositions for All Candidates

The dispositions for all candidates completing initial and continuing certification programs are defined by state and national standards and code of ethics.  Initial teacher certification candidates must meet the Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP), and continuing candidates must meet the Missouri standards for their specific program (i.e., counseling and administration).

Candidates’ dispositions are assessed from the time they enter the program until they complete student teaching.  When the candidates apply for admission to a teacher education program, they receive a copy of Southeast’s Requirements for Admission to Teacher Education, which includes the code of ethics.  In addition, all initial and continuing certification programs align with recommendations and standards of national professional organizations that relate to dispositions.  To ensure that candidates meet appropriate dispositions, all certification programs use a variety of assessments.  For example, in EF 200, School and Society, all teacher education candidates learn about and work on a comprehensive essay clarifying personal philosophies and their respective potential impact on their teaching.  Candidates are also asked to write a philosophy of education as an introduction to their teaching portfolio.  These statements indicate dispositions toward teaching.  As part of the continuous assessment process, students’ adherence to the code of ethics during coursework is reviewed.

Student teachers receive a copy of the Student Teaching Handbook for Students, which provides expectations for professional conduct in the field.  Reflective journals are analyzed for statements pertaining to candidate dispositions.  Observable behaviors are part of the assessment in all programs.  Whenever negative dispositions or lack of professionalism arise during programs, supervisors conduct a conference with students.  If the problem is severe, the appropriate program faculty will review the case and make a decision regarding remediation and retention.  Dispositions are constantly evaluated through observations, journal writing, and conferences.  Supervisors maintain constant contact with school personnel throughout field experiences to provide ample opportunities to discuss dispositions of candidate.

Student Learning for Teacher Candidates (Initial and Continuing Preparation of Teachers

Teacher candidates are required to document their impact on P-12 learning.  Specifically, candidates are required to assess student learning, use these assessments in planning instruction, and develop meaningful learning experiences for students based on their developmental levels and prior experience.  Coursework related to this standard embeds Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs and the standards of professional organizations.  The Missouri standards require that all teachers be able to design and plan instruction tied to Missouri’s Show-Me Standards, demonstrate knowledge of content in the lessons they design, implement and manage instruction, and assess and communicate learning results.

Candidates demonstrate their ability to address individual needs of learners in their portfolios that are aligned with the Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP).  In the portfolios can be found examples where candidates (a) planned instruction appropriately for diverse groups of students, (b) altered instruction based on student results, and (c) adapted instruction to accommodate individual differences.  Candidates also show in their portfolios how they apply technology to meet the needs of individual students.

In their coursework, candidates complete a variety of assignments related to the assessment of student learning.  Examples include projects, instructional units or materials, and individual and group assignments (e.g., written application of content, education principles, and theory to real-world situations, reviewing assessment instruments).  Courses that require field experiences (e.g., observation, practicum, student teaching) provide candidates the opportunity to complete hands-on projects with students to further develop skills in assessment and instruction.  For example, some teacher candidates must develop a Teacher Work Sample (for example, Teacher Work Sample for 2nd Grade Language Arts).  In this project, the student writes a description of the learning-teaching context, the achievement targets, an assessment plan, an instructional sequence, an analysis of student learning, and a reflection.

To further illustrate the focus on student learning in a candidate’s portfolio, undergraduate students in the special education programs are required to include (a) individual instructional programs to teach functional skills; (b) a behavior management program; (c) data sheets showing daily student performance; (d) graph data showing student progress over time; (e) a portfolio entry for a student with disabilities that shows progress in areas that correspond to the Show-Me Standards (goals and objectives in the IEP), and the use of assistive technology; and (f) completed assessments of student ability with corresponding Individualized Education Plans or Individualized Transition Plans.  Candidates receiving certification in grades P-12 complete portfolio entries that reflect experiences across many grade ranges.

Throughout their programs, candidates are involved in their professional community so that they learn more about working with students in their field of study, This may include school districts, agencies that serve students with disabilities, early childhood agencies, and professional organizations.  For example, the special education program gives students the opportunity to visit and/or hear speakers from agencies that serve children aged birth through preschool, serve adults with disabilities, provide assistive technology services, and provide related services (e.g., psychological assessment, speech/language therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, residential services, and employment options).  Stressing the role of teacher as a researcher, candidates in the graduate programs are required to conduct action research and encouraged to submit their thesis for publication.

Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel

Other professional school personnel document their ability to meet standards related to student learning through a variety of activities in their programs.  For example, in EA703, Seminar in Current Practical Problems, candidates prepare a presentation for a school faculty that illustrates a problem, identified from existing school data, and offers a strategy for solving the problem. Also, counselors gain a greater understanding of Missouri’s Comprehensive Guidance Model in CP630, Foundations of School Counseling.

Candidate learning experiences are designed to meet professional organization, state, and faculty-developed standards and indicators of performance as appropriate to each program area.  These experiences are also designed to be responsive to learning issues that are identified as being important in the NCATE 2000 Standards (e.g., creating a positive environment for student learning once the candidate is employed, understanding and building upon the developmental level of students, and viewing diversity as a strength and promoting social justice).  Examples include course requirements in cultural diversity, school improvement, human cognition, mental health, social development, and positive school-community relations.

Ensuring that candidates focus on the environmental, demographic, and policy contexts of the students with whom they will work is also accomplished by connecting coursework to field-based experiences.  In effect, candidates for professional school roles other than teaching are prepared in a manner that keeps student learning a centerpiece of their preparation.  This is accomplished by embedding concerns for student learning and the environments where such learning takes place within the standards for each program, within the curricular experiences engaged in by candidates, and within the assessment procedures used in each program.
 
 

Standard 2 – Assessment System and Evaluation

The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.

The Unit has designed and begun to implement a comprehensive assessment system with input from the University and P-12 communities.  The Unit Assessment System is built on the assessment of ten program standards for the teacher education program and the counseling program and six program standards for the educational administration program. These standards are tied to key knowledge and performances embedded in each professional course in developmental sequences.  The System uses multiple assessment points for candidates as well as multiple assessment devices in and outside of professional coursework.  The Unit Assessment System has been built with a clearly outlined process for collecting and using candidate performance data.  The heart of the system is a web-enabled database, created by the College of Education and associated with Southeast’s computerized advising system.  Aggregated performance data is available to faculty, committees, and administrators on a regular basis.

In support of the candidate assessment subsystem, the Unit Assessment System contains subsystem area flowcharts with feedback loops for assessing the effectiveness of the following areas:  programs; field experience; governance structure; strategic planning process; facilities planning; diverse faculty/staff recruitment; faculty qualifications, performance, and development; technology; conceptual framework; recruitment and retention of a diverse candidate population; and diversity curricula.  The College of Education has adopted and implemented many policies and practices that are part of its assessment system, as described in the table below.

Table 6:  Unit Policies and Practices

Policy or Practice

Status

Change and activity reports from unit committees

Fully Implemented

Portfolio review process

Fully Implemented

Plans for implementation of the standards

Fully Implemented

Disposition process

Fully Implemented

Performance Indicator Assessment Forms

Fully Implemented

Basic Skill Support Process

Fully Implemented

Due Process and Appeals Procedures

Fully Implemented

Evaluations by candidates, graduates, employers, university supervisors and cooperating teachers, faculty, and the university   (Criterion II.4)

Fully Implemented

Faculty Evaluation Policy

Fully Implemented

Assessment System

The College of Education’s Unit Assessment System has evolved through input from several committees and groups involving the professional community.  This section explains membership of the various groups, as well as the role of each group in the development of the assessment system.

The Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Assessment System developed the Unit Assessment System.  This committee was responsible for developing the disposition process, the standards implementation plan, and for creating the flowcharts for the subsystems and feedback schema for the Unit Assessment System.  The committee included:

·        
Two public school teachers (one elementary & one secondary)
·        
One public school counselor
·        
One public school administrator
·        
Three staff members of the Regional Professional Development Center (the Director, the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) Coordinator, & a STARR Teacher)
·        
Six College of Education faculty members (three in Ed. Administration & Counseling, three in Elementary, Early & Special Education)
·        
One graduate student (counseling)
·        
One student advisor
·        
Four College of Education Department Chairs 
·        
Dean of the College of Education

The Committee on Admission to and Retention in Teacher Education Program (CARTEP), is comprised of the Dean, Department Chairs, representatives from public schools, graduate students, as well as, College of Education faculty.  This committee reviews the data (verification of appropriate prerequisite course work, references, field experiences, grade point averages, and standardized test scores) on potential candidates and determines recommendation for admission or denial of admission to the teacher education program.

College Council is composed of the Dean, Department Chairs, representatives from public schools (teachers & administrators), graduate students, and College of Education faculty.  This committee reviews all revised or new programs and/or course syllabi.  Council is responsible for providing input on each program and/or course syllabi and for approval of proposed program and/or revised or new syllabi.

Another source of professional input into the assessment system is Southeast’s Academic Program Review, which occurs periodically.  Other important sources of professional input for the assessment system are the Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP), regional and national accreditation bodies, and national level professional associations.

Documentation:

Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Assessment System Composition & minutes
Department minutes
College Council minutes
CARTEP minutes
Academic Program Review – annual reports
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education – annual reports
Specialty Reports

Teacher Education Program

The Unit, with the involvement of its professional community, is implementing an assessment system that reflects the conceptual framework(s) and incorporates candidate proficiencies outlined in professional and state standards.

The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education used the INTASC principles as a model for designing the Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP).  Thus, Missouri designed and promulgated a series of developmental and content standards related to specific certifications.  In response to this initiative, the College of Education at Southeast began to reshape its teacher education program around those principles and standards.  The Unit’s Conceptual Framework and program standards that grew out of the response to Missouri’s initiatives reflect and support Southeast Missouri State University College of Education’s mission, faculty, and candidate population.

As a result, ten pervasive program standards were adopted together with a comprehensive listing of candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions for each standard.  Once the standards were finalized, the faculty in the Departments of Elementary, Early, Special Education, Middle School, and Secondary Education assigned from the comprehensive list a developmentally appropriate set of key knowledge and performances to each existing or new course.  The objectives in course syllabi were revised to include key knowledge and performances introduced or developed and assessed in each course.

The Unit defines dispositions as the ‘habits of mind, including beliefs, attitudes and values, that underlies one’s practices, behaviors and relations.’   The Teacher education program views commitment to professional ethics as the ultimate disposition for a caring, reflective, competent professional educator.  The process for evaluation of candidate dispositions is:

·         Block II – The evaluative document for dispositions, ‘Professional Dispositions for Teacher Education,’ an evaluative document for dispositions, will be used as follows:

  1. Student to perform a self-assessment using the instrument
  2. Cooperating teacher completes the same instrument
  3. Program faculty completes the same instrument
  4. All parties meet to discuss the instrument and arrive at a consensus to help the student.  The results are recorded on a master page that will be forwarded to Block III.

·         Block III – The student develops a plan for improvement based on the results of the Block II instrument and discussions.  Otherwise, the same pattern is followed in Block II with the results forwarded to Block IV.

·         Block IV – the student develops a plan for improvement based on the results of the Block III instrument and discussions.  The final results including the plans for improvement are included in the portfolio with the student reflection for Quality Indicator #9.

Portfolios are one of the College of Education’s main sources of assessment information on programs and candidates.  Since 1998, the teacher education program has been constantly revising the portfolio review process and the pre-service teacher education programs based on the data obtained from candidates during the portfolio review process.  The results are reviewed by the faculty of each department, reported to the entire Unit in the annual Assessment Report, and used to make program changes consistent with the Mission Statement that is the cornerstone of the Conceptual Framework.

In addition, portfolios are used to monitor the admission, retention, and certification of candidates in the various teacher education programs based on evidence they provide of meeting the ten program standards outlined in the Conceptual Framework.  Candidate progress in the performances is monitored by portfolio entries reflecting course activities such as field experience reports/forms and journals.

Other methods of ensuring that the assessment system reflects the conceptual framework:

·        
Faculty outline the indicators for each standard addressed in courses they teach using a standard template for all course syllabi.
·        
Cooperative teachers provide feedback to clinical faculty regarding candidate progress on the standards during the field experiences using a Field Experience Evaluation Form.

Documentation:

Alignment of Unit standards for teacher education program with Missouri Standards (MoSTEP)
Process for Evaluation of Candidate Dispositions
Portfolio Handbook (online)
Field Experience Cooperative Teacher Evaluation Forms
Course Assessment Instruments
Conceptual Framework Document
Standards Matrix with courses
Performance Indicator Matrix
Student Teaching Handbook
Syllabi

The Unit continuously examines the validity and utility of the data produced through assessments and takes modifications to keep abreast of changes in assessment technology and in professional standards.

The Unit examines its data methodically and regularly.  As part of the Unit Assessment System, flowcharts and feedback loops show how we use the data within our program.  A timeline for the Unit Assessment System outlines when various aspects of the system are activated and who is responsible for the action.

Each committee in the unit submits a yearly change report to the Assessment Committee in order to outline the changes that occurred the previous year by and through the committee.  These reports enable the Assessment Committee to track the changes made and to document the impact on the program/unit.  All committees also submit activity reports that outline the aspects of committee work that do not securely require change in the Unit.  A yearly College of Education Assessment Report, collected and organized by the Assessment Committee, aggregates all forms of assessment from the Unit.  As a part of this process, the Assessment Committee evaluates yearly and long-term trends that are in turn reported to the Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Committee, the Administrative Advisory Team, and other College of Education committees as appropriate.

By observing the following guidelines, Unit has maximized the reliability of our data collection procedures:

·        
The Unit has designed the instruments and instructions to be unambiguous.  They are pilot tested and continually refined to eliminate ambiguity.
·        
The Unit has standardized the data collection process so that all candidates are responding to the same knowledge, performances, and dispositions based on program standards.

The Unit continuously examines the validity and utility of the data produced through assessments.  The following information supports the validity and utility of our data collection processes:

·        
The data that the Unit uses to evaluate our candidates and our programs are tied directly to the College of Education Teacher Education Standards.
·        
Course assessment instruments describe the assessments used in each class, and the relationship of these assessments to the Teacher Education Standards.  This information shows the correspondence of our assessments to the Conceptual Framework.
·        
Faculty use a standard syllabus template to demonstrate the relationship between their course objectives, candidate assessments, and the Conceptual Framework.
·        
Data are collected regarding all the standards embraced by our curriculum.  This assures a high level of content validity.
·        
Because the standards are closely integrated with our Conceptual Framework, the data are likely to have a high degree of construct validity.  Thus, success on these evaluations probably does indicate a high level of proficiency with regard to our curriculum goals.

Documentation:

Unit Assessment Area Subsystem Flowcharts
Change reports
Activity reports
College of Education Annual Assessment Reports
Performance Indicator Matrix
Matrix of courses and teacher education standards
Course Assessment Instruments
College of Education Survey of Graduates

Assessment Committee(s) Minutes

Decisions about candidate performance are based on multiple assessments made at multiple points before program completion.

Candidates receive both formative and summative evaluation throughout the program.  While enrolled in early field experience and methods courses, they receive information from cooperating teachers and instructors regarding their progress in achieving program standards.  Summative evaluation occurs with each class and at specific decision points.

·        
Prior to admission to the Teacher Education Program.
·        
Prior to admission to student teaching semester, and
·        
Exit assessment at the completion of student teaching and completion of certification requirements.

Throughout the program, candidates receive feedback regarding the attainment of program standards via the database, course activities and grades, portfolios, test scores, and correspondence from the Unit.

Various remediation options are available to candidates who experience difficulty.  For example, they may take or retake courses to hone their skills.  They may receive support through university resources such as the Learning Enrichment Center (i.e., tutoring), the Writing Center, Academic Advising, the Counseling Center, and/or the Career Development and Placement Center.

Unit faculty uses multiple assessment devices in their evaluation of candidate progress.  Faculty may use their own assessments.  Instructors list learning objectives and assessments from their syllabi as well as information regarding the use of national standards in their courses.

Documentation:

Matrix of courses and standards
Performance Indicator Matrix
Admission, retention and certification standards
Unit Assessment Subsystem Area flowcharts from program and candidate assessment
Department minutes
Assessment Committee minutes
List of Basic Skill Support Options

Data show the strong relationship of performance assessments to candidate success.

In order for the Unit to supply information to the program regarding candidate success and program strengths and needs the annual College of Education Assessment Report contains information gathered from many different sources in addition to the database:
·        
Southeast Missouri State University statistics on the achievement of our
candidates on state certification exams and completion of the program portfolio,

·        
Change and activity reports from each of the College of Education committees based on the Unit Assessment Subsystem Flow charts that outline the responsibility of each committee (beginning with the 2001-2002 academic year).
·        
Qualitative and quantitative data from the portfolio interviews and exit questionnaire given to the student teachers.  At all stages of portfolio review, candidates are asked to respond to what they view as the program strengths and weaknesses.  At the student teaching exit workshop, candidates are also given a questionnaire that focuses on the program standards.  They are asked to rate the program based on the standards.
·        
Database information regarding candidate achievement of standard indicators.
·        
Other assessment reports:  graduate surveys and data from Spring 2002, follow-up surveys from 1st and 2nd year teachers alumni, university supervisor and cooperating teacher evaluations of candidates, employer surveys and data from Fall 2001.

The Assessment Committee aggregates these data and includes it in the yearly assessment report.  These data are shared every fall semester with appropriate committees, and with the university.  Program improvements are frequently an outgrowth of discussion of the annual report by the appropriate committees and groups.

Documentation:

Unit Assessment Subsystem Flowcharts
Field Experience Cooperating Teacher Evaluation Forms
Admission, Retention & Certification Standards
College of Education Annual Assessment Reports
Change Reports
Activity Reports
Portfolio Handbook
College of Education Minutes
Graduate & Employee Surveys and data
University supervisor and cooperating teacher evaluation data of candidates
Student Teaching Handbook         

All Teacher Education Standards are based on best practices and research from the field (see bibliography for the Conceptual Framework).  The Teacher Education Program has made connections between the NCATE, specialty groups, and MoSTEP standards.  Assessment activities/reports are integrated throughout the Unit Assessment Plan so that candidates are able to see how successful they have been at meeting the performances for each course and monitor their progress in meeting all the Teacher Education Standards.

Some of the assessment activities/reports that directly examine candidate success are:

·        
Graduate and employer surveys and data
·        
University Supervisor evaluation data of candidates
·        
Cooperating Teacher evaluation data of candidates
·        
Program evaluations from student teacher completers
·        
Portfolio interviews
·        
K-12 student learning exhibited in courses and in entries for the portfolio (i.e., Teacher Work Sample)

Documentation:

Bibliography for Conceptual Framework
Alignment of NCATE standards with MoSTEP, specialty groups, and course
Database information
Survey of Graduates
Employer surveys
University supervisor and Cooperating Teacher Evaluation Data of Candidates
Teacher Education Program Evaluations from student teaching completers
Portfolio interview results
K-12 student learning exhibited in courses and in entries for the portfolio

The unit conducts thorough studies to establish fairness, accuracy, and consistency of its performance assessment procedures.

Relating the evaluations directly to the Unit’s standards, and using multiple assessment points and multiple assessment devices assure fairness in the evaluation of our candidates.  In addition, if candidates fail to demonstrate proficiency at any assessment point, they receive assistance and additional opportunities to overcome their difficulties.  A matrix of courses and their correspondence to the Teacher Education Standards (MoSTEP standards) was developed by faculty in order to address the developmental nature of performances and how best to document this in a program for all candidates.

Rubrics were developed by the faculty in order to be able to report candidate progress in their course on the indicator for the standards.  The Unit faculty uses multiple assessment devices in their evaluation of candidate progress and candidates receive both formative and summative evaluation throughout the program.

Documentation:

Matrix of courses and standards
Matrix of performance indicators and courses
Admission, retention, and certificate standards

        
The Unit also makes changes in its practices consistent with the results of these studies.

The yearly Assessment Report and recommendations from the Assessment Committee are shared with the College Council and to the College of Education, the community and the University.  The shared information elicits discussions of our programs with all constituents regarding the direction of the Unit and its effectiveness in graduating effective teachers.  The integration of the Teacher Work Sample in the teacher education curriculum and process is an example of a change made as a direct result of analysis of multiple assessments.

Feedback loops demonstrate how the information from the Assessment Committee is dealt with in the appropriate committees for action.  It is primarily the responsibility of the teacher education department to initiate change and document how Assessment Committee recommendations are incorporated into the program.   The Assessment Committee oversees changes to ensure they are consistent with the Conceptual Framework.  In addition, now that our program has a clear outline of which performances are taught in which courses, if our candidates are having difficulty with a specific topic, the Teacher Education Department will be able to make adjustments to courses to better train the candidates.

The Assessment Report includes the following program improvement components:

  • Southeast Missouri State University statistics on the achievement of our candidates on state certification exams, current programs, and completion of the program portfolio.
  • Data Reports from all committees and Blocks
  • Change Reports from all committees
  • Activity Reports from all committees
  • Qualitative and quantitative data from portfolio interviews and candidate exit questionnaire
  • Data regarding candidate achievement of standards indicators
  • Other Assessment reports:  Graduate and employer surveys (follow-up surveys) , University supervisor and cooperating teacher evaluations of candidate

Documentation:

Unit Assessment Subsystem Area Flowcharts
College of Education Annual Assessment Reports and Self-Study Report
Data reports from committees
Change Reports
Activity Reports
Data information
Minutes of department and committee meetings

Unit Data Collection, Analysis and Evaluation

The unit is implementing its assessment system and providing regular and comprehensive data on program quality, unit operations, and candidate performance at each stage of a program, including the first years of practices.

Documentation:

            1st Year Follow-up Surveys of candidates

Data from candidates, graduates, faculty, and other members of the professional community are based on multiple assessments from both internal and external sources.

Multiple Assessment Points – Candidates receive both formative and summative evaluation throughout the program.  While enrolled in early field experience and methods courses, they receive information from cooperative teachers and instructors regarding their progress in achieving program standards.  Summative evaluation occurs with each class and at specific decision points:

  1. Prior to admission to the Teacher Education Program (after pre-methods courses and prior to enrollment in methods courses);
  2. Prior to admission to the professional semester (student teaching); and
  3. Exit assessment at the completion of student teaching and completion of certification requirements.

Throughout the course of their enrollment in the program, candidates receive feedback regarding their attainment of program standards via the database, course activities and grades, portfolio reviews, test scores, and correspondence from the Unit.

Various remediation options are available to candidates who experience difficulty.  For example, they may take or retake courses to hone their skills.  They may receive support through university resources such as the Learning Enrichment Center, the Writing Lab, University Tutoring, Academic Advising, the Counseling Center, or the Career Development and Placement Center.  They can also take advantage of C-BASE tutorial and portfolio workshops. 

Multiple Assessment Devices – Unit faculty use multiple assessment devices in their evaluation of candidate progress.  The faculty may use their own assessments.  Instructors list learning objectives and assessments from their syllabi as well as information regarding the use of national standards in their courses.

Documentation:

Matrix of courses and standards
Performance Indicator Matrix
Admission, retention, and certification standards
Information on Basic Skill Support
Unit Assessment Subsystem Flowcharts for program and candidate assessment

The unit maintains a record of formal candidate complaints and documentation of their resolution.

The unit has a process for formal complaints by candidates. This process has three levels within the College of Education.  The Unit’s process is:

  1. Contact the faculty member – If not resolved:
  2. Contact the Department Chair – If not resolved:
  3. Contact the Dean (If not resolved, the next level is beyond the College of Education)

The Dean and the Department Chairs are responsible for maintaining records of both formal complaints and the resolutions within their respective offices.

Documentation:

            Records of formal candidate complaints (in Dean’s office and/or Chairs’offices)

Data are regularly and systematically collected, compiled, summarized, analyzed, and reported publicly for the purpose of improving candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations.

Each department in the Teacher Education Program has an assessment committee.  The department assessment committee gathers data at the departmental level, and the committee develops an assessment report of program strengths and weaknesses.  This report is presented to the department as a whole.  After consideration and approval by the department, decisions are made concerning program changes that are necessary for improvement.

After approval by the department, the assessment report and recommendations for program changes are presented to the College Council.  The Assessment Report is also sent to the Vice Provost for information purposes.  Specific program changes are developed and approved within the department.  Following department approval, programmatic changes are presented to College Council for their review and approval.  Changes in programming within the graduate programs are also sent to the Graduate School for review and approval, with supporting data.

Following approval by the appropriate councils, the department is responsible for
implementing the changes.  If such changes have an impact on the data utilized in the assessment process, modifications are made to the assessment plan.

The collection of data and program analysis takes place at least on an annual basis.  The information is also reported annually to the College Council in order for all departments to be knowledgeable regarding assessment and program changes on a College wide basis.  The assessment report is also sent to the office of the Vice Provost for informational purposes.

Documentation:

Feedback Schema for Unit Assessment Program
Department minutes
Department Assessment Committee Minutes
College Council Minutes
Assessment Report sent to Vice Provost

The unit is developing and testing different information technologies to improve its assessment system.

The Teacher Education Program looks to the Institutional Research staff to assist us in using different information technologies to aggregate and disaggregate data to be analyzed in evaluating candidate progress and program improvement.  The Center Scholarship Teaching & Learning provides faculty with training to use Gradebook and Excel to compile, summarize, and analyze data.

Documentation:

Faculty web pages with Grade Book
Annual Assessment Reports
Inter-rater reliability data on portfolio reviews
Copies of web-enabled database and computerized advising system

Use of Data for Program Improvement

The unit has fully developed evaluations and continuously searches for stronger relationships in the evaluations, revising both the underlying data systems and analytic techniques as necessary. 

The Unit uses the assistance of Institutional Research for aggregating and disaggregating data.  The College of Education has developed an assessment plan.  As program changes are implemented the Assessment Committee will modify the assessment plan.

Documentation:

            Feedback Schema for Unit Assessment Program

The unit not only makes changes when evaluations indicate, but also systematically studies the effects of any changes to assure that the intended program strengthening occurs and that there are no adverse consequences.

Each department in the Teacher Education Program has an Assessment Committee.  This committee is responsible for continuous monitoring of feedback and faculty proposals for program changes.  If the program changes are not producing the positive results, they are responsible for determining other options

Documentation:

            Feedback Schema for Unit Assessment Program

Candidates and faculty review performance data on their performance regularly and develop plans for improvement.

The Mission Statement says that the College of Education faculty is committed to providing the human and technological resources to enable candidates and themselves to develop as education professionals in constructing knowledge, developing practice, and fostering relationships.  The College of Education approved a Faculty Improvement Policy that requires faculty to develop personal improvement plans using a variety of assessment forms as well as feedback from students and peers.

In order of most frequent use, the following methods are used:  

·         Periodic discussions with entire class  
·        
IDEA- Student Ratings of Instruction  
·        
Written feedback from students  
·        
Peer evaluations by other Southeast faculty  
·        
Individual student feedback after every class  
·        
Merit Report Evaluations

The Unit’s Faculty Evaluation System requires all faculty to meet each spring with their Chairs to set goals and emphasis for the coming year in the areas of teaching/developing practice, scholarly activity/constructing knowledge, and service/fostering relationships.  The following spring, the faculty member will meet with the Chair to determine the degree of completion for the goals and to set goals and emphasis for the following year.

Candidate reflection and self-improvement plan are built into the Teacher Education Program.  Reflection on practice is an integral part of coursework and field experiences in the programs.  This reflection takes many shapes.  From individual reflection on a candidate’s work in a journal or reflection assignment after teaching a lesson to evaluation of a videotaped lesson with a faculty member, students are encouraged to reflect on their work and make modifications to their teaching.  Candidates are also required to use analysis of their teaching behaviors to support the consistency between their pedagogical approach and the teaching standards.  They must also use student achievement data to support the success of their approach in producing quality student learning.  The Teacher Work Sample is used by students to critically examine his/her own practice and adjust instruction accordingly; to reflect on and analyze lesson effectiveness in order to make subsequent changes in instruction, to adjust and revise lesson plans based on student needs and changing circumstances, and to make decisions-in-action in the classrooms.

The portfolio process requires candidates to reflect on each standard and discuss their progress with Unit faculty.  As part of the portfolio process, the candidate must complete a plan for improvement known as the Plan for Implementation of Standards every semester.  The candidates reflect on their attainment of the teacher education standards and create goals for themselves for the upcoming semester.  Subsequent portfolio entries must demonstrate how those goals are being met.

Documentation:

Faculty Improvement Policy  
Faculty Evaluation System

Figure 4:  Evaluation of Admission and Exit Requirements to Southeast Missouri State and the College of Education 

School Administrator Program

The Unit, with the involvement of its professional community, is implementing an assessment system that reflects the conceptual framework(s) and incorporates candidate proficiencies outlined in professional and state standards.

The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education used the ISLLC standards as a model for designing the standards for educational administrator that are a part of the Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP).  Thus, Missouri designed and promulgated a series of developmental and content standards related to specific certifications.  The Chief State School Officers developed a second set of standards that were adopted by NCATE (Educational Leadership Constituent Counsel [ELCC] Standards) In response to this initiative, the College of Education at Southeast began to reshape its school administrator preparation programs around these principles and standards (MoSTEP/ISLLC; NCATE/ELCC).  In addition, The Unit’s Conceptual Framework and program standards, which grew out of the response to Missouri’s initiatives, reflect and support Southeast Missouri State University College of Education’s mission, faculty, and candidate population.

As a result, six pervasive program standards were adopted together with a comprehensive listing of candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions for each standard. A matrix developed by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration provided a cross-reference between the two sets of Standards, ISLLC and ELCC. Once the standards were finalized, the educational administration faculty in the Department Educational Administration and Counseling assigned from the comprehensive list a developmentally appropriate set of key knowledge and performances to each existing or new course.  The objectives in course syllabi were revised to include key knowledge and performances introduced or developed and assessed through student performance activities in each course.

The Unit defines dispositions as the ‘habits of mind, including beliefs, attitudes and values, that underlies one’s practices, behaviors and relations.’   The educational administration faculty views (a) high expectations for children, (b) receptive to change, (c) collaborative, (d) ethical, (e) results-oriented, and (f) leadership for learning as the dispositions of a caring, reflective, competent professional educator.  The process for evaluation of candidate dispositions is:  

·         Use of a rubric on the dispositions used as a formative evaluation for the development of the candidate’s improvement plan.  
·        
Require students to write a reflective statement on each disposition to be included in the internship portfolio.
·         Use of a rubric on the dispositions used as a formative evaluation for the development of the candidate’s improvement plan at 12 and 24 hour points in the Master’s and Specialist programs.  
·         Examine internship portfolios for inclusion of evidence of the dispositions.

Portfolios are one of the College of Education’s main sources of assessment information on programs and candidates.  Since Fall 2000, the faculty in the school administration preparation program has been constantly revising the portfolio review process. The results of the portfolio review are reported to the Department and the entire Unit in the annual Assessment Report. The results are used to make program changes consistent with the Mission Statement that is the cornerstone of the Conceptual Framework.

In addition, portfolios are used to monitor the skills, knowledge, and dispositions of candidates. The final assessment of the candidates in the educational administrator preparation program is based on evidence the candidates provide that indicates they meet the six program standards outlined in the Conceptual Framework.  Candidate progress is monitored by reflective statements on course activities, in reports or journals, and in the internship experience in the internship portfolio.

The assessment system also reflects the conceptual framework because all of the performance activities are linked back to the standards as shown in the matrix provided in the preparation of the folio submitted for NCATE/MoSTEP review. Other methods for ensuring that the assessment system reflects the conceptual framework:  

·         The pre- and post-internship self-assessment completed by the candidates is based on standards underling the conceptual framework.
·         The evaluation form used by the supervising administrator during the internship is based on the conceptual framework.  
·         On the syllabus for each course, the indicators for each standard addressed in course has been noted.  
·        
The six standards in the conceptual model are the basis for the 12/24 hour individual improvement plan.

Documentation:

Alignment of educational administration program standards with MoSTEP/ ISLLC and NCATE/ELCC standards as shown in the matrix 
Process for Evaluation of Candidate Dispositions
 
I
nternship Experience On-Site Supervisor Evaluation Forms
 
Student Performance Activities
 
Conceptual Framework Document
 
Syllabi
 
12/24 Hour Individual Improvement Plans
Pre and Post Self-assessment Forms

The Unit continuously examines the validity and utility of the data produced through assessments and takes modifications to keep abreast of changes in assessment technology and in professional standards.

The Unit examines the educational administration data methodically and regularly.  As part of the Unit Assessment System, flowcharts and feedback loops show how educational administration faculty use the data within the program and how the data is fed back into the Unit Assessment Plan.  A timeline for the Unit Assessment System outlines when various aspects of the system are activated and who is responsible for the action.

The educational administration assessment committee in the Department of Educational Administration and Counseling submits a yearly change report to the Unit Assessment Committee in order to outline the changes that occurred the previous year by and through the educational administration assessment committee.  These reports enable the Unit Assessment Committee to track the changes made and to document the impact on the program/unit.  All committees also submit activity reports that outline the aspects of committee work that do not necessarily require change in the Unit.  A yearly College of Education Assessment Report, collected and organized by the Unit Assessment Committee, aggregates all forms of assessment from the Unit.  As a part of this process, the Assessment Committee evaluates yearly and long-term trends that are in turn reported to the Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Committee, the Administrative Advisory Team, and other College of Education committees as appropriate.

By observing the following guidelines, the educational administration program has maximized the reliability of the data collection procedures:  

·        
The educational administration faculty has designed the instruments and instructions to be unambiguous.  The instruments and instructions are pilot tested and continually refined to eliminate ambiguity.  
·        
The educational administration faculty has standardized the data collection process so that all candidates are responding to the same knowledge, performances, and dispositions based on program standards.

The educational administration faculty continuously examines the validity and utility of the data produced through assessments.  The following information supports the validity and utility of the data collection processes:  

·         The data that the educational administration faculty uses to evaluate the candidates and programs are tied directly to the MoSTEP/ISLLC and NCATE/ELCC Standards.  
·        
Student performance activities describe the assessments used in each class, and the relationship of these assessments to the Standards are noted on the syllabi.  This information shows the correspondence of the assessments to the Conceptual Framework.  
·        
Data are collected regarding all the standards embraced by our curriculum.  This assures a high level of content validity.  
·        
Because the performance activities are closely integrated with our Conceptual Framework, the data are likely to have a high degree of construct validity.  Thus, success on these evaluations probably does indicate a high level of proficiency with regard to our curriculum goals.

Documentation:

Educational Administration Assessment Area Subsystem Flowcharts
College of Education Annual Assessment Report Change report  
Matrix of courses and educational administration program standards  
Student Performance Activities  
Educational Administration Survey of Graduates 

Assessment Committee(s) Minutes

Decisions about candidate performance are based on multiple assessments made at multiple points before program completion.

Candidates receive both formative and summative evaluation throughout the program. Educational administration faculty use multiple assessment devices in their evaluation of candidate progress.  Faculty may use their own assessments.  Instructors list learning objectives and assessments from their syllabi as well as information regarding the use of national standards in their courses.

Throughout the program, formative assessments are when candidates receive feedback regarding the attainment of program standards via the course performance activities, grades, portfolios, and test scores. For example, after the first 12 hours of program, candidates receive information from faculty through an improvement plan.  This plan is again reviewed and revised when 24 hours are completed.  Summative assessments include the graduate paper in the Master’s program, and internship portfolio presentations for both the Master’s and Specialist degree culminating activity. An additional summative assessment at the Master’s degree is the School Leadership Licensure Assessment (SLLA). The summative assessment for the Specialist degree is the School Superintendent Assessment (SSA).

Various remediation options are available to candidates who experience difficulty.  For example, they may take or retake courses to hone their skills.  They may receive support through university resources such as the Learning Enrichment Center (i.e., tutoring), the Writing Center, the Counseling Center, and/or the Career Development and Placement Center.

Documentation:

Matrix of courses and standards (MoSTEP/ISLLC; NCATE/ELLC)
Admission and Licensure standards
Educational Administration and Unit Assessment Subsystem Area Flow charts for program and candidate assessment
Department Minutes  
Assessment Committee Minutes  

Data show the strong relationship of performance assessments to candidate success.

In order for the Unit to supply information to the program regarding candidate success and program strengths and needs, the annual College of Education Assessment Report contains information gathered from many different sources in addition to the database:  

·        
Southeast Missouri State University statistics on the achievement of our candidates on state certification exams and completion of the program portfolio,  
·        
Change and activity reports from each of the College of Education committees based on the Unit Assessment Subsystem Flow charts that outline the responsibility of each committee (beginning with the 2001-2002 academic year).  
·        
Qualitative and quantitative data from the internship portfolio presentations.  
·        
Scoring rubrics for internship portfolios  
·        
Other assessment reports:  graduate surveys and data from Spring 2002, follow-up surveys from 1st and 2nd year school administrators, On-Site internship supervisor evaluations of candidates, and employer surveys.

The Educational Administration Assessment Committee aggregates these data and includes it in the yearly assessment report.  These data are shared every fall semester with appropriate committees, and with the University.  Program improvements are frequently an outgrowth of discussion of the annual report by the appropriate committees and groups.

Documentation:

Educational Administration and Unit Assessment Subsystem Flowcharts  
On-Site Internship Supervisor Evaluation Forms
Admission and Licensure Standards
College of Education Annual Assessment Reports  
Internship Portfolio Handbook  
College of Education Minutes  
Graduate & Employee Surveys and data  
Success rate on SLLA and SSA licensure examinations  

The educational administration preparation programs are based on the standards developed by ELCC for NCATE and ISSLC that are used by MoSTEP.  Assessment activities/reports are integrated throughout the educational administration program so that candidates are able to see how successful they have been at meeting the performances for each course and monitor their progress in meeting all the educational administration standards.

Some of the assessment activities/reports that directly examine candidate success are:  

·        
Graduate and employer surveys and data  
·        
On-Site Supervisor evaluation data of the internship.  
·        
Internship portfolio evaluations and presentations  
·        
Portfolio reflective statements on dispositions  
·        
Performance based activities in classes  
·        
12/24 hour individual improvement plans  
·        
Pre- and post-internship self-assessment
   

Documentation:

Alignment of NCATE/ELCC and MoSTEP/ILCC standards with course syllabi and student performance activities            
Survey of Graduates
Employer surveys  
On-Site Supervisor Evaluation of Internship  
Performance of graduates on the SLLA and SSA certification exam  
Portfolio presentation results 

Pre
- and post-internship assessment results

The unit conducts thorough studies to establish fairness, accuracy, and consistency of its performance assessment procedures.

Relating the evaluations directly to the educational administration program standards, and using multiple assessment points and multiple assessment devices assure fairness in the evaluation of our candidates.  In addition, if candidates fail to demonstrate proficiency at any assessment point, they receive assistance and additional opportunities to overcome their difficulties.  A matrix of courses and their correspondence to the NCATE/ELCC and MoSTEP/ISLLC standards was developed by faculty in order to address the developmental nature of performances and how best to document this in a program for all candidates. Rubrics were developed by the faculty in order to support candidates in the assessment of the progress made at 12 and 24 hour stages in their course work on the indicators for the standards: knowledge, dispositions, and performance.  The educational administration faculty uses multiple assessment devices in their evaluation of candidate progress and candidates receive both formative and summative evaluation throughout the program.

Documentation:

Matrix of courses and standards 
Matrix of performance indicators and courses
 
Admission and licensure standards 
12/24 hour improvement plans 
Student performance activities in individual courses
 

The Unit also makes changes in its practices consistent with the results of these studies.

The yearly educational administration program assessment report and recommendations from the educational administration program assessment committee are shared with the Department, College of Education Assessment Committee, College Council and to the community and the University.  The shared information elicits discussions of the programs with all constituents regarding the direction of the educational administration program and its effectiveness in graduating effective school administrators.  The integration of disposition assessments and reflective statements in the school administrator assessment process is an example of a change made as a direct result of analysis of multiple assessments.

Feedback loops demonstrate how the information from the assessment committees are dealt with in the appropriate committees for action.  It is primarily the responsibility of the faculty in the school administration program to initiate change and document how educational administration assessment committee recommendations are incorporated into the program.   The educational administration assessment committee oversees changes to ensure they are consistent with the Conceptual Framework and Program Standards.  In addition, now that the educational administration program has a clear outline of which performances are taught in which courses, if the candidates are having difficulty with a specific topic, the educational administration faculty will be able to make adjustments to courses to better train the candidates.

The educational administration assessment report includes the following program improvement components:  

  • Southeast Missouri State University statistics on the achievement of our candidates on state licensure exams, SLLA and SSA
  • Activity Reports from all committees
  • Qualitative and quantitative data from portfolio evaluations and presentations
  • Data regarding candidate achievement of standards indicators: 12/24 hour improvement plans
  • Other Assessment reports:  Graduate and employer surveys (follow-up surveys)
  • On-Site supervisor internship evaluations of candidates
  • Pre/post internship self-assessment by candidates  

Documentation:

Unit Assessment Subsystem Area Flowcharts 
College of Education Annual Assessment Reports and Self-Study Report 
Change and data reports from educational administration committees 
Data information 
Minutes of department and committee meetings 
Internship portfolio rubrics 
Graduate paper rubrics 
Graduate and employer surveys

Unit Data Collection, Analysis and Evaluation

The unit is implementing its assessment system and providing regular and comprehensive data on program quality, unit operations, and candidate performance at each stage of a program, including the first years of practices.

Documentation:

1st Year Follow-up Surveys of candidates 
Unit Assessment Subsystem Area Flowcharts 
College of Education Annual Assessment Reports 
Minutes of department and committee meetings 
Graduate paper assessment rubrics 
Employer/graduate surveys 
Internship portfolios rubrics 
 
12/24 hour improvement plans

Data from candidates, graduates, faculty, and other members of the professional community are based on multiple assessments from both internal and external sources.

Multiple Assessment Points – Candidates receive both formative and summative evaluation throughout the program. Educational faculty uses multiple assessment devices in their evaluation of candidate progress.  Faculty may use their own assessments.  Instructors list learning objectives and assessments from their syllabi as well as information regarding the use of national standards in their courses.

Throughout the program, formative assessments are when candidates receive feedback regarding the attainment of program standards via the course performance activities, grades, portfolios, and test scores. For example, after the first 12 hours of program, candidates receive information from faculty through an improvement plan.  This plan is again reviewed and revised when 24 hours are completed.  Summative assessments include the graduate paper in the Master’s program, and internship portfolio presentations for both the Master’s and Specialist degree culminating activity. An additional summative assessment at the Master’s degree is the School Leadership Licensure Assessment (SLLA). The summative assessment for the Specialist degree is the School Superintendent Assessment (SSA).

Various remediation options are available to candidates who experience difficulty.  For example, they may take or retake courses to hone their skills.  They may receive support through university resources such as the Learning Enrichment Center (i.e., tutoring), the Writing Center, the Counseling Center, and/or the Career Development and Placement Center.

Documentation:

Matrix of courses and standards (MoSTEP/ISLLC; NCATE/ELLC)
Admission and Licensure standards  
Educational Administration and Unit Assessment Subsystem Area Flow charts
for program and candidate assessment 
Department Minutes  
Assessment Committee Minutes

Summative evaluation occurs with each class and at specific decision points:

  1. Prior to admission to the Graduate School
  2. Prior to admission to the school administration program
  3. Exit assessment at the completion of internship and completion of licensure requirements.

Documentation:

Matrix of courses and standards
Performance Indicator Matrix

Admission and licensure standards
Unit Assessment Subsystem Flowcharts for program and candidate assessment

The unit maintains a record of formal candidate complaints and documentation of their resolution.

The unit has a process for formal complaints by candidates. This process has three levels within the College of Education.  The Unit’s process is:

  1. Contact the faculty member – If not resolved:
  2. Contact the Department Chair – If not resolved:
  3. Contact the Dean (If not resolved, the next level is beyond the College of Education).

The Dean and the Department Chairs are responsible for maintaining records of both formal complaints and the resolutions within their respective offices.

Documentation:

            Records of formal candidate complaints (in Dean’s office and/or Chairs’ offices)

Data are regularly and systematically collected, compiled, summarized, analyzed, and reported publicly for the purpose of improving candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations.

The Educational Administration and Counseling Department has an assessment committee for the educational administration program and for the counseling program.  The Department assessment committees gather data at the departmental level, and the committees develop an assessment report of program strengths and weaknesses.  This report is presented to the Department as a whole.  After consideration and approval by the Department, decisions are made concerning program changes that are necessary for improvement.

After approval by the Department, the assessment report and recommendations for program changes are presented to the College Council.  The Assessment Report is also sent to the Vice Provost for information purposes.  Specific program changes are developed and approved within the Department.  Following Department approval, programmatic changes are presented to College Council for their review and approval.  Changes in programming within the graduate programs are also sent to the Graduate School for review and approval, with supporting data.

Following approval by the appropriate Councils, the Department is responsible for implementing the changes.  If such changes have an impact on the data utilized in the assessment process, modifications are made to the assessment plan.

The collection of data and program analysis takes place at least on an annual basis.  The information is also reported annually to the College Assessment Committee and College Council in order for all departments to be knowledgeable regarding assessment and program changes on a College wide basis.  The assessment report is also sent to the office of the Vice Provost for informational purposes.

Documentation:

Feedback Schema for Unit Assessment Program
Department minutes 
Department Assessment Committee Minutes
 
College Council Minutes
 
Assessment Report sent to Vice Provost

The unit is developing and testing different information technologies to improve its assessment system.

The Unit looks to the Institutional Research staff to assist us in using different information technologies to aggregate and disaggregate data to be analyzed in evaluating candidate progress and program improvement.  The Center Scholarship Teaching & Learning provides faculty with training to use Gradebook and Excel to compile, summarize, and analyze data.

Documentation:

Faculty web pages with Grade Book 
Annual Assessment Reports 
Inter-rater reliability data on portfolio reviews
 
Copies of web-enabled database and computerized advising system
 

Use of Data for Program Improvement

The unit has fully developed evaluations and continuously searches for stronger relationships in the evaluations, revising both the underlying data systems and analytic techniques as necessary.

The Unit is continuously working with Institutional Research to assist in aggregating data.  The College of Education has developed an assessment plan.  However, as program changes are implemented the Assessment Committee may need to modify the assessment plan.

Documentation:

            Feedback Schema for Unit Assessment Program

The unit not only makes changes when evaluations indicate, but also systematically studies the effects of any changes to assure that the intended program strengthening occurs and that there are no adverse consequences.

The Educational Administration and Counseling Department has an assessment committee for educational administration and an assessment committee for counseling.  These committees are responsible for continuous monitoring of program changes.  If the program changes are not producing the positive results, the assessment committees are responsible for determining other options.

Documentation:

            Feedback Schema for Unit Assessment Program

Candidates and faculty review performance data on their performance regularly and develop plans for improvement.

The Mission Statement says that the College of Education faculty is committed to providing the human and technological resources to enable candidates and themselves to develop as education professionals in constructing knowledge, developing practice, and fostering relationships. 

The reflections of faculty in their Records of Service provides evidence that faculty regularly review data on their performance.  This data used by each faculty member to self-assess.  For example, faculty reflections are the result of reviewing a variety of assessment forms (i.e., peer reviews, Record of Services, Annual Merit Report, Annual Improvement Plan, & IDEA – Student Ratings of Instructions).

In order of most frequent use, the following methods are used:  

·         IDEA- Student Ratings of Instruction  
·        
Peer evaluations by other Southeast faculty  
·         Merit Report Evaluations

Candidate reflection and self-improvement plan are built into the educational administrator preparation program.  Reflection on practice is an integral part of coursework and internship experiences in the programs.  This reflection takes many shapes from individual reflection on a candidate’s work in a journal or reflection after internship experience. Candidates are also required to use analysis of their behaviors to develop improvement plans, which support the consistency between their approach and the standards.

In educational administration, the portfolio process requires candidates to reflect on each standard and discuss their progress with educational administration faculty. As students progress through the program, the candidate must complete a plan for improvement every 12 hours of the program.  The candidates reflect on their attainment of the educational administration standards and create goals for themselves for the next 12 hours of the program.  Subsequent portfolio entries must demonstrate how those goals were met. The 12/24 hour improvement plans are included in the culminating internship portfolio.

Documentation:          

Records of service
IDEA Student Evaluations 
Peer evaluations 

12/24 Hour Improvement Plans

Figure 5:  Evaluation of Admission Requirements to the Educational Administration Program

 Figure 6:  Evaluation of Program Requirements for Educational Administration


School Counselor Program

The Unit, with the involvement of its professional community, is implementing an assessment system that reflects the conceptual framework(s) and incorporates candidate proficiencies outlined in professional and state standards.

The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) drew heavily from the CACREP Standards as a model for designing the Missouri Counselor Educators sections (MoCoEd) the Missouri Standards for Teacher Education Programs (MoSTEP).  Thus, Missouri designed and promulgated a series of developmental and content standards related to specific certifications.  In response to this initiative, the College of Education at Southeast enhanced the School Counseling program around those principles and standards.  The Unit’s Conceptual Framework and program standards that grew out of the response to Missouri’s initiatives reflect and support Southeast Missouri State University College of Education’s mission, faculty, and candidate population.

As a result, ten pervasive program standards with three underlying themes were adopted together with a comprehensive listing of candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions for each standard.  Once the standards were finalized, the faculty in the Counseling Program assigned from the comprehensive list a developmentally appropriate set of key knowledge and performances to each existing or new course.  The objectives in course syllabi were revised to include key knowledge and performances introduced or developed and assessed in each course.

The Unit defines dispositions as the ‘habits of mind, including beliefs, attitudes and values, that underlies one’s practices, behaviors and relations.’   The School Counseling Program views empathetic understanding, unconditional acceptance of self and others, flexibility and tolerance for ambiguity, congruent and integrated capacity and openness for growth as the dispositions of a caring, reflective, competent professional counselor.  The process for evaluation of candidate dispositions is:  

·         Assess students for these dispositions during the admissions process and during the Professional Orientation Course.  
·        
Examine internship portfolios for inclusion of evidence of the dispositions.  
·        
Require students to write a reflective statement on each disposition during the counseling practicum and internship.  
·        
Develop a rubric on the dispositions to be used as a formative evaluation for the development of the candidate’s improvement plan.

Portfolios are one of the College of Education’s main sources of assessment information on programs and candidates.  Since Fall 2001, the School Counseling Program implemented the portfolio review process.  The results are reviewed by the faculty of each department, reported to the entire Unit in the annual Assessment Report, and used to make program changes consistent with the Mission Statement that is the cornerstone of the Conceptual Framework.

In addition, portfolios are used to monitor the admission, retention, and certification of candidates in the school counseling program based on evidence they provide of meeting the ten program standards outlined in the Conceptual Framework.  Candidate progress in the performances is monitored by portfolio entries reflecting course activities such as practicum and internship experience reports, reflective statements and supervision feedback.

Other methods of ensuring that the assessment system reflects the conceptual framework are:  

·         Faculty outline the indicators for each standard addressed in courses they teach.  The program faculty, department and college approve each syllabus.  
·        
On-Site Supervisors provide feedback to university faculty regarding candidate progress on the standards during the practicum and internship.

Documentation:

Alignment of Unit standards with MoSTEP standards 
Process for Evaluation of Candidate Dispositions
 
Portfolio Guidelines 
On-Site Supervisor Evaluation Forms
 
Course Assessment Instruments
 
Conceptual Framework Document
 
Standards Matrix with courses
 
Performance Indicator Matrix
 
Practicum and Internship Handbook   
Syllabi

The Unit continuously examines the validity and utility of the data produced through assessments and takes modifications to keep abreast of changes in assessment technology and in professional standards.

The Unit examines our data methodically and regularly.  As part of the Unit Assessment System, flowcharts and feedback loops show how we use the data within our program.  A timeline for the Unit Assessment System outlines when various aspects of the system are activated and who is responsible for the action.

Each committee in the unit submits a yearly change report to the Assessment Committee in order to outline the changes that occurred the previous year by and through the committee.  These reports enable the Assessment Committee to track the changes made and to document the impact on the program/unit.  All committees also submit activity reports that outline the aspects of committee work that do not require change in the Unit.  A yearly College of Education Assessment Report, collected and organized by the Assessment Committee, aggregates all forms of assessment from the Unit.  As a part of this process, the Assessment Committee evaluates yearly and long-term trends that are in turn reported to the Curriculum Committee, the Advisory Board, and College of Education committees as appropriate.

By observing the following guidelines, the Unit has maximized the reliability of our data collection procedures:  

·         The Unit has designed the instruments and instructions to be unambiguous.  They are pilot tested and continually refined to eliminate ambiguity.  
·        
The Unit has standardized the data collection process so that all candidates are responding to the same knowledge, performances, and dispositions based on program standards.

The Unit continuously examines the validity and utility of the data produced through assessments.  The following information supports the validity and utility of our data collection processes:  

·         The data that the Unit uses to evaluate our candidates and our programs are tied directly to the College of Education School Counselor Standards.  
·        
Course Assessment Instruments describe the assessments used in each class, and the relationship of these assessments to the School Counselor Standards.  This information shows the correspondence of our assessments to the Conceptual Framework.  
·        
Data are collected regarding all the standards embraced by our curriculum.  This assures a high level of content validity.  
·        
Because the standards are closely integrated with our Conceptual Framework, the data are likely to have a high degree of construct validity.  Thus, success on these evaluations indicates a high level of proficiency with regard to our curriculum goals.

Documentation:

Unit Assessment Area Subsystem Flowcharts 
College of Education Annual Assessment Reports 
Performance Indicator Matrix 
Matrix of courses and counselor standards 
Course Assessment Instruments 
College of Education Survey of Graduates 

 
Assessment Committee(s) Minutes  

Decisions about candidate performance are based on multiple assessments made at multiple points before program completion.

Candidates receive both formative and summative evaluation throughout the program.  While enrolled in early field experience and methods courses, they receive information from on-site supervisors and instructors regarding their progress in achieving program standards.  Summative evaluation occurs with each class and at specific decision points.  

·         Prior to admission to the Graduate School.  
·        
Prior to admission to the Counseling Program.  
·        
Prior to admission to practicum and internship, and  
·        
Exit assessment at the completion of program and certification requirements.

Throughout the program, candidates receive feedback regarding the attainment of program standards through course activities and grades, portfolios, test scores, and correspondence from the Unit.  For example, after each core counseling candidates receive information from faculty through an improvement plan.  Candidates also go through a review process prior to beginning their practicum and internship.  Exit points include graduate papers, dispositions and National Comprehensive Exams and the Counseling Praxis Exam.

Various remediation options are available to candidates who experience difficulty.  For example, they may take or retake courses to hone their skills.  They may receive support through university resources such as the Learning Enrichment Center (i.e., tutoring), the Writing Center, Academic Advising, the Counseling Center, and/or the Career Development and Placement Center. 

Unit faculty use multiple assessment devices in their evaluation of candidate progress.  Faculty may use their own assessments.  Instructors list learning objectives and assessments from their syllabi as well as information regarding the use of national standards in their courses.

Documentation:

Matrix of courses and standards  
Performance Indicator Matrix  
Admission, Retention, and Licensure standards  
Unit Assessment Subsystem Area Flow charts from program and candidate
assessment  
Department Minutes  
Assessment Committee Minutes            

Data show the strong relationship of performance assessments to candidate success.

The annual College of Education Assessment Report contains information gathered from many different sources in addition to the database:  

·         Southeast Missouri State University statistics on the achievement of our candidates on state certification exams and completion of the program portfolio,  
·        
Change and activity reports from each of the College of Education committees based on the Unit Assessment Subsystem Flow charts that outline the responsibility of each committee (beginning with the 2001-2002 academic year).  
·        
Qualitative and quantitative data from the portfolio interviews and exit questionnaire are given to the candidates.  At all stages of portfolio review, candidates are asked to respond to what they view as the program strengths and weaknesses.  At the exit interview, candidates are also given a questionnaire that focuses on the program standards.  They are asked to rate the program based on the standards.
·        
Database information regarding candidate achievement of standard indicators.  
·        
Other assessment reports:  graduate surveys and data, university supervisor and on-site supervisor evaluations of candidates, and employer surveys.

The Counseling Assessment Committee aggregates these data and includes it in the yearly assessment report.  These data are shared every fall semester with appropriate committees, and with the university.  Program improvements are frequently an outgrowth of discussion of the annual report by the appropriate committees and groups.

Documentation:

Unit Assessment Subsystem Flowcharts 
On-Site Supervisor Evaluation Forms  
Admission, Retention & Licensure Standards  
College of Education Annual Assessment Reports  
Change Reports  
Activity Reports  
Portfolio Handbook  
College of Education Minutes  
Graduate & Employee Surveys and data  
University supervisor and On-Site supervisor evaluation data of candidates  
Graduate or Internship Handbook
   

Some of the assessment activities/reports that directly examine candidate
success are:  

·         Graduate and employer surveys and data  
·        
University Supervisor evaluation data of candidates  
·        
On-site supervisor evaluation data of candidates  
·        
Program evaluations from completers of the Counseling Program  
·        
Portfolio interviews

Documentation:

Alignment of NCATE standards with MoSTEP, specialty groups, and courses 
Database information  
Survey of Graduates  
Employer surveys  
University Supervisor and On-Site Supervisor Evaluation Data of Candidates  
Evaluations from completers of the Program  
Portfolio interview results

The unit conducts thorough studies to establish fairness, accuracy, and consistency of its performance assessment procedures.

Relating the evaluations directly to the Unit’s standards, and using multiple assessment points and multiple assessment devices assures fairness in the evaluation of our candidates.  In addition, if candidates fail to demonstrate proficiency at any assessment point, they receive assistance and additional opportunities to overcome their difficulties.  A matrix of courses and their correspondence to the School Counselor Standards (MoSTEP standards) was developed by faculty in order to address the developmental nature of performances and how best to document this in a program for all candidates.

Rubrics were developed by the faculty in order to be able to report candidate progress in their course on the indicator for the standards.  The Unit faculty uses multiple assessment devices in their evaluation of candidate progress and candidates receive both formative and summative evaluation throughout the program.

Documentation:

Matrix of courses and standards
Matrix of performance indicators and courses
 
Admission, retention, Certification, and Licensure standards
     

The Unit also makes changes in its practices consistent with the results of these studies.

The yearly Assessment Report and recommendations from the Assessment Committee are shared with the College Council and the College of Education, the community and the University.  The shared information elicits discussions of our programs with all constituents regarding the direction of the Unit and its effectiveness in graduating effective teachers.   

Feedback loops demonstrate how the information from the Assessment Committee is dealt with in the appropriate committees for action.  It is primarily the responsibility of the School Counseling Program to initiate change and document how Assessment Committee recommendations are incorporated into the program.  The Assessment Committee oversees changes to ensure they are consistent with the Conceptual Framework.  In addition, now that our program has a clear outline of how performances are taught and in which courses, if our candidates are having difficulty with a specific topic, the Department will be able to make adjustments to courses to better train the candidates.

The Assessment Report includes the following program improvement components:  

  • Southeast Missouri State University statistics on the achievement of our candidates on state licensure exams, current programs, and completion of the program portfolio.
  • Qualitative and quantitative data from portfolio interviews and candidate exit questionnaire.
  • Other Assessment reports:  Graduate and employer surveys (follow-up surveys), University supervisor and On-Site supervisor evaluations of candidates.

Documentation:

Unit Assessment Subsystem Area Flowcharts 
College of Education Annual Assessment Reports and Self-Study Report 
Data reports from committees 
Data information 
Minutes of department and committee meetings  

Unit Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

The unit is implementing its assessment system and providing regular and comprehensive data on program quality, unit operations, and candidate performance at each stage of a program, including the first years of practices.

The Counseling Program obtains follow up surveys from counseling gradates.

Documentation:

            Follow-up Surveys of candidates

Data from candidates, graduates, faculty, and other members of the professional community are based on multiple assessments from both internal and external sources.

Multiple Assessment Points – Candidates receive both formative and summative evaluation throughout the program.  Summative evaluation occurs after each core-counseling course CP 610, 612, 614, 616, 680 and internship.  Candidates also receive feedback regarding their attainment of program standards via, course activities and grades, portfolio reviews, test scores, and correspondence from the faculty.

Multiple Assessment Devices – Unit faculty use multiple assessment devices in their evaluation of candidate progress.  The faculty may use their own assessments.  Instructors list learning objectives and assessments from their syllabi as well as information regarding the use of national standards in their courses.

Documentation:

Matrix of courses and standards 
Performance Indicator Matrix
 
Admission, retention, and certification standards
 
Information on Basic Skill Support
 
Due Process procedures for candidates
 
Unit Assessment Subsystem Flowcharts for program and candidate assessment

The unit maintains a record of formal candidate complaints and documentation of their resolution.

The unit has a process for formal complaints by candidates. This process has three levels within the College of Education.  The Unit’s process is:

  1. Contact the faculty member – If not resolved:
  2. Contact the Department Chair – If not resolved:
  3. Contact the Dean (If not resolved, the next level is beyond the College of Education).

The Dean and the Department Chairs are responsible for maintaining records of both formal complaints and the resolutions within their respective offices.

Documentation:

            Records of formal candidate complaints (in Dean’s office and/or Chairs’offices)

Data are regularly and systematically collected, compiled, summarized, analyzed, and reported publicly for the purpose of improving candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations.

The program assessment committee gathers data at the program level, and the committee develops an assessment report of program strengths and weaknesses.  This report is presented to the department as a whole.  After consideration, decisions are made concerning program changes that are necessary for improvement.

After approval by the department, the assessment report and recommendations for program changes are presented to the College Council.  The Assessment Report is also sent to the Vice Provost for information purposes.  Specific program changes are developed and approved within the department.  Following department approval, programmatic changes are presented to College Council for their review and approval.  Changes in programming within the graduate programs are also sent to the Graduate Council for review and approval, with supporting data.

Following approval by the appropriate councils, the department is responsible for implementing the changes.  If such changes have an impact on the data utilized in the assessment process, modifications are made to the assessment plan.

The collection of data and program analysis takes place at least on an annual basis.  The information is also reported annually to the College Council in order for all departments to be knowledgeable regarding assessment and program changes on a College wide basis.  The assessment report is also sent to the office of the Vice Provost for informational purposes.

Documentation:

Feedback Schema for Unit Assessment Program 
Department minutes
 
Department Assessment Committee Minutes
 
College Council Minutes
 
Assessment Report sent to Vice Provost
 

The unit is developing and testing different information technologies to improve its assessment system.

The Counseling Program looks to the Institutional Research staff to assist us in using different information technologies to aggregate and disaggregate data to be analyzed in evaluating candidate progress and program improvement.  The Center for Scholarship Teaching & Learning provides faculty with training to use Gradebook and Excel to compile, summarize, and analyze data.  Further the university has developed a software system for faculty use to effectively work with student data.

Documentation:

Faculty web pages with Grade Book  
Annual Assessment Reports

Use of Data for Program Improvement

The unit has fully developed evaluations and continuously searches for stronger relationships in the evaluations, revising both the underlying data systems and analytic techniques as necessary.

The Unit is continuously working with Institutional Research to assist in aggregating data.  The College of Education has developed an assessment plan.  However, as program changes are implemented the Assessment Committee may need to modify the assessment plan.

Documentation:

            Feedback Schema for Unit Assessment Program

The unit not only makes changes when evaluations indicate, but also systematically studies the effects of any changes to assure that the intended program strengthening occurs and that there are no adverse consequences.

Each department in the Teacher Education Program has an Assessment Committee.  This committee is responsible for continuous monitoring of program changes.  If the program changes are not producing the positive results, they are responsible for determining other options.

Documentation:

            Feedback Schema for Unit Assessment Program

Candidates and faculty review performance data on their performance regularly and develop plans for improvement.

The Mission Statement says that the College of Education faculty is committed to providing the human and technological resources to enable candidates and themselves to develop as education professionals in constructing knowledge, developing practice, and fostering relationships. 

The reflections of faculty in their Records of Service provides evidence that faculty regularly review data on their performance.  This data used by each faculty member to self-assess and to develop improvement plans.  For example, faculty reflections and improvement plans are developed using a variety of assessment forms (i.e., peer reviews, Record of Services, Annual Merit Report, Annual Improvement Plan, & IDEA – Student Ratings of Instructions) as well as feedback from students and peers.  The data from these assessments will be used to improve practices within each faculty member’s discipline.

In order of most frequent use, the following methods are used:  

·         IDEA - Student Ratings of Instruction  
·         Written feedback from students  
·        
Peer evaluations by other Southeast faculty  
·        
Merit Report Evaluations

Candidate reflection and self-improvement plan are built into the Teacher Education Program.  Reflection on practice is an integral part of coursework and field experiences in the programs.  This reflection takes many shapes.  From individual reflection on a candidate’s work in a journal or reflection assignment after teaching a lesson to evaluation of a videotaped lesson with a faculty member, students are encouraged to reflect on their work and make modifications to their teaching.  Candidates are also required to use analysis of their teaching behaviors to support the consistency between their pedagogical approach and the teaching standards.  They must also use student achievement data to support the success of their approach in producing quality student learning.  The Teacher Work Sample is used by students to critically examine his/her own practice and adjust instruction accordingly; to reflect on and analyze lesson effectiveness in order to make subsequent changes in instruction, to adjust and revise lesson plans based on student needs and changing circumstances, and to make decisions-in-action in the classrooms.

The portfolio process requires candidates to reflect on each standard and discuss their progress with Unit faculty.  As part of the portfolio process, the candidate must complete a plan for improvement known as the Plan for Implementation and Improvement of Standards every semester.  The candidates reflect on their attainment of the teacher education standards and create goals for themselves for the upcoming semester.  Subsequent portfolio entries must demonstrate how those goals are being met.

Documentation:

Faculty Improvement Policy 
Faculty Evaluation System  

Figure 7: Evaluation of Admission Requirements to the Counseling Program

 

Figure 8:  Evaluation of Program Requirements for School Counseling

Figure 9:  Feedback Schema for Unit Assessment Program

Standard 3 – Field Experiences and Clinical Practice  

Collaboration between Unit and School Partners

Field experiences represent the heart of Southeast Missouri State University’s certification programs in education at the undergraduate and graduate levels.  Through carefully structured placements, teacher candidates, administrators, and other education professionals apply theoretical constructs and research-based practices in authentic settings.  Performance tasks completed in clinical settings promote reflective thinking about these practices.

University faculty members in collaboration with experienced professionals in the field design, implement, and evaluate experiences to prepare candidates for their roles in schools as reflective decision-makers.  Professional educators serving as field partners are certified experienced practitioners.  Many have won awards for their teaching.

Professional Development for Supervisors

School-based faculty members, referred to as cooperating teachers, were selected to supervise teacher candidates because of their demonstrated expertise and ability to guide and assess the progress of teacher candidates.  While most of our cooperating teachers meet NCATE standards for experience and advanced training, there are notable exceptions.  In some cases, we have selected teachers who are newer to the field and who are still completing advanced work because they have proven to be excellent models and mentors.  We have found that teachers who are graduates of initial programs, are enrolled in graduate programs, and/or have served as interns in partner schools provide a strong link to program requirements.  New cooperating teachers participate in orientation programs at the beginning of each semester to prepare for their roles.  School and district-based administrators (principals and superintendents) who work with the administrator certification program, referred to as site supervisors, are selected by aspiring administrators because of their expertise and ability to guide and mentor candidates in year-long, field-based experiences.

Student teacher supervisors are hired as part-time temporary faculty. They are carefully screened for appropriate qualifications in terms of academic background and teaching experience.  These supervisors participate in the faculty orientation program and meetings during the year. Agendas, correspondence and summary reports of meetings, as well as resumes, are filed in the Field Experiences Office.

Responsibilities of both university supervisors and school-based cooperative teachers are outlined in the Student Teaching Handbook for Cooperating Teachers and Administrators (Revised Spring 2001).  Student teachers evaluate the Block IV field experience each semester. A component of the evaluation form is used to determine the effectiveness of the field and site supervisors.

Evaluations are analyzed and summaries provided annually to supervisors.  Evaluation data are filed in the Field Experiences Office.

The Office of Field Experiences provides two Beginning Teachers workshops annually for first year teachers to help them meet the 30 hours of required in-service training. STARR teachers, public school administrators, and university faculty participate in Missouri’s Beginning Teachers’ Assistance program to guide and assess the work of first-year teachers.

The Field Experiences Office maintains a database that charts the credentials of all cooperating teachers who work with the teacher education program.  This database is available in the Field Experiences Office.

Responsibilities of both university and site supervisors involved in administrator certification programs are outlined in Principal and Superintendent Internship syllabi which are available on the college’s website.  Responsibilities of both university and site supervisors involved in school counselor certification programs are outlined in the School Counseling Practicum and Internship syllabi which are available on the college’s website. 

Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

Each certification area in the teacher education program is governed by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CARTEP), which is comprised of classroom teachers, school administrators, and university faculty representing three key areas:  the program, the college, and the campus units (e.g., the College of Arts and Sciences).  This structure ensures that the conceptual framework is woven into every aspect of the program.  The structure also ensures broad-based involvement in policy decisions about admissions, curriculum, field placements, and eligibility for certification.  Administrator certification programs have input from administrators within the region as faculty from the Department of Educational Administration and Counseling attend monthly meetings with administrators.

The Office of the Dean maintains lists of program faculty members.  These lists are available on the college’s website.  A complete listing of all field experience requirements can be found at http://www4.semo.edu/education/cert/.

Site Selection and Placement Procedure

Another measure of quality assurance is the clinical site network that has been developed under the auspices of the program faculties.  As explained in the field experience placement policy, sites are selected by the program faculty using specific criteria.  Consideration is given to issues such as the fit between program goals and school goals, state certification regulations, and national accreditation requirements.  Consideration is also given to demographic issues to ensure that candidates have opportunities to work in diverse environments.  Program faculty members survey prospective sites to learn about their practices, experience, and credentials.  They also conduct site visits to become acquainted with personnel and gather information about the school climate and teacher effectiveness.

Within the program faculty structure, course instructors work with school-based partners to arrange and monitor placements for specific courses.  Placement coordinators make a concerted effort to diversify placements within courses and across the program to provide experiences in different locations (e.g., urban, suburban, and rural schools), with different groups (e.g., ethnic, gender), and with various methods of instruction.  All candidates complete at least one placement working with candidates who have special needs.

Four sites (Charleston, Middle School; Cape Girardeau, Elementary; Sikeston, Early Childhood; and Jackson, Special Education) have been designated as professional development schools (PDSs).  These schools serve as incubators for research and development. 

Placements are concentrated primarily in the southeast Missouri and southern Illinois regions.  In some cases, student teaching placements are arranged in Wales as part of the international student teaching program, Swansea Teaching Exchange Program (StepOut).  As a way to ensure quality, candidates interested in this program undergo special screening and complete eight seminars that focus on cross-cultural issues (i.e., EL454 Student Teaching Experience II).  These students are supervised by faculty from Southeast Missouri State University and the teachers in the participating schools in Swansea, Wales. 

Site selection and placement activities for aspiring school administrators are collaborative in nature.  All aspiring administrators collaborate with school administrators in identifying exemplary administrators with whom to work.  Students, faculty, and site supervisors approve the practicum site and proposal.

Nature of Field Experiences

For candidates in the initial teacher preparation program, field experiences are integrated in Blocks (I, II, III, & IV), forming a seamless continuum in order to provide gradual and systematic professional induction.  During early field experiences, candidates observe and assist teachers in various ways.  During the later blocks, they plan, implement, and evaluate a range of lessons over time.  The first three blocks are completed prior to student teaching and exceed 150 clock hours.

Student teachers complete a full semester placement in two diverse settings.  This culminating field experience allows them to demonstrate how they apply principles of teaching and research-based methods to meet certification requirements.   Student teachers are required to assume full responsibility for teaching for a minimum of ten days during the semester; however, many exceed this minimum.  They are also required to attend regularly scheduled, after-school seminars to hone their expertise, discuss issues, and reflect about various aspects of their experiences.  Cooperating teachers from the clinical network frequently lead and/or participate in these seminars that are organized by university supervisors.

Advanced teacher education programs, designed to deepen practicing teachers’ expertise, are tailored to meet the goals of each specific course in the graduate program.  Experiences are wide ranging and include classroom observations and conferences with teachers to analyze practice, instructional activities to experiment and reflect about different methodologies, and action research to address specific classroom dilemmas.

In advanced programs, school counselors complete practica and internships in schools and other educational agencies and in health care facilities.  Year-long internships for school principals and superintendents allow candidates to participate in strategic events throughout an administrator’s annual work cycle.   Both practicum and internship activities involve required assignments as well as individual field-based action plans.  Practicum and internship assignments are MoSTEP standards-based and are included in a portfolio that provides a base for continuous student assessment, advisement, and culminating evaluation.  Field experience requirements are described in course syllabi and on the college’s website (http://www4.semo.edu/education).

Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions to Help All Students Learn

The continuous assessment process for initial and advanced programs provides candidates with many opportunities to demonstrate how they are developing and refining their knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help all students learn.  Assessment is monitored by the program faculty using portfolios and the Teacher Work Sample as evidence of reflection and growth.  Graduate students present portfolios of their work to teams of faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for completing masters and specialist degrees in education.  As candidates progress through their respective programs, they are required to demonstrate progress on various dimensions to meet the standards set by professional organizations including MoSTEP and NCATE. 

Early in the program, candidates submit journals showing their analysis of observations and teaching/learning issues.  Later on, they submit lesson plan reflections and Teacher Work Sample that include analysis of student work as evidence of growth.  They also create exhibits of their work with and for their students, peers, and supervisors.  Most importantly, they build portfolios documenting how they have addressed MoSTEP standards.  At the end of the program, candidates present their portfolios for a final review.  Although assessments are varied, certain core issues receive special emphasis such as content, reflection, diversity, and technology.

Assessment not only takes many forms, it involves all participants as assessors.  Candidates critique their own and each other’s work.  University and school-based supervisors conduct formative evaluations through various means during field placements (e.g., conducting observations to assess progress and holding conferences to promote reflection).  Supervisors also conduct summative evaluations and submit the evaluations to course instructors for review.  Program faculties review evaluations and determine actions needed to address any issues that arise.  Instructors describe these and other assessments in course syllabi.

Standard 4 – Diversity

The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and experiences for candidates to acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. These experiences include working with diverse higher education and school faculty, diverse candidates, and diverse students in P-12 schools.

The College of Education is committed to providing initial and advanced candidates with educational experiences that prepare them to work effectively in a culturally diverse society and global community. The College of Education works collaboratively with national, state, and local education agencies; state and local governments; community groups; and professional organizations to respond to these educational needs. To this end, the College of Education recognizes the increasing diversity of the population of learners throughout classrooms in the U.S. and Missouri, and as such, the concomitant need for program candidates, faculty, field experiences, and curricula to reflect this diversity. Its goal in designing undergraduate and graduate education programs is to provide candidates with broad and comprehensive experiences and opportunities to develop the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors necessary to meet the needs of all students.  Through continuous assessment, the unit responds programmatically to the changing needs of its students, Missouri, and the nation.

In the College of Education, diversity is an inclusive concept that refers to administrators, university and school faculty, support staff, K-12 schools, curricula, and candidate experiences. Diversity encompasses ethnic and national origin; socioeconomic difference; gender and gender orientation; religion; exceptionality and perspectives unique to Missouri. The unit designs and implements curricula and experiences for candidates to gain and demonstrate dispositions, knowledge, and skills that facilitate learning for all students. The unit maintains and supports a diverse faculty, recruits and retains diverse candidates, and provides experiences for candidates to interact with diverse students in P-12 schools.

Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences

Initial and advanced programs are designed, implemented, and evaluated to provide candidates with a substantive degree of knowledge, dispositions, and skills needed by candidates to meet the needs of diverse learners.  Specific attributes in all courses and program components within the elementary, middle, and secondary school initial certification programs and advanced programs illustrate this commitment to diversity through the study of the histories, experiences, and cultural perspectives of people from diverse groups.

All courses in the Department of Elementary, Early, and Special Education have at least one component that provides candidates with a substantive degree of knowledge, skills, and dispositions about working with diverse students. The department also has two program components that focus specifically on both cultural diversity and exceptionalities: TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) and Comparative and International Education concentrations provide students with an in-depth perspective of education in other societies and with non-native speakers of English. EF200 School and Society and EL274 Diversity in America's Schools provide students with the socio-political aspects of educating for diversity. EL454 International Student Teaching gives students a practicum experience in another culture, whether in Swansea, Wales, at an Indian reservation school in the U.S., or at a teaching site supervised by a Renaissance Partner institution. All international student teaching and study abroad programs are closely linked to the College's educational mission, must meet specified curricular goals of the program, and for certain study abroad programs, meet requirements for state certification.

All initial candidates take EX390 Psychology and Teaching of the Exceptional Child, where they are required to design lesson plans and instructional units that address diverse learners. Attention to diversity is also evidenced in initial certification programs in physical and health education.

Advanced candidates are further exposed to educating for diversity through EL640 Teaching in a Multicultural Society, ED667 Language and Literacy Learning in a Multicultural Classroom, EF694 Urban and Rural Education, EF696 Education in American Society, IN510 Introduction to Comparative Education, IN520 Issues in Comparative and International Education, and IN550 International Education Internship. In the school counseling program, students are required to take CP613 Social and Cultural Aspects of Counseling. Further, the concept of diversity and cultural awareness is infused into all of the counseling courses. In the Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) program, advanced candidates develop comprehensive knowledge, skills, and dispositions of working with culturally and linguistically different students throughout all courses in their program.

Technology, an integral part of the program, also plays an important role in providing candidates with knowledge, skills, and dispositions in working with diverse students. From assistive technology to the use of internet to access information and create classroom connections with P-12 schools in diverse cultures, candidates graduate from the program with effective knowledge and use of technology to enhance all students' academic performance.

In addition to the above experiences, an experimental action research program has begun which teams EL274 students with EL640 students to take part in semester-long action research projects in the advanced candidates' classrooms.  The areas of research include: gender, ethnicity, race, class, at-risk, violence, and democratic classroom practices.

Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty

The College of Education is committed to the recruitment and retention of a diverse faculty.  From 1996-2000, the number of minority faculty members in the College of Education has remained stable.  The number of full-time female faculty also remained stable during this period.

The College of Education has also taken a leadership role in recruiting diverse faculty members to the university community.  During the 1996-1999 academic years, 8% of the college’s faculty was minority and 64% female.  In the academic year 2000-2001, the College of Education hired two international faculty members in tenure-track positions.  Diverse faculty members have been actively recruited to meet diversity goals as part of the College’s Strategic Plan.  Total numbers and percentages of full-time faculty in the College of Education from 1996 to 2001 are listed in Table 7.

Table 7:  College of Education Full-Time Faculty

Year    

  Total   

Female 

Percentage

Minority

Percentage

1997

44

30

68%

5

11%

1998

45

26

57%

4

9%

1999

45

26

57%

4

9%

2000

48

35

72%

4

8%

2001

48

35

72%

7

15%

Further indications of this commitment to recruiting and retaining diverse faculty are supported by the following institutional statistics. During the 2001 academic year, the College of Education's 45 tenure-track faculty members totaled 11% of the university's total faculty count of 415; the college's female faculty constituted 13% of the university's total of 160 female faculty; the 4 ranked minority faculty in the college constituted 13% of the university's total of 32 minority faculty; and the college's one African American Dean, two dual faculty constituted 30% of the university's total of 10 African American ranked faculty.

Special attention is focused on the recruitment of minority faculty applicants. The College of Education advertises faculty vacancies through professional organization meetings, advertisements in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Black Issues of Higher Education, mailings to historically black colleges and universities, and listserv announcements. Ensuring a diverse applicant pool is a top priority for each search.

To further enhance the experiences of candidates' work with diverse faculty, the College of Education is committed to providing intercultural scholarly activities and research opportunities for its faculty, and inviting long and short-term visiting scholars from other cultures to teach our candidates. All of these enhancement activities translate into increased opportunities for our candidates to critically analyze and reflect cutting edge strategies for assessment, pedagogy, curriculum, and classroom management on a global scale, as well as the modeling of intercultural professional activity that develops inclusive and democratic classrooms.  Visiting scholars provide candidates with an integral link between the abstraction and reality of life and work within various cultures, stimulate candidate thinking about the global nature of educational issues, and create interest and curiosity in further exploring other cultures, and in working and traveling abroad. Examples of this commitment to professional intercultural activity to enhance candidate awareness and understanding of diverse cultures are: the Fulbright Scholar-in-Residence from India during the 1999-2000 academic year; the short-term residence exchange scholars who visit yearly from the Swansea Institute, University of Wales; and the steady stream of occasional lecturers from Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Russia, Germany, and Scandinavia. Also, the College faculty is very active intercultural, publishing and presenting extensively in other cultures, serving on editorial boards and in leadership positions of international and diverse professional organizations, conducting intercultural research, consulting abroad, and supervising candidates in international practicum experiences. Faculty grants in technology, English as a second language, and bilingual education also show intensive interest in providing candidates with enhanced knowledge, skills, and dispositions about diversity. Additionally, educational administration faculty serves as consultants and on education boards of two culturally diverse charter schools in the service region.

Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates

Unit efforts to recruit and retain diverse candidates demonstrate a commitment to this standard at both the unit and departmental levels. One of the college's goals is to strengthen its commitment to academic excellence and enhance its stature among the nation's most distinguished public universities. One of the objectives necessary to meet this goal is to recruit and retain a diverse student population. An identified strategy to meet this goal is to meet the enrollment and the employment goals of the University Affirmative Action Plan. A second goal of the college is that of strengthening its commitment to be an academic community dedicated to the success of all its members, and the achievement of its collective purposes. Activities such as Show-Me Days may serve to facilitate future progress toward greater diversity and expanded participation of diverse populations, such as African Americans, in the intellectual and cultural life of the college. The college recruits minority candidates at area high school career fairs and at information sessions for community college students interested in education careers. Over the past four years, both the college and university have greatly expanded their web pages to recruit candidates throughout the state and nation. In response to the needs of our service region which has shown a 350% increase in its Latino population over the past ten years, the College has acquired a Title VII grant, Project BASE, to provide financial and academic support for bilingual candidates.

After the 1995 re-accreditation review, the college established a goal to increase the minority student enrollment for the unit. The goal has been exceeded each year at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Financial support is also available to both initial and advanced program candidates. Project BASE provides for scholarships for candidates eligible for this programs, advanced candidates serve as graduate assistants working in college classrooms and at practicum sites, and other candidates participate in the Office of Minority Student Affairs minority mentor program. A review of student demographic data illustrated the diversity of the candidates at program admission and completion.

In addition to these initiatives, the college also further enhances candidates' opportunities to work with diverse peers through its exchange programs. On a yearly basis, the college hosts visiting student exchange programs that provide one-on-one interaction with peers from various cultures. During the past 5 years, the college has hosted Junior Fulbright Scholars from Central America who earned undergraduate degrees in education; yearly visits with student teachers from Swansea, Wales; and the regularly enrolled international initial and advanced candidates who provide daily interaction with their U.S. peers. Further demonstration of this commitment to provide candidates with opportunities for quality interaction across cultures, is the development of another student teaching exchange program with Stranmillis University College, Queens University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, and a counseling exchange program that is under development with a university in Brazil.

Candidates have also had opportunities to present papers at international conferences and belong to professional organizations that enhance their perspectives of educating all students for diversity.

Experiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools

The College of Education is committed to providing candidates with field-based experiences that facilitate candidates' abilities to think and act interculturally, and to develop, design, and implement instruction that will provide quality learning experiences for the full range of diverse learners.

Program faculty review the schools and other settings (e.g., child care centers for early childhood majors) used for student observations, practica, and student teaching.  The schools are located in urban, suburban, and rural settings, include minorities (i.e., African Americans and Hispanics), and offer programs (e.g., gifted, special education) that address the needs of diverse student populations.  This review of field experiences focuses on the quality of candidate experiences and their interactions with students, family members, faculty, and administrators.  Field experience sites are visited prior to selection to ensure that placements are appropriate

The College of Education has established effective collaborations with local school districts. Field experiences are coordinated between program faculties and the Office of Field Experiences in order to provide candidates with a broad range of experiences in working with diverse students in P-12 settings. Selection criteria such as percentage of school population eligible for free or reduced lunch or percent of minority enrollment and ESL students are available for program faculty to use in their selection of field sites.

The College of Education seeks to provide its candidates with opportunities to understand and value the many aspects of diversity. Through curriculum and field experiences, candidates demonstrate the use of diverse methodologies in teaching students with diverse needs. Candidates reflect on their own understanding of differences and the impact of these differences on their personal dispositions and behaviors as educators and community members.

Standard 5 – Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development


Professional education faculty in the unit model best practices in scholarship, service, and teaching.  This section describes faculty qualifications, faculty collaborations with colleagues in other disciplines and the public schools, and faculty evaluation and professional development.

Qualified Faculty

As indicated in Table 8, over 80% of the full-time tenure track faculty in the College of Education have earned doctorates.

Table 8: College of Education Faculty with Earned Doctorates

Department

Number of Faculty

With Doctorate

Percent with Doctorate

Early Childhood

3

3

100%

Elementary

8

8

100%

Exceptional Child

2

2

100%

Middle & Secondary Education

5

4

80%

Physical Education

6

6

100%

Educational Administration

9

9

100%

School Counseling

5

5

100%

TOTAL Education

38

37

97%

TOTAL Dual Appt.

19

19

100%

Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching

Faculty members in the College of Education model best professional practices in teaching.  These practices are documented in a variety of ways.  At the conclusion of each semester, candidates evaluate the quality of instruction and the quality of courses.  Mean scores for teaching performance of unit faculty are consistently higher than mean scores for faculty in other units on campus.  In addition, numerous faculty members have received awards for excellence in teaching.  These awards are identified at http://www4.semo.edu/education. 

Faculty members reflect the unit’s conceptual framework in their courses (please see syllabi).  They model reflective decision-making through their own instruction and assessment of candidates (please see continuous assessment plans).  In addition, they require candidates to complete performance-based projects that encourage candidate reflection and assessment of P-12 student learning (please see candidate portfolios).

Professional education faculty members integrate technology in their instruction to enhance learning opportunities for candidates.  For example, course syllabi are available on department web sites.  In some courses, candidates are encouraged to submit completed assignments by electronic mail (e.g., EX343).  Quantitative research courses are taught with statistical software programs to compute analyses (see EX601 and ED615 syllabi).

Modeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship

Over the past five years, faculty members in the College of Education have won numerous awards for their teaching, research, and service.  They have also provided leadership in a number of state, national, and international organizations and have served on editorial boards for various professional journals.  A listing of faculty awards, leadership roles, and editorial assignments can be found the college’s web page (http://www4.semo.edu/education). 

Faculty members demonstrate their scholarship by securing grants that enable them to explore, analyze, and evaluate best practices (see faculty vita or http://www4.semo.edu/education).  During fiscal year 2000, faculty members were awarded grants totaling $1,791,053.  These funds support research and training for a wide variety of purposes, including writing, literacy, program evaluation, integration of technology, distance learning programs, ESL programs, and student services.  This amount represents a 59% increase over the previous fiscal year.

Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service

Faculty members actively provide leadership for professional associations at state, national, and international levels (see faculty vita).  Many faculty members review manuscripts for professional journals, serve as editors for journals, serve as program chairs for national conferences, and serve as officers and/or board members for professional organizations.

Faculty members also provide leadership in schools through their participation on internship committees for first-year teachers and principals.  They also participate in curriculum alignment projects, reading clinics, international classroom presentations, and professional development workshops (see faculty vita).

Collaboration 

Faculty members engage in dialogue about the design and delivery of instructional programs in both professional education and P-12 schools.  Each department meets at least once a month to discuss issues and disseminate information across programs.  Sample topics relate to certification, accreditation, revision of program review materials, and program admission, retention, and exit criteria.

Faculty members collaborate with colleagues in P-12 schools and faculty in other units of the institution to develop and refine knowledge bases, conduct research, make presentations, publish materials, and improve the quality of education for all students.  Listed below are examples of collaborative activities in which faculty members are engaged:  

o        Faculty members participate in collaborative projects in professional development schools and partnership schools (see documents in Exhibit Room).  
o        Faculty members collaborate with local, national, and international educators on a variety of projects.  Samples of these projects include Reading Recovery and the State-wide Literacy Program.

Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance

The unit employs a systematic and comprehensive evaluation system that includes regular and comprehensive reviews of faculty performance in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.  Each faculty member is required to participate in the regular candidate assessment of courses and teaching quality.  The tenured and untenured faculty members participate in annual merit reviews.  Newly hired faculty members participate in a college-wide mentoring program.  They choose, or are assigned, a tenured faculty mentor.  The untenured faculty member and mentor meet regularly to discussing teaching and scholarship.  The mentor is often involved in formative evaluation meetings with the respective department chair and the Dean. Support is provided to untenured faculty members through workshops and professional development training that focus on University procedures, resources, grant writing, portfolio development, and the tenure process.  At the beginning of the fourth year of service, department faculty members review untenured faculty members’ record of service and provide written advice concerning progress toward tenure in the areas of teaching, research, and service.  During the sixth year of service, untenured faculty members typically undergo the formal promotion and tenure review.

Unit Facilitation of Professional Development

The College of Education has policies that encourage all professional education faculty members to be continuous learners.  To attend conferences, each faculty member in the College of Education receives $300.  Faculty members also receive $350 each year from their department.  Additional funds for domestic travel are available through the Office of the Dean of the College of Education, and additional funds for international travel are available through the Office of the Provost.

Opportunities for professional development are regularly provided to staff and faculty members in the College of Education.  For example, the Center for Scholarship in Teaching and Learning provides workshops on software, such as word processing, PowerPoint, and Excel.  The Wellness Center provides workshops and programs for all staff and faculty embers regarding health issues.  

Standard 6 – Unit Governance and Resources


Unit Leadership and Authority

The unit has a well-established organizational structure that enables professional education program decisions to be made at the appropriate level (See organization chart).  Program faculties are responsible for designing, implementing, and assessing professional education program in the unit.  Responsibilities and composition of these faculties are described in earlier sections of this report.  Program and course changes are initiated at the program faculty level and move through the following channels for approval:  the academic department, the Courses and Curricula Committee, the College of Education faculty, and the College and Graduate Councils (See minutes of meetings).

At the unit level, two groups serve as advisory councils to the Dean regarding issues and concerns across program areas.   The first group is made up of all departmental chairs and the Associate Dean.  The second, College Council, is comprised of the Associate Dean, department chairs, representatives from each department, a representative of the Southeast Regional Professional Development Center, undergraduate and graduate students, and educators from the community.  

In 1997, the Starr Teachers Program was established to provide opportunities for university and school faculty to work together and share ideas throughout the year.  This program brings model teachers to campus for a year to present workshops in teacher preparation courses allows faculty, the Starr Teachers, and teacher candidates to share experiences, questions, and concerns related to teaching and learning.  Since the inception of the program, three teachers per year have served as Starr Teachers in the College of Education.

Unit Budget

The unit had a budget in excess of $3,852,957 during the 1999-2000 academic year.  These funds supported the teaching, research, and service activities of 48 full-time and 14 part-time faculty members.  The budget increased by approximately $7,547 for FY2000-01 over the preceding year as a result of a 2% increase to raise salaries.  During the 1999-2000 academic year, the College of Education budgeted $30,360 for faculty professional development.  The actual amount spent was over $56,628.  During the same time period, grant, foundation, and government support for the College of Education exceeded $1,068,951.  During the last five years the Kent Library spent $6,096,290 for book and periodical holdings, and $237,603 for professional holdings in education.  The College also spent an additional $34,309 for non-print, professional education materials.  Table 9 provides a summary of expenditures over the last five years.

Table 9:  Faculty Professional Development and Related Expenditures

Expenditures by Fiscal Year (dollars)

    Item         

96-97

97-98

98-99

99-00

00-01

Budgeted Funds

3,462,393

3,660,342

3,665,095

3,845,410

3,852,957

Faculty Professional Development (Budget per tenured faculty/untenured faculty

702 (per faculty)

717 (per faculty)

715 (per faculty)

*31,680

*30,360

Faculty Professional Development (Spent per faculty member)

1,243 (per faculty)

1,360 (per faculty)

1,297 (per faculty)

*3,168

*56,628

External Funding (grants, foundation, govern)

401,798

n/a

1,314,399

969,238

1,068,951

Kent Library (books, periodicals & non-print)

Institutional Library
System Expenditures
Professional Education Unit

 

883,836
29,598
   
36,453

 

916,525  
29,404  
36,308

 

971,295 31,579 23,902

 

1,044,653  
32,634  
39,930

 

1,190,702  
34,283  
40,407

College of Ed (non-printed resources)

   6,370