This Institutional Report Addendum is prepared in response to questions and concerns identified in the Offsite Review Report. The Addendum is structured around the six NCATE standards and has three sections within each standard: (1) clarifications or corrections of content in the Offsite Review Report, (2) responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, and (3) if appropriate, updated information for fall 2015 as related to each standard.
Exhibits are noted throughout the IR Addendum narrative. The legend for exhibits in the IR Addendum indicates that the exhibit is an Addendum exhibit (ADD) followed by the number of the standard, the number of the question, and the number for the exhibit within the question. For example, the notation ADD 1.1.1 indicates the exhibit is an Addendum exhibit for Standard 1, Question 1, Exhibit 1. ADD 1.1.2 indicates the exhibit is an Addendum exhibit for Standard 1, Question 1, Exhibit 2.
As indicated in the Institutional Report and IR exhibits, this accreditation is an NCATE legacy visit and, thus, terminology related to NCATE standards and processes is used throughout the IR Addendum and documentation.
NOTE FOR FIREFOX USERS (click to expand)
Site visitors using Firefox might encounter the following issue:
Clicking on a PDF in the folder structure (right side of page) launches the built-in Firefox PDF previewer. If the PDF contains links to external webpages, in the Firefox PDF previewer these links will not work. The solution for this issue is to download the PDF and open with Adobe Acrobat viewer or Adobe Acrobat.
For visual instruction on the solution to this issue, float your mouse
Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.
1. The Offsite Review Report indicates the unit has 22 advanced programs. Advanced programs in the unit include three teacher leader master’s programs (educational leadership studies, interdisciplinary early childhood education, special education), six other school professional programs (school media librarian, school principal, school psychology, school social worker, school superintendent, supervisor of instruction), one endorsement (literacy specialist), and a graduate additional certification program in visual impairment, for a total of 11 advanced programs. The program listing in AIMS has been updated to reflect these programs that are undergoing state program approval during this accreditation cycle. Advanced Rank I programs and the Instructional Computing Endorsement Program have been closed for revision and resubmission to the Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB) after the new CAEP advanced standards and the state advanced program submission guidelines are approved.
2. The unit has four programs that are accredited by other accrediting agencies: art education (NASAD), music education (NASM), school media librarian (ALA), and school social work (CSWE), as noted in the program listing in AIMS. Letters from these national accrediting agencies are included as IR exhibits I.5.d.1-I.5.d.4. The school psychology program is nationally recognized with conditions by NASP and has submitted its conditions report which is posted in AIMS.
3. The Offsite Review Report indicates many program links were not working (p. 4) at the time of the offsite review. Links on the program page have been checked and all are working.
Responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, section 1.5, p. 6 (click to expand)
1. What aggregated evidence of candidate work by program area and related to Kentucky Teacher Standards 2-5 can the unit present?
In addition to the Kentucky Teacher Standards scores on the student teaching evaluation, exhibit ADD 1.1.2 illustrates the aggregate scores by program for all artifacts in candidate portfolios over the 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015 academic years. The number in parentheses is the number of artifacts that are in the aggregate score. Aside from the school media librarian program, all programs shown use a five-point scoring scale. School library media uses a four-point scale to better align with ALA/AASL criteria rubrics.
2. What assessment evidence does the unit have related to how advanced candidate and other school professionals impact P-12 student learning?
3. Can the unit provide samples of complete initial and advanced candidate individual records and aggregated data based on exhibits 2.4.a.4 and 2.4.a.5?
4. What data does the unit possess related to candidate proficiency for other school professionals?
5. What evidence of professional disposition data for advanced candidates and other school professionals can the unit provide?
As we began migrating the portfolio process from a paper one to the OTIS portfolio, we continued to look at this alignment to control the number of standards that need to be tagged on artifacts. Exhibit ADD 1.5.2 illustrates the alignment of the FSDs with the Kentucky Teacher Standards. As all portfolio items for initial certification programs (and several advanced programs) are linked with the KTS, we wanted to further demonstrate the coverage of disposition aspects with program data collection. There are several programs who are experimenting with also tagging the FSDs and College of Education Technology Standards (COETs), but it is not a unit requirement. As these programs revisit the use of these additional tags, a decision will be made within program faculty chairs whether to make this a unit practice. With an increased emphasis on the tagging of SPA standards, tags to track EPSB designated assessments, and additional tags to track artifacts that demonstrate student learning impact, the need to look carefully at crosswalks to keep the work meaningful and manageable is crucial. At the advanced level, most SPA standards include dispositional aspects. In addition to the KTS crosswalk provided by the unit, advanced programs may also cross walk their SPA standards and use the assessment data collected for those to demonstrate assessment of the FSDs. Exhibit ADD 1.5.3 displays an example of this alignment for the School Library Media program. Exhibit ADD 1.4.1 shows an example of the SLM exhibit room as an example of what the site team will be able to access for programs during the visit.
6. Can the unit clarify what relationship the school counseling program has with the unit, and if part of the unit, provide assessment evidence related to this program?
Updated Evidence from the Institutional Report Related to Standard 1 (click to expand)
1. Doctoral programs in the unit are not included in the NCATE/ESPB accreditation review, per email correspondence from CAEP (ADD 1.7.1).
2. Due to space considerations in AIMS, disaggregated data reports for the New Teacher Survey were not included in the IR exhibits for all programs. Rather, a sample using the Elementary Education Program was included as exhibit IR 1.4.j.7. The disaggregated data reports for other programs are included as exhibits ADD 1.7.2-15.
3. The program listing in AIMS has been updated to reflect programs that are undergoing state program approval during this accreditation cycle. Advanced Rank I programs and the Instructional Computing Endorsement Program have been closed for revision and resubmission to the Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB) after the new CAEP advanced standards and the state advanced program submission guidelines are approved.
Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications, the candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.
Responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, section 2.5, p. 10 (click to expand)
1. How is the unit using disaggregated data to inform decision-making and program development?
Accessing and utilizing data is carried out at the program level. The unit approach is to both prompt and support better quality data entry, data review and maintenance, and data use by programs. All three of the technologies provide mechanisms for better data oversight and data quality auditing by faculty, staff, and the candidates themselves. The UK Program Submission and Accounting Folder System provide the structure and expectations for program faculty to carry out their responsibilities for data review and analysis (ADD 2.1.4; ADD 2.1.5). All program faculties annually update their analyses of data for program improvement.
The unit assessment system technologies contain a wealth of data. When program faculties access the systems, they focus their queries on varying levels of disaggregation based on the task of answering questions and engaging in decision-making and program development. All program faculties annually update their analyses of data for program improvement.
The unit recognizes the need for the regular sharing of data and information. The Program Faculty Chairs Group provides an ongoing, sustained forum to share information across programs (ADD 2.1.10). The Program Faculty Chairs meet monthly for an hour and a half. Agendas are set before the meeting (ADD 2.1.8), and the group provides an opportunity to update all program faculties on issues associated with educator preparation in Kentucky and nationally. A record of participation is maintained so that those program faculty chairs who are not able to attend can be updated (ADD 2.1.9).
2. How is the unit collaborating with the professional community?
3. How is the unit ensuring credibility of key assessments?
The template for Assessment Instrument Documentation includes the following components:
All programs include required key assessments. Examples of the documentation of the instruments used for assessment in each key assessment area are included as ADD 2.3.1.
4. How are faculty engaging in data collection and analysis activities?
The expectations for candidates established within these components form the perspectives on performance that guide the use of data. The flow of planned activities in a program, evolving from the critical components, result in the ongoing generation of data and the review of data, using the unit’s technology tools, including the OTIS Online Portfolio Management System.
The centralized structure of the OTIS platform has enough flexibility to encourage and enable programs to explore novel applications which can then be disseminated through the unit Program Faculty structure to other programs. For example, in art education the Program Faculty has begun engaging P-12 partners in the scoring of candidates’ artistic work. The unit has made providing P-12 partners with direct access to the unit assessment system a priority to facilitate this type of collaborative effort.
Exhibits ADD 2.4.1, ADD 2.4.2, ADD 2.4.3, and ADD 2.4.4 illustrate several reports faculty can use in their analysis activities. These reports were developed by the OTIS development team working collaboratively with program faculty leaders and continue to be refined as the assessment system evolves.
Updated Evidence from the Institutional Report Related to Standard 2: NONE
Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice
The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practice so that teacher candidates and other school professionals develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
Responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, section 3.5, p. 13 (click to expand)
1. Do all programs have field experiences that fulfill the requirements of Standard 3?
Field experiences at the advanced level also include an array of diverse experiences to address program requirements and candidates’ needs. As illustrated in program documents, field experiences are carried out in schools as well as in community agencies (IR 3.4.a.1; IR 3.4.a.2). These include conducting interviews, classroom observations, peer observations of tutoring sessions with reflective feedback as well as tutoring students in P-12 schools and completing action research projects. For example, in two courses required in the advanced literacy program (EDC 619 and EDC 620), field experiences are carried out in a community-based literacy center. As part of the field experience requirement, each candidate is paired with a struggling reader for tutoring who is at a different grade level than students with whom they work in their professional jobs. When possible, candidates in these courses work with more than one student to provide more varied experiences. In EDC 620, candidates are required to observe their classmates’ tutoring session and provide feedback. This assignment, called Peer Coaching, provides opportunities to observe various struggling readers and the impact of different instructional interventions as well as play a leadership role through coaching. In the Education Leadership Studies program (ELS), candidates conduct focused observations. They also complete action research projects in schools under the direction of a school administrator. Projects culminate with presentations to peers. Examples of guidelines and assessment measures for field experiences in the ELS program as well as other EDL programs are provided (ADD 3.1.2); examples of field experiences in other advanced programs are also provided (ADD 3.1.3).
2. Do candidates, course instructors, and school personnel consider field experiences an integral component of all programs?
3. Do school-based partners consider themselves to be integrally involved in field experiences components of courses within all programs?
4. What evidence does the unit have showing continuous P-12 involvement in the design, implementation, and evaluation of field and clinical placements at the initial level?
5. Is ELS 600 a required course for all advanced program candidates? If so, what types of data are collected and how is it used for candidate and program improvement?
6. What is the process for training unit and P-12 faculty who are supervising initial program candidates in field and clinical placements?
7. What is the unit’s process for ensuring that all initial and advanced program candidates have diverse field experiences?
8. Can the unit provide examples of initial program candidate Professional Growth Plans and how the data from said plans have been used for improvement?
9. Can the unit provide a detailed summary of its pilot programs as they relate to initial and advanced program field and clinical placements (what, how, assessments used, who was involved in the design, etc.)?
Additionally, the unit engaged in the first Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) field placement in spring 2015 at Scott Middle School located on the Fort Knox army installation. This opportunity provided the candidate with knowledge about working on a military installation (e.g., policies, procedures, security) as well as the opportunity to engage in non-traditional curriculum and assessments beyond what is common in Kentucky. For instance, the curriculum of DoDEA schools is shifting focus to a 21st Century Schools initiative (ADD 3.9.4) with an increased emphasis on the STEM areas. DoDEA schools do not participate in state mandated testing; instead, all DoDEA schools administer the national TerraNova assessment system (ADD 3.9.5). Thus, the candidate in this pilot gained a unique experience through this clinical placement.
The unit has also piloted clinical placements in new international settings. During spring 2012 and 2013, some candidates completed approximately eight weeks of student teaching in Xi’an, China (ADD 3.9.6). These clinical placements included elementary, middle, and high school classrooms. Participating candidates were enrolled in undergraduate elementary and middle level with initial certification, the Masters Initial Certification (MIC), and Teaching World Languages (Spanish) programs. Additionally, one candidate enrolled in a dual elementary and deaf education initial certification program at Eastern Kentucky University participated as a way to pilot cross-institutional clinical placements. A faculty supervisor accompanied the candidates to China and completed unit-established assessment and evaluation measures associated with traditional student teaching.
Finally, the STEAM Academy high school program located in Fayette County Public Schools is a rich partnership between the FCPS district and the university (ADD 3.9.7). The unit has utilized this school site to enrich several different components of clinical experiences for candidates and graduate students. Field placements at STEAM have included practicum students, a student teacher in middle level English Language Arts, as well as a doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction co-teaching with a STEAM mathematics teacher, and a doctoral student in STEM Education providing chemistry instruction. The goal of this partnership is to leverage this site as a Research and Development (R&D) Lab that engages candidates across initial and advanced programs to develop a multi-tiered instructional mentoring model.
All of the unit’s pilot programs and expanded field and clinical placements were designed through a collaborative process between the Office of Clinical Practices and School Partnerships and associated Program Faculty groups. These pilots utilized the assessment and evaluation tools that were already in place for the associated programs. Additionally, informal focus group or individual interviews with participants were conducted to determine successes and/or challenges associated with the pilot sites.
10. Does the unit provide evidence that each initial program is designed to assess candidate success and/or needs in field and clinical placements?
11. Is dispositional data available for all initial and advanced program candidates for the last three years? If so, can the unit provide evidence that this data has been used for continuous improvement?
Portfolio items for initial certification programs (and several advanced programs) are linked with the KTS to further demonstrate the coverage of dispositional aspects with program data collection. It is important to note that there are several programs experimenting with tagging the FSDs and the College of Education Technology Standards, but it is not a unit requirement at this time. As these programs revisit the use of these additional tags, a decision will be made among program faculty chairs whether to make this a unit-wide practice. With the addition of SPA standards, EPSB required assessment tags, and specific student learning impact tags, it will be critical to look carefully at crosswalks to keep the work meaningful and manageable. At the advanced level, most SPA standards include dispositional aspects. In addition to the KTS crosswalk provided by the unit, advanced programs may also cross walk their SPA standards and use the assessment data collected for those to demonstrate assessment of the unit FSDs (ADD 3.11.4). Other examples of ways Program Faculties assess dispositions in advanced programs are provided (ADD 3.11.5).
The importance of teachers maintaining a highly ethical and professional demeanor at all times is also addressed in multiple ways throughout the program. For example, beginning in 2014 our EDLIFE and KHP Living Learning Communities require all students (freshman and sophomores) to participate in an induction ceremony that indoctrinates candidates into the profession. As part of this ceremony, candidates enrolled in our two Living Learning Communities take a “Pledge of Professionalism” (ADD 3.11.6). The induction ceremony is held during the university’s week-long orientation to campus (known as K-Week) and is attended by college faculty and staff during the college-wide retreat. Following this ceremony, candidates are provided with a copy of the Pledge and encouraged to display it in their dorm rooms.
Additionally, faculty members distribute and review written material (e.g., course syllabi, program handbooks) with candidates frequently as they progress through the program (See IR 3.4.e.2 for an example). A focus on professional dispositions is also included in the Professional Seminar in which all teacher candidates participate during the final semester of the program (ADD 3.11.7). Generally, one of our partners highlights ethics and professionalism during the keynote address at the seminar. Presenters have included a professor from the College of Law and the Director of Legal Services for the EPSB.
In cases where university or school-based partners raise concerns regarding dispositional matters, the Program Faculty addresses these swiftly both orally and in writing. At times, Program Faculties elicit assistance from the EPSB regarding professional ethics and state-level policies (ADD 3.11.8). Depending on the nature of the difficulty, candidates may have an action plan to follow; they may be placed on probation or, in severe cases, they may be dismissed from the program. Due to the confidential nature of such documents, sample action plans are not included in the exhibits but will be available for review during the team visit.
12. Can the unit provide evidence that it has engaged in continuous improvement regarding candidate and program development during the last three years?
Updated Evidence from the Institutional Report Related to Standard 3: NONE
Standard 4: Diversity
The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and provides experiences for candidates to acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates can demonstrate and apply proficiencies related to diversity. Experiences provided for candidates include working with diverse populations, including higher education and P-12 school faculty, candidates, and students in P-12 schools.Clarification from the Offsite Review Report, section 4.1: NONE
Responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, section 4.5, p. 16 (click to expand)
1. What is the unit doing to encourage contact among students of different backgrounds?
Additionally, candidates have the opportunity to participate in residential living and learning communities, including the EDLIFE LLC for teacher candidates, which is in its second year of implementation (ADD 4.1.6; ADD 4.1.7). The unit has also established an International Educators Cohort in EDLIFE for candidates who wish to study and/or teach abroad, improve their global competency, and prepare to teach and help P-12 students become “globally ready” (ADD 4.1.8).
Further, the COE Office of Student Engagement, Equity, and Diversity facilitates interaction and contact among students through multiple student organizations (ADD 4.1.9; ADD 4.1.10), including the Council of Student Leaders which was initiated by the dean to encourage communication and networking across student organizations (ADD 4.1.11). Other initiatives over the past three years include recognition of COE veterans (ADD 4.1.12; ADD 4.1.13), the cultural diversity festival (IR 4.4.c.3), the annual OUTspoken event (IR 4.4.c.4), the Confucius Institute showcase (IR 4.4.c.5), the UK president’s reception for Muslim students (IR 4.4.c.6), art education’s homeless project (IR 4.4.c.7), diversity training (IR 4.4.c.8), and autism awareness events (IR 4.4.c.9). Initiatives and activities such as these are designed to create a welcoming campus environment in which candidates interact and network with peers from different backgrounds.
2. How are candidates in advanced programs provided opportunities to work with diverse K-12 student populations?
Candidates in the literacy specialist program are provided with varied opportunities to work with diverse populations. As part of their role in schools and communities, candidates work not only with P-12 students, but also students’ families and students’ teachers, and they are often called upon by administrators to provide professional development for teachers within their schools. Therefore, candidates must have opportunities to work with diverse P-12 student populations (diversity being defined as students of varying ages, races, ability levels); students’ families; and teachers within their schools. Literacy specialists may have responsibilities for teaching students who struggle with learning to read and must also be able to support teachers in their efforts to provide effective instruction for all students. Thus, diversity also includes working with struggling readers and writers, which is the hallmark of every clinical experience in the program. The program provides a minimum of 54 hours of supervised clinical experiences that involve working with struggling literacy learners in grades P-12, working with middle grades literacy learners, and coaching/mentoring colleagues in literacy instruction. These experiences are completed in a two-semester sequence of clinical course work with struggling literacy learners. In one semester, candidates complete EDC 619 Assessment of Reading Growth and Development. The following semester candidates complete EDC 620 Design and Implementation of Reading Instruction. Throughout this two-course sequence, candidates work with school-aged students in P-12 grades in the Literacy Clinic, which is currently housed within the community at the Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning (IR 3.4.a.2). Practicum hours (i.e., face-to-face tutoring) are one hour (required) to two hours per week throughout the two-semester sequence (EDC 619 and EDC 620). This equates to 30 hours (required) to 60 practicum hours. The professor teaching the clinical courses observes these clinical sessions. It is generally recommended that candidates enroll in this clinical sequence toward the end of the program so that they might apply the knowledge of literacy processes and instructional strategies gained through core courses. Candidates also gain clinical experience with students in the middle grades in EDC 537 Advanced Applications of Teaching Writing. The field experience component with middle school students occurs over an eight-week period (2-3 hours/week which equates to 16-24 hours) and may include working with middle level students in an afterschool tutoring program, UK’s Literacy Clinic, or community-based organization that offers educational services (e.g., The Carnegie Center). The focus of this clinical experience is specifically related to teaching writing. A new course, EDC 625 Literacy Leadership P-12, prepares literacy professionals to facilitate positive change in school and community settings through program development and evaluation, mentoring, and advocacy. This course is designed specifically to address the ILA Standards and literacy leadership and coaching in particular. A minimum of eight hours of supervised practicum hours is included in this course in which candidates provide coaching/mentoring support in literacy for colleagues. Thus, candidates in the program receive opportunities to work with diverse student populations in that supervised clinical assignments are all focused on struggling learners; however, candidates also engage in opportunities to work with learners of diverse ages for both reading and writing. As well, candidates have supervised practicum hours as they provide coaching/mentoring in literacy for colleagues.
In the school media librarian program, candidates complete two eighty-hour practica experiences in LIS 676, School Media Practicum. One of the practicum experiences takes place in an elementary environment and the second at the secondary level, both under the supervision of a certified school media librarian. The placement sites are selected to ensure candidates have opportunities to work with diverse P-12 student populations (ADD 3.1.3, p. 16-19).
Candidates in the school social worker program are required to have 600 hours of practicum during the fall/spring semesters of a school year under the supervision of a certified school social worker (ADD 3.1.3, p. 52-61). All placements include students in poverty and students of color.
Candidates in the teacher leader program in educational leadership studies complete three observations and a five-hour practicum in classrooms with diverse student subgroups (e.g., English Language Learners, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, racially diverse students, students in gifted programs) and in a different-level school from the candidate’s own teaching assignment. These observations are embedded in ELS 604 Leadership in Professional Learning Communities and ELS 624 Leadership Practicum: Monitoring Learning, Assessment, and Accountability (ADD 3.1.2, pp. 5-10).
Candidates in the teacher leader master’s program in IECE are most often working in early care and education settings across the Commonwealth. These candidates are employed in diverse settings and interact with colleagues, families, and children from diverse groups. Many of the placements are public early care and education settings and programs that have federal and state requirements, often income-based, for the enrollment of children. Clinical experiences for these candidates are supplemented with planned and targeted field and clinical experiences to ensure the full range of diverse opportunities. For program completion, candidates are required to document their experiences across age (i.e., infant/toddler, preschool, and kindergarten) and diverse groups (racial/ethnic, cultural, economic, disabilities) (ADD 3.1.3, pp. 2-9; ADD 4.2.2).
In the teacher leader master’s program in special education, candidates are most often practicing teachers in their own classrooms. They complete coursework using the students in their classrooms. Special education in general provides opportunities for candidates to work with diverse students, because each student has unique learning challenges and diverse characteristics in order to be identified to receive special education services. Candidates who are not practicing teachers are placed in two different classrooms during their course of study. The classrooms are selected by the faculty to represent diversity of age of student and school demographics. A key assessment on consultation ensures candidates have diverse experiences (ADD 4.2.3); they are required to identify another teacher with whom to consult who represents diversity from their current student population. For example, if candidates have expertise in low incidence disabilities, they are required to work with teachers who have students with high incidence disabilities and vice versa. Candidates also may select to work with general education teachers.
3. How do data demonstrate that advanced candidates are proficient on standards and performance criteria related to diversity?
In the teacher leader master’s program in special education, proficiencies related to diversity are assessed through candidates demonstrating their competencies through the OTIS portfolio entries and in field observations.
In the school media program, candidates are required to conduct an information needs assessment of a diverse group in LIS 602; in LIS 644 candidates are required to evaluate a school library environment to ensure it reflects the needs and interests, including ADA compliance, of the diverse P-12 student populations it serves. In LIS 610, LIS 614, and LIS 690 (to be renumbered 612), candidates are required to read children’s and young adult literature that reflects the diverse developmental, cultural, social, and linguistic needs of P-12 students and their communities.
In the literacy specialist program, candidate proficiency related to diversity is assessed using the signature assignments in clinical courses. These assignments include assessment/instruction overviews, case reports, peer coaching project, interactive case reports, program evaluations, professional development plans, individual mentoring projects, and development of lesson plans.
Candidate artifacts in OTIS which will be available to the team during the onsite visit as well as interviews with candidates and faculty will demonstrate advanced candidates’ diversity proficiencies relative to standards and performance criteria.
4. How are these data being used by the program?
Faculty members in the school psychology program evaluate candidates’ performance through direct observation and feedback in the training clinic. Faculty members collect mid-point ratings during practicum and internship and provide feedback and additional training if ratings do not meet program thresholds for competence in working with diverse children and families. Faculty members summarize cohort performance within NASP Standard 2.8 and review candidate performance data at program faculty meetings to inform candidate growth and development and program continuous improvement.
In the revised literacy specialist endorsement program (which became effective July 1, 2015), the key assignments are identified as signature assignments that all candidates must upload to OTIS so that faculty can evaluate program effectiveness based on common artifacts. These signature assignments, associated with each clinical course, also provide an opportunity to evaluate an individual candidate’s proficiency. As individual candidates upload signature assignments, literacy program faculty score the candidate selections using a five-point Literacy Program Rubric. The individual artifact data are then combined to create feedback at the individual or program level. Scores from artifacts are aggregated by any number of factors (e.g., candidate, year, or standard). Literacy program faculty members generate “real time” data displays for annual academic year reflection or for multi-year reflection. Program faculty members engage in such programmatic reflection annually to evaluate individual candidates to examine progress for candidates at the beginning, middle, and end of their programs. Program faculty members also examine candidate data to evaluate programmatic effectiveness relative to the ILA Standards, including ILA Standard 4 which requires candidates to create, and engage their students in, literacy practices that develop awareness, understanding, respect, and valuing of differences in society.
Faculty across advanced programs will be available for onsite interviews to describe the diversity proficiencies of candidates in their respective programs and how data from assessments related to diversity are used for continuous improvement of candidates and programs.
5. How does the unit ensure all candidates have experience with diverse P-12 students, faculty, and other candidates at the initial and advanced level?
6. How is the commitment to diversity communicated to faculty?
Over the past couple of years, the university and the unit have engaged in conversations around institutional and college values and commitments as new strategic plans were developed for the next five years. Diversity and inclusivity is one of five strategic objectives in the 2015-2020 UK strategic plan Transforming Tomorrow (ADD 4.6.1). Similarly, diversity and inclusion is one of five goals in the new college strategic plan (ADD 4.6.2). During development of the college plan, faculty members focused on strategic planning at fall and spring retreats resulting in adoption of the new plan in August 2015 (ADD 4.6.3). Various faculty groups are now charged with responsibility for identifying metrics that will be used to assess attainment of objectives in the plan. The Inclusiveness Committee has begun discussion of metrics associated with the objectives related to diversity and inclusion (ADD 4.6.4).
The unit commitment to diversity is also evident in faculty recruitment efforts. All search committees must have diverse representation and follow college guidelines for searches (IR 4.4.g.3). The Inclusiveness Committee has identified review and revision of the search guidelines as one of its goals for 2015-2016 (ADD 4.6.4).
Other actions that demonstrate unit commitment to diversity include the naming of a new director of the Office of Student Engagement, Equity, and Diversity in fall 2015 (ADD 4.1.9). This position had been vacant since the previous director resigned to take a position at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. The new director has met with student organizations, including the Minority Educators Association, and is working closely with the directors of recruitment and retention to attract candidates from under-represented groups and ensure their success during their academic experience at the University of Kentucky.
Further, AACTE has recognized the unit commitment to diversity through approval of the AACTE Holmes Scholar Programs within the College of Education. This program helps support students from historically underrepresented backgrounds pursuing careers in education at the undergraduate, masters and doctoral levels (ADD 4.6.5).
Updated Evidence from the Institutional Report Related to Standard 4 (click to expand)
1. Demographic data for unit faculty for fall 2015 are included in exhibit ADD 4.7.1.
2. Demographic data for COE faculty for fall 2015 are included as exhibit ADD 4.7.2.
3. Official enrollment data for fall 2015 are not released until late fall semester each year. The fall 2015 enrollment data and candidate demographic data will be provided onsite, if available.
Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development
Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance; they also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systemically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.Clarification in the Offsite Review Report, section 5.1, p. 17 (click to expand)
1. The Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning is a university center rather than a unit center. Multiple, ongoing professional development is provided by the center to faculty with email announcements of the sessions sent to faculty on a regular basis. Additionally, opportunities are provided for faculty who receive low ratings in teaching to engage in individual consultation with center staff and utilize the resources of the center.
2. The Advisory Council for Gifted and Talented Education is a statewide council which hosts an annual symposium for teacher educators on working with gifted and talented students. Faculty members from the unit are invited and some have attended the annual event.
Responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, section 5.5, p. 20 (click to expand)
1. How do candidates and faculty members confirm evidence provided for Standard 5?
Candidates and faculty will validate the evidence provided in Standard 5 through interviews during the site visit. Further evidence, including sample faculty performance reviews and promotion and tenure dossiers, will be provided for review in the campus team room.
Candidates provide feedback on faculty teaching performance in each course as described in exhibits (IR 5.4.e.1a; ADD 5.1.1). These teaching and course evaluation results are available on the Institutional Research and Advanced Analytics website and in Digital Measures. These data are used by faculty to improve their teaching effectiveness as evidenced in sample promotion and tenure dossiers and through annual/biannual performance reviews.
Faculty members confirm evidence as presented in Standard 5 in various ways. The annual/biannual performance review provides evidence that faculty reflect upon their performance/productivity in teaching, research, service, and administration, as appropriate to their respective Distribution of Effort (IR 5.4.f.1; IR 5.4.f.2; IR 5.4.f.3). A required component of the performance review is a reflective narrative in which faculty analyze their performance and productivity over the review period. Three-year trend data from the annual/biannual performance evaluations confirm faculty members are effective in instruction and are actively engaged and productive in research and service, as appropriate to their faculty title series and Distribution of Effort (ADD 5.1.2). The faculty performance review process includes an appeals procedure which permits the faculty member who disagrees with his/her performance ratings to present evidence that ratings should be increased. Faculty members are required to submit evidence of their teaching, research, and service productivity during promotion and tenure reviews (IR 5.4.f.4). A required component of the dossier is a faculty teaching portfolio which documents faculty ability to reflect upon his/her instructional performance for the purpose of improvement (IR 5.4.e.1). All faculty members who have applied for promotion and tenure over the past three years have received promotion and tenure (ADD 5.1.3).
2. What additional evidence suggests use of best professional practices in the development of course syllabi?
New faculty members are assigned faculty mentors during their first year of employment. Mentors are valuable resources to new faculty in course development and syllabi creation as well as promotion and tenure procedures and university systems and resources.
As proposals for new courses or course revisions are submitted for approval, course syllabi are reviewed by program faculty, departmental faculty, the COE Courses and Curricula Committee, the college faculty, and the appropriate university council (Undergraduate and/or Graduate Council). Throughout this process, syllabi are reviewed to ensure appropriate content, assessments, and methodologies are included.
3. What evidence suggests use of best professional practices in university classrooms?
4. What can be confirmed through a review of Teaching Portfolios?
5. What information will a review of Faculty Performance Reviews provide?
At the unit level, aggregated faculty performance data indicate strong faculty performance in the DOE areas of instruction (teaching and advising), research, service, and administration. Aggregated data over the past three years is presented in exhibit ADD 5.1.2. These data, which include the mean score, range, and frequency of ratings by faculty title series and rank in each DOE area, document that the vast majority of faculty receive ratings of 3, 4, or 5 on a five-point scale, with the exception of a few outliers for whom professional growth plans are established.
Unit administrators are informed of the annual performance review process early in the academic year through a memo from the Provost (ADD 5.5.1) and a follow-up message from the Dean’s Office with internal COE timelines for the annual performance review process (ADD 5.5.2).
6. What information will a review of promotion and tenure dossiers provide?
As noted in exhibit ADD 5.1.3, all faculty members who applied for promotion and tenure over the past three years were granted promotion and tenure. Over this time period, 22 of 22 faculty members were successful with promotion and tenure applications, including 12 applications for promotion to associate professor with tenure and 10 applications for promotion to professor. Much of this success rate can be attributed to the first-, second-, and fourth-year reviews which are conducted by the dean and department chairs with untenured faculty members and their faculty mentors. During these meetings, progress toward tenure is reviewed and discussed and feedback and suggestions are provided to assist untenured faculty members with continuous improvement of their productivity and performance and, thus, strengthen their case for promotion and tenure.
7. What information will a review of Curriculum Vitae provide?
Updated Evidence from the Institutional Report Related to Standard 5 (click to expand)
The table containing updated numbers for unit faculty for fall 2015 by faculty title series and rank is included as exhibit ADD 5.8.1; individual faculty information, i.e., the names and departments of new hires, retirements, promotions, is provided in exhibit ADD 5.8.2.
Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources
The unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources, including information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state, and institutional standards.Clarification/correction in the Offsite Review Report, section 6.1, pp. 20-21 (click to expand)
1. The professional education programs identified on pp. 20-21 of the Offsite Review Report are the seven academic departments within the College of Education, rather than programs. These departments are Curriculum and Instruction; Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling; Educational Leadership Studies; Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation; Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology; Kinesiology and Health Promotion; and STEM Education.
2. The Offsite Review Report indicates on p. 21 that the Office of Undergraduate Advising and Student Success is overseen by the Office of Program Development, Accountability, and Compliance. The division/office that has purview over undergraduate advising and student success is the Office of the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Advising and Student Success.
Responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, section 6.5, pp. 23-24 (click to expand)
1. How often does the Faculty as a whole meet? What do examples of agendas look like?
2. Is there an annual document integrity review process? If so, what does the final product look like?
Other examples of document review include annual (or more often) updating of information in the University Bulletin. The Office of the Registrar contacts the Office of Program Documentation, Accountability, and Compliance on an annual basis to review and update entries in the University Bulletin (ADD 6.2.1; ADD 6.2.2). Additionally, as changes are needed as a result of state regulations (e.g., changes in standards), the unit contacts the Registrar’s Office and these changes are made to the online Bulletin immediately. Curricular revisions go to the Registrar’s Office for inclusion in the online Bulletin as soon as these are approved by the University Senate.
Another example is the review and updating of information on the COE website. The website has been completely revamped over the past two years by the COE web design team. All content has been reviewed and revised, and the redesign is intended to be more user-friendly and attractive to candidates, prospective students, faculty, staff, and the general public.
Content in the Faculty Handbook is also reviewed on a regular basis. With approval of the College Rules in spring 2015, the Faculty Council is currently updating the Handbook to reflect recent changes to faculty membership, voting privileges, and standing committees in the College Rules document.
To ensure consistency in programs submitted for state approval, the unit created a Documentation Manual and a submission Dropbox to accommodate specific materials required for each program submission (IR 1.4.o). When changes occur, the manual is updated and program faculty chairs are notified of the changes. State regulatory changes are also reviewed and discussed at the Program Faculty Chairs Group and incorporated into all program materials (ADD 2.1.8).
3. What is the role of COE faculty in advising relative to the university-wide advisors?
4. What evidence is available demonstrating the process a curriculum change goes through with timelines and details?
Once proposals receive college approval, the proposal is forwarded to the appropriate university council for approval (100-500 level courses go to the Undergraduate Council; 500-800 level courses to the Graduate Council; 400G and 500 level courses are reviewed by both councils). Once the proposal receives approval from the appropriate university council(s), it is forwarded to the University Senate for approval.
Proposals for new educator preparation programs are also submitted to the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board for review and approval. Further, the unit is required to obtain approval from the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education for any new undergraduate or graduate degree programs.
Course changes and revisions (major and minor) are submitted using the online eCATS system; applications for new programs or changes to existing programs have been submitted using paper copy. To make the move to all online submissions for courses and programs, the university is piloting a new electronic system, Curriculog, with a limited number of submissions during the fall 2015 system (ADD 6.4.2). This system will allow for online submission of both course and program level changes. Course and program change approvals are documented on the COE Courses and Curricula Committee website (ADD 6.4.3) and on the University Senate Curricular Proposals website (ADD 6.4.4).
5. What are the specific faculty teaching responsibilities for fall 2014 and spring 2015 for each full-time and adjunct faculty member in the COE?
6. What is the formal relationship with each of the state agencies and how does the Education unit carry this out?
7. How do faculty from the COE coordinate joint MA programs with other colleges?
8. How are on-line programs priced?
9. What are the current memberships of all the standing committees, faculty chairs group, and various councils, including state agency, P-12 schools, and candidate members?
10. Which committee is considered the final authority for decisions within the professional education unit?
11. How is the online master’s program coordinated with the other Colleges and what percent of the program is totally online?
12. Are any programs held off campus?
13. What PD in technology do faculty receive per year? Do adjunct faculty also receive this training?
It should be noted that many unit faculty are experts and leaders in the field of instructional technology. As such, they provide professional development and consultation for P-12 educators and university faculty in areas such as digital game-based learning (ADD 6.13.3), online course design (IR 5.4.g.8), and assistive technology (ADD 6.13.4).
Updated Evidence from the Institutional Report Related to Standard 6 (click to expand)
1. Websites for various unit support offices have been updated since the IR was submitted (ADD 6.14.1).
2. Teaching loads for fall 2014 and spring 2015 for full-time and part-time faculty members in the College of Education are presented in exhibit ADD 6.5.1. Fall 2015 teaching assignments are identified in exhibit ADD 6.5.2.