Web Print
2000 NCATE Annual Report
(Part C of the AACTE Annual Report)
[Printable Version]


Section 1 - Institutional Information:


NCATE ID: 10219
AACTE SID: 773
Institution: Columbus State University
Unit: College of Education
Next Accreditation Visit: Fall 2003
Last Accreditation Visit Fall 1998
Deadline to Submit Final Version of Part C: 01/31/2001


Section 2 - Unit Head Information


Unit Head Name: Thomas Harrison
Unit Head Phone: (706) 568-2212
Unit Phone: (706) 568-2045
Unit Head Fax: (706) 569-3134
Unit Head EMail: harrison_thomas@colstate.edu
NCATE Coordinator: Deborah Gober
Coordinator Phone: (706) 568-2045
Coordinator Fax: (706) 569-3134
Coordinator Email: gober_deborah@colstate.edu
NCATE Coordinator2:
Coordinator2 Phone:
Coordinator2 Fax:
Coordinator2 Email:
CEO: Dr. Frank D. Brown
CEO Phone: (706) 568-2211
CEO Fax: (706) 568-2123
CEO Email: brown_frank@colstate.edu

Is the information above accurate? No - Please enter corrections below

Corrected Unit Head:
Title of Unit Head:
Corrected Unit Head Phone:
Corrected Unit Phone:
Corrected Unit Head Fax:
Corrected Unit Head Email:
Corrected NCATE Coordinator:
Title of NCATE Coordinator
Corrected Coordinator Phone:
Corrected Coordinator Fax:
Corrected Coordinator Email:
Corrected NCATE Coordinator2: Dr. Deborah Gober
Title of NCATE Coordinator2 Assistant Professor
Corrected Coordinator2 Phone: 706/565-7812
Corrected Coordinator2 Fax: 706/569-3134
Corrected Coordinator2 Email: gober_deborah@colstate.edu
Corrected CEO Full Name:
Corrected CEO Phone:
Corrected CEO Fax:
Corrected CEO Email:


Section 3 - NCATE Standards Categories & Weaknesses Section



Section A. Conceptual Framework(s)

The conceptual framework(s) establishes the shared vision for a unit's efforts in preparing educators to work effectively in P-12 schools. It provides direction for programs, courses, teaching, candidate performance, scholarship, service, and unit accountability. The conceptual framework(s) is knowledge-based, articulated, shared, coherent, consistent with the unit and/or institutional mission, and continuously evaluated.

Please indicate evaluations of and changes made to the unit's conceptual framework (if any) during this year:
        Various developments in AY 1999-2000 in the CSU College of Education illustrate the vitality of its conceptual framework as a foundation for unit decision-making and operations. Collectively, these events reflect a dynamic, high-quality educator preparation unit.
        As described briefly in the forthcoming discussion of a weakness linked to the conceptual framework, faculty participated in a survey of their perceptions on a range of topics early in 2000. Eight of 30 items related in some fashion to the conceptual framework; on balance, the survey reveals that unit faculty believe in and strongly support the framework, understand it, and use it in their ongoing professional practice.
        Early in 1999, CSU initiated a mandated Re-Design of all professional programs. Responding to a series of "principles and actions" called for by the University System Regents, CSU and other public institutions in Georgia were obliged to incorporate a series of reforms in both basic and advanced programs. The Re-Design process was completed by the end of the year, with various curriculum changes to go into effect in 2000-2001. An array of Re-Design committees-each comprising unit faculty, CSU faculty from outside the unit, and practitioners-carried out the Re-Design under the aegis of a steering committee.
        In the Re-Design process, the use and infusion of technology into all programs received special emphasis. Once the Re-Design process was complete, most initial programs dropped a stand-alone technology course in initial programs in favor of greater infusion of technology into all professional courses.
        Overall, the Re-Design process served to better align the design of programs with the conceptual framework. As well, it sparked improvements across the board in candidate content knowledge (especially in early childhood and middle-grades), technology utilization/infusion, pre-student teaching field experience (increased for most programs), and the development of partnerships with schools serving as sites for clinical experiences.
        Planning for several new programs continued during 1999-2000. By the end of the AY, a cooperative doctoral program in educational leadership (with Valdosta State University), initial programs in foreign languages (Spanish and French), and a non-certification M.Ed. program in instructional technology were in place. Planning for 2000-2001 centered on developing a non-traditional "fast-track" program at the M.Ed. level for initial licensure in an array of secondary education fields.
        Items noted in the unit's response to a weakness reported by the 1998 BOE are equally applicable in this discussion. Please refer to them.


Conceptual framework weaknesses cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
The conceptual framework has not been integrated across the unit's programs.


Please indicate how the unit has addressed these weaknesses.
        Various developments in AY 1999-2000 in the CSU College of Education illustrate the vitality of its conceptual framework as a foundation for unit decision-making and operations. Collectively, these events reflect a dynamic, high-quality educator preparation unit.
        As described briefly in the forthcoming discussion of a weakness linked to the conceptual framework, faculty participated in a survey of their perceptions on a range of topics early in 2000. Eight of 30 items related in some fashion to the conceptual framework; on balance, the survey reveals that unit faculty believe in and strongly support the framework, understand it, and use it in their ongoing professional practice.
        Early in 1999, CSU initiated a mandated Re-Design of all professional programs. Responding to a series of "principles and actions" called for by the University System Regents, CSU and other public institutions in Georgia were obliged to incorporate a series of reforms in both basic and advanced programs. The Re-Design process was completed by the end of the year, with various curriculum changes to go into effect in 2000-2001. An array of Re-Design committees-each comprising unit faculty, CSU faculty from outside the unit, and practitioners-carried out the Re-Design under the aegis of a steering committee.
        In the Re-Design process, the use and infusion of technology into all programs received special emphasis. Once the Re-Design process was complete, most initial programs dropped a stand-alone technology course in initial programs in favor of greater infusion of technology into all professional courses.
        Overall, the Re-Design process served to better align the design of programs with the conceptual framework. As well, it sparked improvements across the board in candidate content knowledge (especially in early childhood and middle-grades), technology utilization/infusion, pre-student teaching field experience (increased for most programs), and the development of partnerships with schools serving as sites for clinical experiences.
        Planning for several new programs continued during 1999-2000. By the end of the AY, a cooperative doctoral program in educational leadership (with Valdosta State University), initial programs in foreign languages (Spanish and French), and a non-certification M.Ed. program in instructional technology were in place. Planning for 2000-2001 centered on developing a non-traditional "fast-track" program at the M.Ed. level for initial licensure in an array of secondary education fields.
        Items noted in the unit's response to a weakness reported by the 1998 BOE are equally applicable in this discussion. Please refer to them.


Section B. Candidate Performance

Standard 1. Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Candidates Candidates include persons preparing to teach, teachers who are continuing their professional development, and persons preparing for other professional roles in schools such as principals, school psychologists, and school library media specialists. 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 "All students" includes students with exceptionalities and of different ethnic, racial, gender, language, religious, socioeconomic, and regional/geographic origins. learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional Institutional standards are reflected in the unit's conceptual framework and include candidate proficiencies. standards.

Please describe the unit's plans for and progress in meeting this standard. (Refer to the NCATE 2000 Unit Transition Plan for information regarding the levels at which units should address Standards 1 and 2 during the first 4 years of NCATE 2000 implementation)
        The 1999-2000 academic year demonstrated in a number of ways the commitment of Columbus State and the College of Education to strengthening the content knowledge preparation of teacher candidates and other education personnel, to strengthening the pedagogical content knowledge and professional skills for teacher candidates and other school personnel, and to promoting dispositions among all candidates that reflect the unit's conceptual framework.
        At the CSU (university) level, programs from each of the four Colleges generated detailed performance-based assessment plans. These plans, submitted to the VPAA, provided the basis not only for valid program assessment but for the assessment of undergraduate achievement in general education at the institution.
        In the College of Education, program development and modification during the year centered on the Re-Design of all educator preparation programs consistent with a set of "principles and actions" prescribed by the University System of Georgia System Regents. Though arduous, the process led to numerous changes in programs, as follows:
        § content requirements in early childhood and middle-grades education were increased; in the former program in particular, both mathematics and content related to teaching reading were sharply increased.
        § content requirements in secondary education were either affirmed as equivalent to a major in the discipline or, in the case of secondary science and social science, broad-fields majors were abandoned in favor of separate curricula in chemistry/biology/earth science and history.
        § additional clinical experiences prior to student teaching (with 400 clock hours as a target for all initial programs) provided a foundation for teacher candidates to develop proficiencies related to designing and implementing learning experiences suited for all P-12 learners
        § programs in leadership and counseling focused on the mandated necessity that candidates demonstrate the ability to foster school climates in which all learners might learn at high levels.
        § through the unit's intensified application of INTASC principles to the assessment of practica and student teaching, candidates were more likely to demonstrate proficiencies consistent with national standards and those of professional organizations.



Weaknesses related to Standard 1 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
None.



Please indicate how the unit has addressed these weaknesses.
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.

Please describe the unit's plans for and progress in meeting this standard. (Refer to the NCATE 2000 Unit Transition Plan for information regarding the levels at which units should address Standards 1 and 2 during the first 4 years of NCATE 2000 implementation)
        The unit exerted substantial efforts to establish a performance-based assessment system prior to the 1998 continuing accreditation visit of NCATE and the Georgia Professional Standards Commission. The timing of the NCATE visit (during the first semester of the institution's conversion from a quarter to a semester calendar) coincided with implementing what were, in reality, new programs at both initial and advanced levels. These programs-the products of two years of faculty planning-were leaner (fewer requirements) and more performance-based than those they replaced.
        Program exhibits developed for the 1998 visit provided an array of materials demonstrating how and how well candidates met program outcomes. These exhibits are now housed in a central location in the COE.
        Beginning in 1997, the VPAA directed campus-wide efforts to establish an assessment plan for the general education component as well as for each undergraduate and graduate CSU program. During the report year (1999-2000), a shoring up of this university-wide plan was evident; individual program coordinators and/or departments submitted reports articulating in specific terms program outcomes, assessment strategies, and program decisions based on assessment results.
        By 1999-2000, all public institutions in Georgia had replaced state-developed teacher assessment instruments (in Georgia these were known as the TCT) with PRAXIS 1 and PRAXIS 2. As a result, Columbus State began to accumulate standardized data on candidates at the time of their seeking admission to teacher education and as they exited. These data would be necessary as the Federal government enacted legislation that, in 2001, would mandate a so-called "report card" on teacher education institutions. During the latter part of the 1999-2000 AY, COE Dean Thomas Harrison's attention was directed toward planning for procedures Georgia institutions would use to report data called for in this legislation.
        The unit's standing Committee on Assessment oversees assessment in the College of Education. In consultation with the dean and Administrative Council, the Committee on Assessment has begun planning a more systematic approach to candidate/program/unit assessment for the future. Faculty on the committee observed that, despite substantial assessment throughout the College of Education, a more systematic approach was very much needed in anticipation of NCATE 2000 standards. They also observed that the frequent change or re-design of programs (1996-1998 as part of semester conversion; 1999-2000 in response to Regent's Principles and Actions) functioned to impede thorough assessment.


Weaknesses related to Standard 2 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
None.


Please indicate how the unit has addressed these weaknesses.
Section C. Unit capacity

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 personnel develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 3 that occurred in your unit this year:
        The unit took a number of actions in 1999-2000 to ensure improvement in the design, implementation, and evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice. The first of these was the establishment at the beginning of the academic year of the Office of Undergraduate Services and Field Experiences (USFE). The USFE has improved an array of services to candidates: advisement, placement for field experiences and student teaching to assure suitable variety, orientation and professional development of practitioner partners of the program, evaluation of transcripts for post-baccalaureate candidates, certification, and career placement and counseling.
        Also in 1999-2000, a West Georgia Partner Schools Coalition was under development between CSU and four area school systems. Implemented in Fall 2000, the Coalition adopted four goals (research, educator preparation, excellence in P-12 schools, and professional development). The broader outcome of the partnership agreement was to simultaneously improve educator preparation and the schools serving and served by CSU.
        As well, aspects of the student-teaching semester were substantially modified in 1999-2000. Implemented in Fall 2000, the new student teaching model prescribed two intensive weeks on campus at the beginning of the term (to meet requirements in classroom management, methods for exceptional learners, and technology), twelve weeks of full-time experience in student teaching per se, and a series of seminars at the semester's conclusion. All student teachers complete InTech, a seven-day intensive computer applications training experience; this non-credit, non-tuition program enhances the effectiveness of student teachers in capitalizing on technology in the schools as well as boosts their marketability.
        Finally, unit faculty and supervisors continued to review and modify assessment instruments for student teaching. This process led to a clearer integration of CSU's conceptual framework with field experiences and student teaching.


Weaknesses related to Standard 3 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
None.


Please indicate how the unit has addressed these weaknesses.
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.

Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 4 that occurred in your unit this year:
        The Committee on Diversity, a standing body, oversees and advises the unit on topics and issues related to diversity. Its focus is a broad one and includes curriculum, clinical and field experiences, faculty, and students.
        The Office of Undergraduate Services and Field Experiences (USFE), established at the outset of the 1999-2000 AY, has systematized the placement of candidates for field experiences and student teachers. Given the considerable diversity of school systems in the CSU service area, the unit has-through the USFE-capitalized on this factor and thereby ensures suitable placements of candidates in sites where they may acquire and refine skills and knowledge in order to help all learners succeed.
        Substantial diversity exists among education candidates at both initial and advanced levels. Among full-time undergraduates, 76.8 percent are white, 17.7 percent are African-American, and the remainder represent other minorities. Among full-time graduate students, 70.3 percent are white, and more than one-fourth are African Americans. Among initial program completers, 14 percent are minority. In advanced programs, one in five recipients of M.Ed. or Ed.S. degrees were minority, primarily African Americans.
        Unit faculty are increasingly diverse. Please see the discussion in response to the weakness cited in 1998 for details and commentary (following).


Weaknesses related to Standard 4 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
The college has not been successful in recruiting and retaining a diverse
faculty.


Please indicate how the unit has addressed these weaknesses.
        Overall, opportunities at Columbus State for candidates to work with diverse faculty have increased since the 1998 continuing accreditation visit. Both in 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, new hires in full-time positions were well-qualified White, African-American, and Latino professors (four of nine being African Americans and Latinos).
        Three of seven new hires in 1999-2000 were well-qualified African Americans. These faculty additions more than offset the retirement of one African-American professor, the institution's first non-white professor and a unit stalwart since 1970. A fourth African-American (in leadership) declined the COE's offer of employment for AY 1999-2000. (One of three minority professors hired for 1999-2000 resigned at the end of the year for personal reasons.)
        There were three tenure-track positions filled by the beginning of the 1999-2000 academic year. Careful recruitment and selection was evident on behalf of faculty diversity, and-as a result-one new hire is Latino. The other two are Anglo white, with one of these being Jewish.
        Thus, over a two-year period, the net change of minority faculty representation in the unit as of October 2000 is plus two. Four full-time faculty (10.8 percent) among 37 in the unit are minority. Among faculty full-time to the institution and part-time to the unit, 3 of 19 (15.7 percent) are minority; 4 of 40 adjunct faculty (10 percent) are minority persons.
        Consistent with the unit's Minority Recruitment Plan, the dean appoints mentors for all new unit faculty. Suitable mentoring of new professors, senior faculty believe, will enhance their job satisfaction and the likelihood of their remaining productive members of the faculty in the future.


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 systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.

Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 5 that occurred in your unit this year:
        Numerous developments and activities demonstrate that the College of Education has an increasingly well-qualified faculty, both on-campus and among those who work in school settings. Tenure-track new-hires with full-time teaching responsibilities hold earned doctorates and display rich P-12 experience. Many unit faculty provide leadership to state, regional, and national professional organizations. These include a 1999 recipient of NCTM's life-time achievement award, the outgoing chair of NCTE's committee on teacher preparation (the body that publishes NCTE teacher education standards), and Columbus State's Regents' Distinguished Professor for 1999-2000. The latter professor, an early childhood specialist, received released time in order to promote teaching innovations across the campus.
        Among significant developments and actions in 1999-2000 related to faculty qualifications are these:
        § The development of the West Georgia Partner Schools Coalition (described previously) formalized a structure for ongoing collaboration between CSU and four school systems.
        § Highly beneficial collaboration between the unit and the education community is the watchword for these COE enterprises: the Educational Technology Training Center (ETTC); the Columbus Regional Mathematics Collaborative (CRMC); the Coca Cola Space Science Center; and the Child Care Resource and Referral Agency of West Central Georgia and Columbus (CCRRC). These groups each have excellent reputations in the region and enhance the unit's ability to positively affect educational practice in West Central Georgia.
        § Faculty development during the year emphasized technology; expenditures on behalf of upgrading faculty integration of technology was considerable.
        Also during the academic year, the dean, recognizing the need to more closely oversee and coordinate faculty development, appointed a faculty committee to formulate a COE Faculty Development Plan. The committee, noting that a great deal of planned faculty development occurred at the program-level, in departments, and elsewhere in the unit, submitted a plan in April that would not only organize and maintain a record of faculty development in the COE, but stimulate an annual focus to events intended to help faculty better accomplish the unit's mission of "guiding individuals as they become professionals."


Weaknesses related to Standard 5 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
None.


Please indicate how the unit has addressed these weaknesses.
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.

Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 6 that occurred in your unit this year:
        During the 1999-2000 AY, the CSU College of Education strengthened its ability to prepare candidates to meet appropriate professional, state, and institutional standards. Various actions-those related to organization, decision-making, and budget-highlight these improvements.
        At the outset of the academic year, what had been four COE departments became three. The former Department of Educational Technology and Foundations was absorbed by Curriculum and Instruction (special education, reading, technology, and undergraduate foundations) and Counseling/Leadership (administration and graduate foundations). This action provided resources to establish the Office of Undergraduate Services and Field Experiences (USFE), described previously, and the appointment of a Director of Outreach Services. An equally significant action occurred toward the end of the AY, that being to redesignate department chairs as twelve-month positions rather than nine-month. This had the effect, beginning Fall 2000, to strengthen department activity in the summer.
        Other significant events related to unit governance were (1) the establishment of the Educator Preparation Program Council (EPPC) and (2) the establishment or formalizing of Program Advisory Councils during the Re-Design. The former was a byproduct of the Regents-directed Re-Design; the EPPC, broadly representative of COE faculty, CSU faculty outside the COE, and practitioners, has emerged as a governing body for the COE. In the case of Program Advisory Committees (PACs) established during the Re-Design, the dean directed that they be permanent bodies.
        As reported on Form B for the same year, approximately 2.78 million dollars supported professional education programs, and an additional 1.1 million dollars was made available through an array of grants. This amount contrasted with 2.68 million dollars and $811,000 in grant monies, respectively, the preceding year. The increase in grant monies, better than 25 percent, between 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 is impressive.
        The most visible result of funding increases in the unit has been in technology. In addition to expanding and maintaining its technology labs and equipment, the COE has equipped four classrooms with state-of-the-art presentation hardware and six computers each. This action, completed in time for Fall 2000, will greatly enhance opportunities for educator preparation faculty to infuse technology into foundations and pedagogy courses.
        Finally, capital improvements at CSU were under way in 1999-2000 that will positively affect the unit's facilities. The RiverCenter for the Performing Arts is under construction in downtown Columbus; sometime in 2001 it will house the Schwob Department of Music, including Music Education. On campus, a new physical education complex will be dedicated in November 2000; faculty in the Department of Physical Education and Leisure Management will move to that facility.


Weaknesses related to Standard 6 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
The College of Education does not have a written policy covering the governance
and facilitation of teacher education programs offered outside of the college.

Please indicate how the unit has addressed these weaknesses.
        As described in the previous Annual Report, Part C, the institution and unit now have a suitable written policy regarding the unit's authority over programs nominally housed outside the College of Education (art, music, and theatre).


Section D. Other weaknesses cited during the prior visit.

Other evaluations, changes and improvements during this year:

Other weaknesses cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
None.


Please indicate how the unit has addressed these weaknesses.
Additional Changes in the Unit:



Enter the Name of the Person Filling Out the Report: James Brewbaker