Web Print

---

2001 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:	01/23/2003

Section 2 - Unit Head Information

Unit Head Name:	Thomas Harrison
Unit Head EMail:	harrison_thomas@colstate.edu
Unit Head Phone:	(706) 568-2212
Unit Head Fax:	(706) 569-3134
Unit Phone:	(706) 568-2045
NCATE Coordinator:	Deborah Gober
Coordinator Phone:	(706) 568-2045
Coordinator Fax:	(706) 569-3134
Coordinator Email:	gober_deborah@colstate.edu

Is the information above accurate?

Yes - Skip to NCATE Standards Section

Corrected Unit Head:
Title of Unit Head
Corrected Unit Head Email:
Corrected Unit Head Phone:
Corrected Unit Phone:
Corrected Fax:
Corrected NCATE Coordinator:
Title of NCATE Coordinator
Corrected Coordinator Phone:
Corrected Coordinator Fax:
Corrected Coordinator Email:
President Full Name
President 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:

In AY 2000-2001, the conceptual framework continued to provide a foundation for unit decision-making and operations as evidenced by new developments and ongoing efforts in the CSU College of Education. Responding to an increased emphasis on performance assessment in the NCATE Standards and the "principles and actions" called for by the University System Regents, CSU developed a systematic performance assessment plan (Model of Appropriate Practice [MAP]) for all undergraduate programs in the College of Education. The plan is based on Charlotte Danielson's framework for teaching and goes into effect in AY 2001-2002. University faculty and K-12 practitioners were involved in the careful examination and modification of Danielson's framework. Through this intensive process, the educator preparation faculty developed a model for teaching that emphasizes the shared vision and common beliefs of the faculty. Thus, this process served to better align undergraduate programs with the conceptual framework and led to improvements in professional courses, technology utilization, and field experiences. An important development at the end of AY 2000-2001 was the creation of the Intern Teaching Team Program (ITTP). In response to actions taken by the Professional Standards Commission to address the critical need for qualified teachers in some areas of the state, the CSU College of Education developed a program to help individuals make the transition from other careers into K-12 classrooms. The College of Education's commitment to professional knowledge, teaching competence, student learning, dispositions, diversity, and technology are reflected in the ITTP program requirements which include stringent entry requirements, meaningful coursework in content and pedagogy, and quality field experiences. Other activities in the College of Education followed up on AY 1999-2000 developments. · CSU implemented and evaluated reforms in both basic and advanced programs that were initiated as a response to a series of "principles and actions" called for by the University System Regents. A report was submitted to the University System Regents in which these reform efforts were described and evaluated. The COE received high marks (3, 4, or 5 on a scale of 1-5) in a majority of the areas included in the "principles and actions." · There was a continued emphasis on the use and infusion of technology. Through various grant opportunities, a number of faculty were able to participate in InTECH or WebCT training. As a result of this training, faculty continued to enhance professional courses through the infusion of technology. An intense effort was initiated to make all graduate courses in the College of Education either web-enhanced or asynchronous. · Several new programs were implemented and evaluated during 2000-2001. A cooperative doctoral program in educational leadership (with Valdosta State University), initial programs in foreign languages (Spanish and French), a non-certification M.Ed. program in instructional technology, and a non-traditional "fast-track" program at the M.Ed. level for initial licensure in an array of secondary education fields were offered in Fall 2000. In these ongoing efforts throughout AY 2000-2001, programs were continually being evaluated and refined to better reflect the conceptual framework. These efforts sparked improvements across the board in candidate content knowledge, technology utilization/infusion, field experiences, and the development of partnerships with schools serving as sites for clinical experiences. 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.

The unit has continued its efforts to both clarify and integrate its conceptual framework. Guided in this process by the Conceptual Framework Committee, a standing body, the unit head and faculty engaged in a variety of activities to address the weakness. Their overall thrust is to ensure that the broader CSU professional community understands and makes substantive use of the common beliefs of the faculty as delineated in the framework. Activities that reflect clarification and integration of the conceptual framework are these: · letters to new tenure-track faculty regarding the conceptual framework and how to use it as a basis for planning · use of a handbook for adjunct faculty including orientation to the conceptual framework · utilization of junior/senior teacher candidates ("The Pyramid Team") to introduce students in their initial professional course to the conceptual framework and INTASC Principles · faculty forums that address NCATE-related topics, ways to better use the conceptual framework, and so forth · emphasis on conceptual framework (INTASC and NBPTS) and specialty association guidelines during implementation and evaluation of program reforms · distribution of the conceptual framework flyer to cooperating teachers, new faculty, students and other members of the professional community · use of a bulletin board in a high-traffic area emphasizing constructivist teacher education theory · development of performance assessment handbook for faculty and students which includes a synopsis of the conceptual framework and correlation of the performance assessment plan with INTASC Standards reexamination of Conceptual Framework in light of infusing and adapting Danielson's framwork into all educator preparation preservice programs. Items noted in the unit's response to evaluations of and changes made to the unit's conceptual framework (if any) during this year 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)

In AY 2000-2001, the commitment of the College of Education to preparing candidates who know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn, was evidenced in the development of the Model of Appropriate Practice (MAP), a systematic performance assessment plan for all undergraduate programs in the College of Education. MAP is an adaptation of Charlotte Danielson's framework for teaching. University faculty and K-12 practitioners met frequently throughout AY 2000-2001 to study Danielson's framework and discuss its relevance for teacher education. Through this intensive process, the educator preparation faculty developed a model for teaching that emphasizes the shared vision and common beliefs of the faculty. Several important features of MAP are as follows: · its infusion into all preservice teacher education courses, thus providing a common set of guidelines for instructing, mentoring, and assessing teacher candidates · the organization of courses and field experiences around four key domains: Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities · the creation of products by teacher candidates that are based on the four domains · the use of multiple forms of assessment including teacher candidates' self-assessment (e.g., construction of WebFolio and reflections on planning and instruction), evaluations by faculty and cooperating teachers, and the creation of a cumulative folder for each candidate showing evidence of progress made in meeting expectations set forth by MAP · the correlation of MAP with INTASC Principles Another important development in AY 2000-2001 that showed the commitment of the College of Education to preparing candidates who know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn, was the Intern Teaching Team Program (ITTP). This program was carefully designed to help individuals make the transition from other careers into K-12 classrooms, while honoring the commitment of the College of Education to preparing quality teachers. Key components of this program include the following: · careful selection of candidates based on criteria such as the candidate's field of study and dispositions · coursework in which faculty guide teacher candidates in their constructions of content and pedagogical knowledge · support from teacher education faculty as teacher candidates work in their own P-12 classrooms · infusion of technology (web-enhanced and asynchronous courses) In addition to the developments described above, a committee began exploring ways in which COE graduate programs might be redesigned to help prepare teachers for National Board Certification. Two new courses were designed and will be implemented in AY 2001-2002. The first course introduces participants to the National Board Certification process and the second course helps those applying for certification in putting together their portfolios. Preparing teachers for National Board Certification is another demonstration of the commitment of the CSU College of Education to preparing teachers who have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help all students learn.

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)

Planning for a more systematic approach to candidate/program/unit assessment continued in AY 2000-2001. In January 2001, The Title II Grant Management Team of the Board of Regents awarded Federal funds to the College of Education (COE) for professional development in the area of assessment. These funds allowed COE to bring in an external consultant, Dr. Lilburn Wesche, to examine current assessment practices and make recommendations. Following Dr. Wesche's visit in February 2001, a standing committee was established for each of the NCATE Standards. Beginning in Fall 2001, these committees will collect and analyze data for each standard, recommend professional development activities, revise assessment procedures, and so forth. With the development of the Model of Appropriate Practice (MAP), the College of Education now has a structure in place to systematically collect and analyze data on undergraduate teacher education candidates and programs. MAP provides a common set of guidelines for assessing teacher candidates and programs. These guidelines are correlated with the INTASC Principles and aligned with the conceptual framework. With the infusion of MAP, all preservice education courses and field experiences are organized around four key domains: Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities. Teacher candidates will create products based on these domains to demonstrate their effectiveness in helping all students learn. MAP allows for multiple forms of assessment including teacher candidates' self-assessments (e.g., construction of WebFolio containing samples of best work), evaluations by faculty and cooperating teachers, and the creation of cumulative folders containing a variety of data on teacher candidates. Cumulative folders will include data such as PRAXIS 1 and PRAXIS 2 scores, grade-point averages, samples of candidates? work, field placement information, and faculty evaluations. At the beginning of each semester, teacher preparation faculty will review the folders for their upcoming teacher candidates to determine the areas in which candidates need improvement. Courses and programs may then be modified as necessary. Another activity conducted in AY 2000-2001 was a survey of principals regarding their perceptions of teachers who graduated from the College of Education. The principals gave COE graduates high marks in areas relating to the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Planning for a systematic approach to candidate/program/unit assessment will continue in AY 2001-2002 with an emphasis on developing a more systematic assessment plan for graduate programs and for the unit. The Assessment Committee will oversee this process with assistance from the standing committees established at the end of AY 2000-2001.

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 development of the Model of Appropriate Practice (MAP) in AY 2000-2001 led to improvements in the design of field experiences. MAP provides a common set of guidelines for all teacher preparation faculty as they instruct, mentor, and assess teacher candidates during their field experiences. Like the professional courses, field experiences are organized around four key domains: Planning and Preparation, Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities. The evaluation instruments used by teacher preparation faculty during field experiences were modified to reflect these four domains and their components, which are correlated with the INTASC Principles. An important change in the design of field experiences was the inclusion of an observation/assessment cycle (pre-observation conference, classroom observation, and post-observation conference). This experience will allow the teacher candidate, the university supervisor, and the cooperating teacher the opportunity to identify strengths and areas for improvement. As MAP is implemented in AY 2000-2001, there will be an increased need for qualified mentors. The College of Education has collaborated with its partner school districts to "grow our own" mentors. A course entitled, Teacher Support Specialist (TSS), was reinstated to introduce participants to supervisory and conferencing skills and to provide a field experience in which the TSS candidate is paired with an induction teacher. This course familiarizes participants with Charlotte Danielson's framework for teaching, from which MAP was developed, and leads to a TSS endorsement. Currently, an extensive effort is made to place teacher candidates in classrooms with certified TSS teachers. As the pool of mentor teachers increases, students in all classes with field experiences may be placed in classrooms with TSS endorsed teachers. In addition, TSS endorsed teachers may help to provide support for beginning teachers during their first two years. Another area of improvement related to field experiences was the strengthening of the relationship with partner schools. A part-time person was hired by COE to coordinate activities related to the Partners in Education agreement. Building coordinators were selected from among the P-12 faculty in each of the partner schools. The building coordinators, along with other P-12 faculty, assist the College of Education in designing, delivering, and evaluating field experiences. During AY 2000-2001, building coordinators and teacher preparation faculty developed a field experience handbook. This handbook provides an overview of each course in which students are assigned to a P-12 school for field experiences. The handbook describes specific assignments and expectations for students in the field. The information about field experiences is also included in course syllabi and aligned with the conceptual framework.

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:

Diversity is a key component in the Model of Appropriate Practice (MAP) that was developed in AY 2000-2001. Teacher candidates must demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions (as described in MAP) that will enable them to work effectively with diverse students and help all students learn. As explained earlier, MAP will be infused into all preservice education courses and field experiences in Fall 2001. The Office of Undergraduate Services and Field Experiences (USFE) continues to ensure suitable placements of candidates in sites where they may acquire and refine the skills and knowledge necessary to help all students learn. At the end of AY 2000-2001, the College of Education (COE) received a copy of the results of a research project funded by the U.S. Office Of Education on the Multicultural/Diversity Assessment Outcomes in the teacher preparation programs at Emporia State University. This information was shared with the Conceptual Framework Committee and the group consensus was that the Emporia State University project had great relevance to a similar need at CSU. Plans for AY 2001-2002 include using this information to move COE toward greater involvement of faculty and students in multicultural/diversity issues. Substantial diversity exists among education candidates at both initial and advanced levels. Among full-time undergraduates, 76.1 percent are Caucasian, 19.0 percent are African-American, and the remainder represent other minorities. Among full-time graduate students, 80.3 percent are Caucasian and 17.1 percent are African Americans. Among initial program completers, 15.4 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.

As reported in AY 1999-2000, opportunities at Columbus State for candidates to work with diverse faculty have increased since the 1998 continuing accreditation visit. In the past three academic years, new hires in full-time positions were well-qualified Caucasian, African-American, and Latino professors (four of fifteen being African Americans and Latinos). In AY 2000-2001, all full-time minority faculty members were retained by CSU. One African-American professor was granted promotion and tenure. Another minority professor has applied for promotion and tenure. With the approval of the foreign language program, the diverse faculty in the Language and Literature Department in the College of Arts and Letters are involved in the instruction of COE teacher candidates. Thus, the opportunities for teacher candidates to work with diverse faculty have increased. Over a three-year period, the net change of minority faculty representation in the unit as of October 2001 is plus two. Four of the 35 full-time faculty (11.4 percent) in the unit are minority. Five of the 42 part-time faculty (11.9 percent) are minority persons.

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 (COE) 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. As in 1999-2000, faculty development during the past year emphasized the use and infusion of technology. Expenditures on technology training for faculty were considerable. As a result, a number of COE faculty (partnering with faculty members from the College of Science or the College of Arts and Letters and a P-12 master teacher) were able to participate in Georgia's Phase One InTech Professional Development training. Participants worked collaboratively to create, implement and assess technology-enhanced lessons for efficacy in improving the achievement of P-16 students. Other faculty members (partnering with a colleague from the College of Science, the College of Arts and Letters, or a P-12 educator) participated in Web CT Online Course training. After completing the training, participants collaborated to redesign a course for use in the preparation of teacher candidates through online learning opportunities. Faculty development during AY 2001-2002 will be facilitated by the newly implemented COE Faculty Development Plan. COE events will be planned around a central theme to help faculty better accomplish the unit's mission of "guiding individuals as they become professionals." This year's theme is preparing teacher candidates who have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help all students learn. In AY 1999-2000, the West Georgia Partner Schools Coalition was formed to support collaboration between CSU and four school systems. This structure was implemented in AY 2000-2001. The ongoing collaboration was strengthened through the hiring of a part-time person in COE to coordinate activities related to the Partners in Education agreement and through the selection of building coordinators in each of the partner schools. The building coordinators, along with other P-12 faculty, assist the College of Education in designing, delivering, and evaluating field experiences. As stated in the AY 1999-2000 annual report, collaboration between the unit and the education community is greatly enhanced by other 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 continue to enhance the unit's ability to affect educational practice in West Central Georgia by providing a variety of resources, training, and professional development activities for surrounding communities.

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:

Building on developments in AY 1999-2000, the CSU College of Education continued to strengthen its ability to prepare candidates to meet appropriate professional, state, and institutional standards. In 1999-2000, the former Department of Educational Technology and Foundations (special education, reading, technology, and undergraduate foundations) was absorbed by Curriculum and Instruction. As a result, there has been increased collaboration among COE faculty. Such collaboration was especially beneficial during AY 2000-2001 as the Model of Appropriate Practice (MAP) was developed and as faculty intensified their efforts to integrate technology in their teaching. The College of Education was strengthened by the hiring of six new faculty members for AY 2001-2002 (special education (1), science education (1), instructional technology (1), counseling (1), educational leadership (1), educational foundations (1)). Among the new hires is a faculty member who will facilitate the development of web-enhanced courses. Several of these positions were created by retirements or resignations prior to AY 1999-2000. The retirement of a mathematics education professor at the end of AY 2000-2001 left a vacancy that has not yet been filled. In AY 1999-2000, the West Georgia Partner Schools Coalition was formed to support collaboration between CSU and four school systems. This structure was implemented in AY 2000-2001. The ongoing collaboration was strengthened through the hiring of a part-time person in COE to coordinate activities related to the Partners in Education agreement The Office of Undergraduate Services and Field Experiences (USFE), established in Fall 1999, has proven to be another valuable resource in preparing teacher candidates. The USFE has improved services to undergraduate teacher candidates by coordinating a variety of activities: advisement, placement for field experiences and student teaching, evaluation of transcripts for post-baccalaureate candidates, certification, and career placement and counseling. Plans for AY 2001-2002 include the expansion of the USFE to provide services for graduate students in the College of Education. As reported on Form B for the same year, approximately 2.92 million dollars supported professional education programs, and an additional $792,000 was made available through various grants. This amount contrasted with 2.78 million dollars and $1.1 million dollars in grant monies, respectively, the preceding year. During AY 2000-2001, substantial funding was provided to initiate the development of the Model of Appropriate Practice (MAP) and to begin planning courses to prepare candidates for the National Board Certification process. Teams of faculty members traveled to conferences to receive training and gather information to assist in these endeavors. Training in using MAP and related software was also provided for all teacher preparation faculty in the College of Education. Finally, the completion of two capital improvement projects at CSU provided new facilities for two departments in the College of Education. The RiverCenter for the Performing Arts and the Lumpkin Center (a new physical education complex) now house the Schwob Department of Music (including Music Education) and the Department of Physical Education and Leisure Management.

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 a previous Annual Report (1998-1999), 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.
Section 4. - Program Information from Title II, Appendix C, Institutional questionaire, Section II, Program Information.
(Note: The data reported here should be identical to what was submitted to your state on April 7,2001)

Teacher preparation program definition
A. Enrollment: What was the total number of students enrolled in your teacher preparation program during the academic year 1999-2000, including all areas of specialization?

777 (total number of enrolled students; from Question A.1)

B. Supervised student teaching: How many students (in the regular program and any alternative route programs) were in programs of supervised student teaching during academic year 1999-2000

128 (total students in supervised teaching; from Question B.2)

Number of supervising faculty (Supervising Faculty Definition)
	1999-2000	Prior Year
Appointed full-time faculty in professional education	13	N/A
Appointed part time faculty in professional education and full-time in institution	3	N/A
Appointed part-time in professional education; not otherwise employed by institution	12	N/A
Total supervising faculty	28	N/A
1

Participation data: (question 5)
a. The average number of hours per week required of student participation in supervised student teaching in these programs was:

35 hours.

b. The total number of weeks of supervised student teaching required is:

15 weeks.

c. The total number of hours required is:

500 hours.

Additional Changes in the Unit:



Enter the Name of the Person Filling Out the Report: Deborah Gober