a. Program Name – Elementary, Secondary, and Special Education graduate programs, Educational Leadership graduate program.

b. Report prepared by –

            Karen B. Clark, Assistant Dean School of Education
            Susan Cress, Department Head, Elementary Education
           Terry Shepherd, Department Head, Special Education
           Bruce Spitzer, Department Head, Secondary Education and Foundations
           Jeremy Linton, Counseling and Educational Leadership

c. Who is the current assessment contact for your program?

            Susan Cress, Department Head, Elementary Education
            Terry Shepherd, Department Head, Special Education
            Bruce Spitzer, Department Head, Secondary Education and Foundations
             Jeremy Linton, Counseling and  Educational Leadership

d. Should assessment information be sent to anyone else in your department?

            Karen Clark, Assistant Dean of the School of Education

1. What are the program’s educational goals? (Please take goals directly from your program’s assessment plan, and highlight any changes made this year.)

The School of Education adopted the following standards for all teacher education programs in 2004 prior to our last accreditation visit. The following standards combine those from the Interstate New Teacher and Assessment Support Consortium, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), and our own IU South Bend standards. These standards are our educational goals, however, faculty are reconsidering using only the NBPTS for advanced programs in the future.

Standard One: Content Knowledge

The teacher understands the subject(s) taught including the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structure of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and can create learning experiences that make these aspects of subject matter meaningful to students (adopted from INTASC Principle One). At advanced levels, candidates are expected to develop an in-depth understanding of their fields and to apply this understanding to real-world situations (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Two).

Standard Two: Growth & Development

The teacher understands how children and youth learn and develop and can provide learning opportunities and support their intellectual, social, and personal development (adopted from INTASC Principle Two and IPSB Standards). At advanced levels, candidates understand and apply current learning theories. They make a commitment to students beyond the classroom (adopted from National Board Core Proposition One).

Standard Three: Diverse Learners

The teacher understands how learners differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adapted to learners from diverse cultural backgrounds and with exceptionalities (adopted from INTASC Principle Three). At advanced levels, candidates provide equitable opportunities for all students and commit to implementing practices that support the well-being of all students (adopted from National Board Core Proposition One).

Standard Four: Instruction and Curriculum

The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students’ development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills (adopted from INTASC Principle Four). At advanced levels, candidates are expected to be adept at conveying their subject matter to students and to realize the importance of merging a commitment to students and knowledge (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Two and Three).

Standard Five: Learning Environment

The teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social actions, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation (adopted from INTASC Principle Five). At advanced levels, candidates are able to orchestrate learning and maximize student engagement using creativity and knowledge of best practice (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Three).

Standard Six: Communication

The teacher uses knowledge of effective verbal, non-verbal, and media communication techniques to foster active learning, collaboration, and to support interaction in the classroom (adopted from INTASC Principle Six). At advanced levels candidates are expected to create multiple paths for understanding (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Two).

Standard Seven: Instructional Planning

The teacher plans and manages instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals (adopted from INTASC Principle Seven). At advanced levels candidates are expected to motivate and mobilize various human resources to support learning (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Three).

Standard Eight: Assessment

The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of learners (adopted from INTASC Principle Eight). At advanced levels, candidates are meticulous about monitoring student learning and adjusting instruction accordingly (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Three).

Standard Nine: Professionalism

The teacher is a reflective practitioner who continuously evaluates the effects of his or her choices and action on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally (adopted from INTASC Principle Nine). At advanced levels, candidates reflect to ensure equity for all students and to continuously evaluate decisions (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Four).

Standard Ten: Collaboration

The teacher communicates and interacts with parents/guardians, families, school colleagues, and the community to support students’ learning and well-being (adopted from INTASC Principle Ten and IPSB Standards). At advanced levels, candidates consult with sources of research and scholarship and participate in a larger learning community (adopted from National Board Core Proposition Five).
The five themes of our mission statement: competent professionals, ethical dispositions, reflective practitioners, diverse learners, and rapidly changing world, are integrated throughout these ten standards. In an attempt to clearly articulate our belief in the importance of professional and ethical dispositions, faculty and other stakeholders have identified specific dispositions for all IU South Bend candidates. These dispositions are listed below.

Professionalism – Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Conforms to ethical standards of a profession
• Appreciates constructive feedback
• Reliably attends class, other professional functions, and meets deadlines
• Shows responsibility for self and actions
• Shows respect for teaching and learning
• Demonstrates proficient oral and written literacy

Care and Compassion - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Treats all students and colleagues fairly and equitably
• Shows concern for all aspects of a student’s well being
• Shows an awareness of impact on others
• Shows sensitivity to others including families
• Shows a willingness to consider different strategies to support students

Collaboration - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Consults with others regarding well-being of students
• Communicates effectively with others
• Willingly consults with others
• Recognizes professional responsibility to support self and others
• Shows appropriate problem-solving and conflict resolution skills

Lifelong Learning - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Commits to continually learning new and refining current practices
• Engages enthusiastically in professional development

Integrity and Respect - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Serves as a role model for students and others
• Demonstrates honesty when interacting with others
• Acts as an advocate for students and families
• Maintains privacy and confidentiality

Habits of Mind - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Demonstrates curiosity about teaching and learning
• Demonstrates enthusiasm and commitment to content

Commitment to Technology - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Is open to new technologies
• Uses technology to facilitate student learning

Respect for Diversity - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Shows sensitivity to community and cultural norms
• Commits to addressing needs of individual students
• Is flexible and able to view issues from different perspectives

Work Ethic - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Is proactive in engaging in activities beyond those that are required
• Engages in careful planning and preparation of learning activities
• Seeks resources to support the continuous development of all students

Commitment to Reflection - Indicators of the disposition might include how well the candidate:

• Engages in reflective practices on an ongoing basis

 
Finally, any graduate programs that lead to an initial teaching license are aligned with the Indiana Teaching Standards found at http://www.doe.state.in.us/dps/standards/teacherindex.html.
The graduate program in educational leadership is designed to meet the following goals from the Indiana Professional Standards Board.

Standard #1: A Vision of Learning.
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the greater school community.

Standard #2: School Culture and Instructional Program.
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students and staff by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth.

Standard #3: Management.
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students and staff by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.

Standard #4: Collaboration with Families and the Community.
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.

Standard #5: Acting with Integrity and Fairness and in an Ethical Manner.
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students and staff by acting with integrity and fairness and in an ethical manner.

Standard #6: The Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural Context.
A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students and staff by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context.

Further information about the knowledge, skills, and dispositions related to each of these standards can be found at http://www.doe.state.in.us/dps/standards/BuildingLevelAdminContStds.html .

2. What assessment techniques did the program use? (Please take assessment techniques directly from your program’s assessment plan and highlight any changes made this year.)

All Graduate Programs
The School of Education implements its unit assessment system as written for the accrediting agency, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). At the advanced level, the assessment system is used to monitor the progress of individual students and for program improvement. The assessment system consists of data from GPAs, artifact assessments, PRAXIS scores for educational leadership students, and follow-up surveys. A new rubric was adopted for graduate programs during the 2006-2007 academic year.
Educational Leadership
The educational leadership program revised its assessment techniques within the past year. Checkpoints that are part of the unit assessment system include data from 1) admission, 2) a midpoint comprehensive exam, and 3) an exit portfolio. Courses are clearly aligned with national standards and field work is also aligned with the national standards. Data are aggregated from student self-assessments and from faculty assessments. The educational leadership program will review these data at the beginning of the fall 2008 semester.  
Special Education
The following examples provide further information about data reviewed by special education program faculty.
Performance-Based Artifacts:  Students were required to submit designated artifacts in LiveText, a web-based system for storing and reviewing student work.  Once artifacts are submitted, two members of the faculty review the artifacts and score them using a common rubric.  Students can view the rubric to see how well they did in relation to the standards.  For students in the advance degree program, all students scored in the “acceptable”, or “target” range; however, a majority of students scored in the “acceptable” range.  This concern will be addressed at the departmental meeting in September 2008.

3. What has your program done with assessment information this year? (i.e. communicated results to faculty, staff, alumni and students, made changes in the curriculum, made changes in the budget, added new courses. . .)

The School of Education faculty  are provided with assessment data for advanced programs for discussion at the department level. The following paragraphs summarize some of these discussions.
Elementary
The Elementary faculty assessed a sample of graduate students to assure that artifacts and the rubric for assessment were aligned.  Students were asked to respond to the six core propositions from the national board as part of the assessment. A review of responses indicate that students are either unprepared to answer, or do not see the significance of reflecting on these core propositions.
Secondary
A primary goal for this year continues to focus on aligning curriculum, artifacts, and National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.. Two consultants were brought to campus to discuss advanced programs, some secondary faculty participated in a workshop specifically about NBPTS. Discussion suggest the alignment with standards needs to be addressed.
Special Education
Assessment information was shared with the School of Education Advisory Board at a meeting held in October3, 2007.Data were shared from two follow-up surveys conducted with SOE graduates.  The first survey was conducted by the Indiana Department of Education.  Lee Smith, associate dean, and Michelle Wruble, graduate student, conducted the second survey on behalf of the SOE.  Michelle Wruble provided a brief description of respondents and an overview of results of the second survey. She distributed a draft of the future survey and asked for input. Participants suggested it might be difficult for faculty in CLAS to respond to the survey questions since they often do not know which students in their classes are education majors. It was suggested that the SOE might consider targeting some 300 level courses in CLAS.  PRAXIS II data were also shared.
Unit Assessment information is also available to faculty, staff, alumni, and students at http://www.iusb.edu/~sbassess/Senate%20Reports/senate07.shtml
Educational leadership
The educational leadership program will implement a revised program in 2007 based on conversations with area school leaders, recent research, and assessment data from surveys and focus groups. This program will have a heavy emphasis on field work stressing skills necessary for effective school leaders. Students in the educational leadership program must submit a memorandum of understanding from their school corporation.

4. After reflecting on assessment activities in your unit, as a result of assessment what are two issues you would like to address?

Elementary Education

The Elementary faculty assessed a sample of graduate students to assure that artifacts and the rubric for assessment were aligned.  Students were asked to respond to the six core propositions from the national board as part of the assessment. A review of responses indicate that students are either unprepared to answer, or do not see the significance of reflecting on these core propositions. This is in addition to the exit project.  Faculty members are currently discussing what artifacts would be more indicative of meeting both the IUSB and the national board standards. 

Secondary Education

Secondary faculty will review exit projects in relation to the National Board Standards.  This could result in a revision of required artifacts for Checkpoint 3 at the Graduate level. 

Another concern of the Secondary faculty is how to effectively meet the needs of traditional undergraduate students seeking initial licensure and graduate students seeking to add licensure areas.  This results in mixing novice, inexperienced, pre-service teachers with in-service teachers seeking additional licenses. 

Special Education

The special education faculty will meet to discuss strategies to improve student performance in all areas.
The special education faculty is also currently involved in developing a Masters of Teaching Degree program and a revised Masters of Education Degree. Both students seeking initial licensure and advance degrees currently are enrolled in the same course.  This does not meet the programmatic needs of the students.  The development of the separate programs should address many of the needs of students seeking certification and/or advanced degrees in special education.  These programs will be aligned with Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) standards.  The ultimate goal of the department is gaining national CEC accreditation.
Educational Leadership
A need to stress specific skills and integrate theory with practice was identified. The educational leadership program was revised and implemented with an emphasis on a new field component in the 2007-2008 academic year.