aamu.pbworks.comaamu.pbworks.com/f/institutional+report-4-24-11.docx · web viewpilot visits in...

Pilot Visits in Fall 2010 through Spring 2012

Pilot Visits in Fall 2010 through Spring 2012

Online Institutional Report (IR) Template: Continuous Improvement Option

June 2010

Pilot institutions with visits in spring 2010 have written their institutional report (IR) in the current format with prompts for each element of a standard. Pilot institutions with visits in fall 2010 have the option of using either the current format or the new template with three prompts per standard as outlined below. Pilot institutions with visits in spring 2011, fall 2011, and spring 2012 will be testing the new IR template outlined below. Adjustments to the new template may be made as we learn from institutions and BOE members that have tested it. Pilot institutions should participate in web seminars each semester to learn about any changes. In addition, NCATE staff will communicate any changes to pilot institutions via email.

For the new template, units may submit their institutional report (IR) in one of the following three formats:

1. The online template in NCATE’s database, Accreditation Information Management System (AIMS) with prompts and limited characters for the response.

1. Word document following the online prompts without character limitations, which is uploaded in AIMS upon completion. The IR should be no longer than 41 pages if the unit is moving toward the target level on only one standard; it could be a maximum of 49 pages if the unit is moving to the target level on all six standards.

1. Word document that is written holistically without prompts, which is uploaded in AIMS upon completion. The IR should be no longer than 41 pages if the unit is moving toward the target level on only one standard; it could be a maximum of 49 pages if the unit is moving to the target level on all six standards.

The new online template prompts are at the standards level with three prompts per standard as indicated in the next section.

Content of Institutional Report

A. Overview & Conceptual Framework

1. What are the institution’s historical context and unique characteristics (e.g., HBCU or religious)?

Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, a historically black college and university (HBCU), was organized in 1875 through the untiring efforts of its founder and first President, William Hooper Council, an ex-slave. The school doors opened on May 1, 1875, as the Huntsville Normal School. Industrial education was added in 1878, generating widespread attention. This helped to garner financial support from the Slater and Peabody Funds and private contributors. Under the second Morrill Act of 1890, AAMU became a land grant institution and moved to its present location in 1891.

2. What is the institution’s mission? [one paragraph]

Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University reflects the uniqueness of the traditional land-grant institution combining teaching, research, service, liberal arts, and vocational fields. The University offers baccalaureate, masters, educational specialist, and doctoral level degrees (that are compatible with the times) to all qualified and capable individuals who are interested in further developing their technical, scientific, professional, and scholastic skills and competencies. The University operates in the three-fold function of teaching, research, extension and other public service. Alabama A&M University, a center for excellence, provides an educational environment for the emergence of scholars, scientists, leaders, critical thinkers, and other contributors to a global society. In cooperation with business, industry, governmental agencies, and other private and community-based institutions, Alabama A&M University provides a laboratory where theory is put into practice globally. Further, the University is committed to:

1. Excellence in education and the creation of a scholarly environment in which inquiring and discriminating minds may be nourished;

2. Education of students for effective participation in local, state, regional, national, and international societies;

3. Search for new knowledge through research and its applications;

4. Provision of a comprehensive outreach program designed to meet the changing needs of the larger community;

5. Programs necessary to address adequately the major needs and problems of capable students who have experienced limited access to education, and

6. Integration of state-of-the-art technology into all aspects of University functions.

In cooperation with businesses, industry, governmental agencies, and other private and community-based institutions, Alabama A&M University provides a laboratory where theory is put into practice, in a productive environment.

3.What is the professional education unit at your institution and what is its relationship to other units at the institution that are involved in the preparation of professional educators? [1-2 paragraphs]

The School of Education is the unit responsible for teacher education. Within the context of other units of the University, the School of Education’s mission is consistent with the teaching, research, extension and public service mission of the University. The teaching mission is to prepare P-12 teacher candidates and other school personnel to be effective educators as service professionals with knowledge, skills, and dispositions that help all students learn and that lead to a State of Alabama Professional Educator’s Certificate. The research mission is to promote and facilitate the development and dissemination of high-quality knowledge, abilities, and dispositions relating to effective teaching and learning. The service mission is to establish and maintain collaborations and partnerships that facilitate changes to improve education.

The School of Education enrolls approximately 26% of the student body in its baccalaureate, master’s, educational specialist, and doctoral degree programs. The programs and services of the School of Education are administered through five academic departments and two service units. A dean provides executive leadership and is advised by the Teacher Education Council (link to description of Council in Assessment Handbook). The Alabama State Department of Education approves all teacher education programs for licensure for the baccalaureate degree (Class B), alternative masters and regular master’s degree (Class A), and the educational specialist degree (Class AA).

4.What are the basic tenets of the conceptual framework and how has the conceptual framework changed since the previous visit? [1-2 paragraphs]

The Alabama A&M University Conceptual Framework for the teacher education program has grown out of a rich tradition of preparing teachers for North Alabama, for the southern region, and for the nation. The vision of the teacher education program is to equip teachers and other personnel with a rich repertoire of research-based strategies for instruction, assessments, and educational technologies that focus on providing educational services to youths, their families and to the communities where the youths live. To do this, the unit has conceptualized candidate learning and operations as occurring within four distinct areas in which the unit will help prepare teachers and other school personnel who are capable of:

· planning for effective instructional experiences;

· preparing activities and experiences that help all students learn;

· performing in a professional and ethical manner to ensure student learning;

· and continually assessing proficiencies of candidates to determine candidate knowledge and inform educational activities and experiences for continuous improvement.

The areas described above represent the four interrelated processes of the Professional Education Unit’s Conceptual Framework. These four processes represent what Mitzel (1969) initially characterized as the variables of Presage, Context, Process and Product, which he used to guide his study of the interplay between what teachers do (teaching) and what students do (learning) in a classroom environment. Dunkin and Biddle (1974) later presented a model based on the work of Mitzel that guided their study of the complex nature of teaching and learning. The Alabama A&M University Professional Education Unit has conceptualize this model to understand the variables involved in how candidates develop as professional educators, and has extended this model to help conceptualize how the Professional Education Unit contributes to and enhances that development.

Since the last reaffirmation of accreditation by NCATE, the Unit has improved its processes for assessing the Conceptual Framework. An assessment plan has been added to the Conceptual Framework document and student learning outcomes have been explicitly linked with institutional and state department standards.

5.Exhibit Links

Exhibits

1. Links to unit catalogs and other printed documents describing general education, specialty/content studies, and professional studies

i. Alabama A&M University Undergraduate Catalog

ii. Alabama A&M University Graduate Catalog

iii. Undergraduate Teacher Education Program Handbook

2. Syllabi for professional education courses

i. Undergraduate Initial Preparation Program Syllabi

ii. Alternative Master’s Initial Preparation Program Syllabi

iii. Advanced Master’s Preparation Program Syllabi

iv. Educational Specialist Preparation Program Syllabi

v. Educational Leadership Preparation Program Syllabi

3. Conceptual framework(s)

i. School of Education Conceptual Framework

4. Findings of other national accreditation associations related to the preparation of education professionals (e.g., ASHA, NASM, APA, CACREP)

i. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)

B. Standard 1. 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.What do candidate assessment data tell the unit about candidates’ meeting professional, state, and institutional standards? For programs not nationally/state reviewed, summarize data from key assessments and discuss these results. [maximum of three pages]

(A more detailed description is found in the Electronic Exhibit Room)

Undergraduate Initial Programs

Content Knowledge

Candidates in the undergraduate initial program know the content that they plan to teach and can explain important principles and concepts delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards.

On the Level III Field Experience Evaluation, on average, candidates received an overall score of 3.41 (3=Good, 4=Exemplary) on the “Content Knowledge” portion of the state standards (Alabama Quality Teaching Standards). All program completers pass the content examinations. Praxis II data for undergraduate completers show that 100% of candidates completing the program have passed the Praxis II content exam in their areas.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills

Teacher candidates understand the relationship of content and content-specific pedagogy delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. Level II Field Experiences Evaluations show that during the Level II practicum experience candidates, “Used appropriate methods of teaching “(3.65/4.00); “Used a variety of instructional strategies effectively” (3.55/4.00); and “Planned and delivered demonstrations and/or lessons” (3.63/4.00). Candidates also have a broad knowledge of instructional strategies that draws upon content and pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards to help all students learn. On average, candidates achieved an overall GPA of 3.27/4.00 in PSY 403 Educational Psychology. This professional course exposes candidates to research-based instructional strategies. Level II Field Experience Evaluation data reveal that during the Level II practicum experiences candidates “Used a variety of instructional strategies effectively” (3.55/4.00). In addition, candidates can facilitate student learning of the content through presentation of the content in clear and meaningful ways and through the integration of technology. Level II Field Experiences Evaluation data reveal that during the Level II practicum, candidates effectively “Used technology equipment and/or available equipment to enhance instruction (3.67/4.00) and “Used supplemental materials/equipment, including technology, to enhance student learning” (3.60/4.00). During the internship, the candidate’s ability to promote student learning is evaluated a number of times.

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills

Candidates can apply the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards to facilitate learning. The Teacher Preparation Performance Profile of First-year Teachers data for 2007, 2008, and 2009 averaged across these years show that 100% of the first-year teachers trained at AAMU who responded indicated that they were “Satisfied” to “Very Satisfied” with “Preparation in pedagogical and professional knowledge” received at AAMU. Eighty-Nine (89%) of the first-year teachers indicated they were “Satisfied” to “Very Satisfied” with “Preparation in pedagogical and professional skills necessary to help all students learn.” In addition, candidates consider the school, family, and community contexts in which they work and the prior experience of students to develop meaningful learning experiences. Level III Field Experience Evaluation data show that candidates exhibited “Ability to use students’ prior knowledge and experiences to introduce new subject-area related content” (3.46/4.00); “Ability to develop culturally responsive curriculum and instruction, i.e., model, teach, and integrate multicultural awareness, acceptance, and appreciation into ongoing instruction” (3.37/4.00); and, “Ability to communicate in ways that demonstrate sensitivity to diversity such as appropriate use of eye contact, interpretation of body language and verbal statements, and acknowledgement of and responsiveness to different modes of communication and participation” (3.51/4.00). Candidates also have the ability to reflect on their practice. On average, using the Employer’s survey, principals have assessed AAMU-prepared teachers as 3.95/5.0 on their “Ability to reflect on professional practice.” Further, candidates know major schools of thought about schooling, teaching, and learning. They acquire this knowledge in pre-professional and professional courses while taking FED 200 Introduction to Teacher Education (3.32/4.00) and FED 300 Foundations of Education (3.08/4.00). The Senior Exit Exam data also indicates that candidates possess this knowledge. During the 2007-2010 time period, candidates score, on average, 91% on this exam. Finally, candidates are able to analyze educational research findings and incorporate new information into their practice as appropriate. While enrolled in PSY 403 Educational Psychology, candidates gain knowledge of research through learning about research-supported instructional strategies. On average, candidates achieved a 3.27/4.00 GPA in this professional course.

Student Learning

Candidates can assess and analyze student learning, make appropriate adjustments to instruction, and monitor student progress. During some limited experience with this during the Level II practicum, Level II Field Experiences Evaluations show that candidates “Effectively assessed students” (3.56/4.00). Finally, candidates are able to develop and implement meaningful learning experiences for students based on their developmental levels and prior experience. Level II Field Experiences Evaluations show that during the Level II practicum experience, candidates effectively “Taught developmentally appropriate activities” (3.64/4.00). Level III Field Experience Evaluation data indicate that candidates effectively demonstrate “Ability to use knowledge about human learning and development in the design of a learning environment and learning experiences that will optimize each student’s achievement” (3.42/4.00); and, “Ability to recognize individual variations in learning and development that exceed the typical range and use this information to provide appropriate learning experiences” (3.44/4.00).

Professional Dispositions

Candidates are familiar with the professional dispositions delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards, and their work with students, families, colleagues and communities reflects these professional dispositions. During interviews for admission to teacher education, undergraduate initial candidates demonstrate professional dispositions through their presentation skills. Teacher Education interview data indicate that candidate, on average, have effective skills in “Oral Presentation” (2.7/4.0); “Oral Expression” (2.5/4.0) and “Written Expression” (2.7/4.0). The Teacher Preparation Performance Profile of First-year Teachers data for 2007, 2008, and 2009 averaged across these years show that 100% of the first-year teachers trained at AAMU who responded indicated that they were “Satisfied” to “Very Satisfied” with “Preparation in pedagogical and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn.”

Graduate Initial Programs

Content Knowledge

Candidates in the graduate initial programs know the content that they plan to teach and can explain important principles and concepts delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. Adequate content knowledge is demonstrated in the First-Year Follow-up Data, Survey data from principals, Level II Field Experiences Evaluations, Level III Field Experience Evaluation data, and The Teacher Preparation Performance Profile of First-year Teachers data for 2007, 2008, and 2009. In addition, the Basic Skills Assessment of the Alabama Prospective Teachers Testing Program (APTTP) assesses basic content knowledge. The Basic Skills Assessment assesses our candidates’ basic knowledge in the areas of reading, mathematics, and writing. During the 2007-2011 time period graduate initial candidates achieved an average reading score of 5.59 (Passing=4); a writing score of 3.43 (Passing=3); and, an applied mathematics score of 5.16 (Passing=4). All program completers pass the content examinations. Praxis II data for graduate initial completers show that 100% of candidates completing the program have passed the Praxis II content exam in their areas.


Teacher candidates understand the relationship of content and content-specific pedagogy delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. Graduate initial candidates demonstrate their pedagogical content knowledge on the comprehensive examinations. Candidates in elementary and early childhood 2007-2010 averages for Elementary and Early Childhood comprehensive exams candidates scored above average on a 5 point scale in all four content areas. Combining both program averages yield the following results, Foundation 2009 (3.05), 2010 (3.7), Curriculum 2009 (2.73), 2010 (3.7), Assessment 2009 (2.7), 2010 (3.7) and General Knowledge 2009 (2.6), 2010 (3.14). Survey date from principals indicate candidates have “Knowledge of the major content area (4.50/5.00). Candidates have a broad knowledge of instructional strategies that draws upon content and pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards to help all students learn. Data from Level II Field Experiences Evaluations and Level III Field Experiences Evaluations, survey data from principals indicate that candidates have “Knowledge of how to teach the assigned subject (4.50/5.00). Candidates facilitate student learning of the content through presentation of the content in clear and meaningful ways and through the integration of technology. In addition to Level II Field Experiences Evaluation data, Level III Field Experiences Evaluation data, and The Teacher Preparation Performance Profile of First-year Teachers data for 2007, 2008, and 2009, survey data from principals indicate that graduate initial candidates have the “Ability to use technological resources that enhance student learning” (4.25/5.00), and “Knowledge of classroom management skills that facilitate student learning” (4.75/5.00).


Candidates can apply the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards to facilitate learning. The abilities here are reflected in the The Teacher Preparation Performance Profile of First-year Teachers data for 2007, 2008, and 2009, and Level II Field Experience Evaluation data, survey data from principals. The abilities of graduate initial candidates to consider the school, family, and community contexts in which they work and the prior experience of students to develop meaningful learning experiences is reflected in the Level III Field Experience Evaluation data. The Level II Field Experiences Evaluations, First-Year Follow-up data, and survey data from principals indicate that graduate initial candidates reflect on their practice. Principals indicate that graduate initial candidates effectively demonstrate the “Ability to reflect on professional practice” (4.67/5.00). Grades in the pre-professional courses indicate that graduate initial candidates know major schools of thought about schooling, teaching, and learning. Candidates acquire this knowledge in FED 501 Foundations of Education (3.97/4.00); and, FED 521 Multicultural Education (4.00/4.00). Performances on the comprehensive examinations (e.g., Art Education, Elementary & Early Childhood Education, Business Education, Family and Consumer Sciences, Physical Education, and Special Education) demonstrate candidates are able to analyze educational research findings and incorporate new information into their practice as appropriate.

Student Learning

Level II Field Experiences Evaluations and Level III Field Experience Evaluation data demonstrate that graduate initial candidates can assess and analyze student learning, make appropriate adjustments to instruction, and monitor student progress, and that candidates are able to develop and implement meaningful learning experiences for students based on their developmental levels and prior experience.


Level II Field Experiences Evaluations, Level III Field Experience Evaluation data, and The Teacher Preparation Performance Profile of First-year Teachers data for 2007, 2008, and 2009, and Survey data from principals indicate that first year teachers trained in the graduate initial program at AAMU have the “Ability to relate with students” (4.75/5.00); “Ability to relate with parents of students” (4.50/5.00); “Ability to relate with colleagues/other professionals” (4.75/5.00); and, “Ability to be a life-long learner” (4.67/5.00).

Advanced Programs

Content Knowledge

The teacher preparation program ensures that candidates in the advanced program have an in-depth knowledge of the content that they teach. Admission requirements mandate that advanced candidates have at least a 2.50 GPA prior to admission to Graduate School. Candidates are also required to maintain a 3.00 cumulative GPA before being recommended for certification. Survey data from principals indicate that advanced candidates demonstrate “Knowledge of the major content area” (4.00/5.00).


Candidates demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the content of their field and of the theories related to pedagogy and learning. Survey data from principals indicate advanced candidates demonstrate “Knowledge of how to teach the assigned subject” (4.00/5.00), and the “Ability to teach children with exceptionalities” (3.67/5.00). Each candidate must also complete 12-semester hours in the teaching field at the graduate level. In addition, candidates in the advanced program must complete professional studies coursework. Performance in these courses demonstrates candidates are able to select and use a broad range of instructional strategies and technologies that promote student learning and are able to clearly explain the choices they make in their practice.


Survey data from principals indicate that advanced candidates reflect on their practice and are able to identify their strengths and areas of needed improvement. Principals indicate that advanced candidates trained at AAMU have the “Ability to reflect on professional practice (4.33/5.00). Candidates engage in professional activities. Candidates in advanced programs are practicing professionals and are constantly required to engage students, their families and are engaged in the communities where they are working. Advanced candidate are required to complete a practicum and internship where they are required to engage students, families and the community. All candidates must earn at least a grade of “B” in these courses. All advanced candidates must enroll in “FED 503 Research” or an equivalent research course where they learn current research methodologies, policies and best practices relating to student learning.

Student Learning

Candidates have a thorough understanding of the major concepts and theories related to assessing student learning and regularly apply these in their practice. All advanced candidates can develop and administer appropriate assessment tools and use results in the best interest of students. All advanced candidates demonstrate the ability to affect student learning. Candidates have a thorough understanding of the knowledge base needed for analyzing student learning and practice that is evident in skills and practice during internship. All candidates are required to administer a pre and post test to assess student learning and then use data collected to make data driven decisions that recommends changes in the learning environment and teaching strategies.

Other School Professionals

Knowledge and Skills

Candidates for other professional school roles have adequate understanding of the knowledge expected in their fields and delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards. In addition, comprehensive examination data in the Educational Leadership content indicate that candidates have adequate understanding of the knowledge expected (5.29/6.00). Comprehensive examination data in other areas reveal acceptable levels of candidate knowledge in the field: School Counseling (76% pass rate, 2007-2010); and, Psychometry (100% pass rate, 2007-2010). Candidates know their students families, and communities. Internship data in Educational Leadership for the year 2007 indicate that the average score for the School Community Relations related internship objectives was 9.5/10, and for 2008 the average score was 9.16/10. For 2009 the average score during the Community and Stakeholder Relationships course was 15.53/16.0. Other school professionals can use data and current research to inform their practices; use technology in their practices; support student learning through their professional services. All of these competencies are exhibited as the candidate completes the various courses in the Educational Leadership program. These objectives are tied to courses in which the candidate completes a residency placement in the schools. Their abilities in these areas are assessed during this residency placement. The Internship in Educational Leadership data reveal that, on average, 2007-2008 cohort scored 9.25/10.0 for all of the standards, and the 2009-2010 cohort scored 15.3/16.0 for all of the standards. Eighty percent or more of the program completers pass the content examinations. The pass rates on the Praxis II content exams in these areas during the 2007-2010 time period is above 80%: Educational Leadership (94%); Reading Specialist (100%); and School Counseling (100%).

Student Learning

Candidates can create positive environments for student learning; understand and build upon the developmental levels of students with whom they work; understand the diversity of students, families, and communities, and understand the policy contexts within which they work. All of these abilities are covered in the Educational Leadership program during residency placements in Curriculum & Instruction, Planning for Instructional Improvement, School & Community Relations, & Legal and Ethical Aspects of School Operations. The Internship in Educational Leadership data reveal that, on average, 2007-2008 cohort scored 9.25/10.0 for all of the standards, and the 2009-2010 cohort scored 15.3/16.0 for all of the standards. In addition, on the “Student Learning/Instruction and Leadership” portion of the comprehensive examination in Educational Leadership during the 2007-2010 time period, candidates scored, on average, 5.20/6.00.


Mentor principals are asked to rate Educational Leadership candidates on these dispositions. The average score on disposition evaluations for candidates is 3.87/4.00. The data indicates that candidates are familiar with the professional dispositions delineated in professional, state, and institutional standards, and their work with students, families, colleagues and communities reflect these professional dispositions, and demonstrate classroom behaviors that are consistent with the ideal of fairness and the belief that all students can learn. Candidates in the Instructional Leadership program are formally interviewed prior to admission to the program to determine, in part, if they possess adequate dispositions as instructional leaders. The Educational Leadership Program Admission Data, 2007-2010 reveals that candidates admitted to the program scored, on average, 23.1/30.0 on the interview assessment.

2.Please respond to 2a if this is the standard on which the unit is moving to the Target Level. If it is not the standard on which you are moving to the standard level, respond to 2b.

2a.Standard on which the unit is moving to the Target Level [maximum of five pages]

1. Describe work undertaken to move to the Target Level

1. Discuss plans for continuing to improve

2b.Continuous Improvement [maximum of three pages]

1. Briefly summarize the most significant changes related to Standard 1 that have led to continuous improvement. (If no significant changes related to this standard have occurred since the previous visit, indicate “None” in this section.)

There are two significant changes that were made to improve the admission to the Teacher Education process related to Standard 1. The interview process was reviewed and changed and changes were made to the course content of FED 200 Introduction to Education both admission requirements to Teacher Education. Data taken from the interview rubric suggested that candidates were not asked probing questions about content knowledge and instructional strategies related to classroom teaching. The data also suggested that candidates were only providing limited information concerning the Conceptual Framework. After some discussions, the Teacher Education Committee (the School of Education policy making body) concluded that FED 200 would serve as the primary course (of the four pre-professional required courses) to provide the foundation of information for the candidates’ interview as it relates to the Conceptual Framework. As a result the content in FED 200 now concentrates specifically on helping candidates thoroughly understand the Conceptual Framework while they also receive general content knowledge and instructional strategies for beginning teachers.

Prior to 2007 candidates were interviewed by faculty members chosen at random. The committee concluded that candidates in teacher certification programs should also be interviewed with school administrators as well as university faculty. Having school principals on the interview committee serves to introduce or reintroduce school administrators to the Conceptual Framework and it gives candidates real life experiences to the expectations of building school principals. Candidates must now also participate in a pre-interview process. This process prepares candidates for the interview, i.e. explaining protocol concerning their power point presentation, attire, and addressing the interview panel.

Once candidates have completed the interview, their scores are tabulated by a designated faculty member. The scores are turned into the Certification Officer who gives written notification to the candidates, the candidates’ advisor and the department chair of the results. The department chair or advisor goes over the results with the candidates.

3.Exhibit Links

Exhibits

1. State program review documents[footnoteRef:1] and state findings. (Some of these documents may be available in AIMS.) [1: Program review documents will be available in NCATE’s database, AIMS, for programs reviewed through the national program review process. If programs were reviewed through the national process or through a state process that required the review of assessments and assessment data, then no other assessment data for those already reviewed programs are required for this standard.]

2. Title II reports submitted to the state for the previous three years (Beginning with the 2010 annual report, Title II reports should be attached to Part C of the annual report and will be available to BOE teams in AIMS.)

i. 2010-Part C of the AACTE/NCATE Annual Report

ii. 2009-Part C of the AACTE/NCATE Annual Report

iii. 2008-Part C of the AACTE/NCATE Annual Report

iv. 2007-Part C of the AACTE/NCATE Annual Report

3. Key assessments and scoring guides used by faculty to assess candidate learning against standards and the outcomes identified in the unit’s conceptual framework for programs not included in the national program review process or a similar state process

i. Undergraduate Initial Teacher Preparation Program

1. Pre-Professional Dispositions

2. Teacher Education Interview

3. Professional Dispositions

4. Level II Field Experiences Evaluation

5. Level III Field Experiences Evaluation

6. First-Year Follow-up Survey

7. Employer’s Survey

ii. Alternative Master’s Initial Teacher Preparation Program





5. Comprehensive Examinations

1. Art

2. Elementary & Early Childhood Education

3. Business/Marketing Education

4. Family & Consumer Sciences Education

5. Physical Education

6. Special Education

iii. Advanced Teacher Preparation Programs

1. Comprehensive Examination






iv. Other School Personnel Preparation Programs

1. Educational Leadership

1. Interview Assessment

2. Writing Assessment

3. Portfolio Assessment

4. Internship Assessment

5. Comprehensive Examination

4. Data tables and summaries that show how teacher candidates (both initial and advanced) have performed on key assessments over the past three years for programs not included in the national program review process or a similar state process


1. Pre-Professional Dispositions

2. Teacher Education Interview

3. Professional Dispositions










5. Praxis II Content Exams

6. Comprehensive Examinations

1. Art






iii. Advanced Teacher Preparation Programs

1. Comprehensive Exams




iv. Other School Personnel Preparation Programs

1. Performance Assessment Templates

2. Comprehensive Exams

1. Educational Leadership

2. School Counseling & School Psychometry

3. Praxis II Content Exams

1. Educational Leadership, Reading Specialist, School Counseling, School Psychology

5. Samples of candidate work (e.g., portfolios at different proficiency levels)

6. Follow-up studies of graduates and data tables of results

i. First-Year Follow-up Survey

7. Employer feedback on graduates and summaries of the results

i. Employer Survey

8. List of candidate dispositions, including fairness and the belief that all students can learn, and related assessments, scoring guides, and data

i. Dispositions

ii. Pre-Professional Dispositions Evaluations Results

iii. Professional Dispositions Evaluations Results

C. Standard 2. The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the performance of candidates, the unit, and its programs.

1.How does the unit use its assessment system to improve the performance of candidates and the unit and its programs? [maximum of three pages]

Assessment System

The unit has an assessment system that reflects the conceptual framework and professional and state standards and is regularly evaluated by its professional community. The unit’s assessment system can best be conceptualized using a 4 x 5 matrix for undergraduate and graduate initial programs, and a 4 x 4 matrix for advanced and other school personnel programs. This matrix is organized using the four interrelated processes of the unit’s conceptual framework and the different levels of the unit’s teacher preparation program. The unit’s system includes comprehensive and integrated assessment and evaluation measures to monitor candidate performance and manage and improve the unit’s operations and programs. The matrix is categorized by “Candidate Learning” and “Unit and Program Effectiveness.” At each level, there are evaluation measures (e.g., Undergraduate Matrix, Alternative Master’s Matrix, Advanced Programs Matrix, Educational Specialist Programs Matrix and Educational Leadership Matrix), or benchmarks, that candidates must satisfactorily reach before advancing to the next level. These benchmarks serve as data points used to monitor candidate performance and manage and improve the unit’s operations and programs. The above matrices indicate that decisions about candidate performance are based on multiple assessments at admission into programs, appropriate transition points, and program completion. The unit has taken effective steps to eliminate bias in assessments and is working to establish the fairness, accuracy, and consistency of its assessment procedures and unit operations.

Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

The Undergraduate Assessment System Matrix, Alternative Master’s Assessment System Matrix, Advanced Master’s Assessment System Matrix, Educational Specialist Assessment System Matrix, and Educational Leadership Assessment System Matrix, all demonstrate how the unit maintains an assessment system that provides regular and comprehensive information on applicant qualifications, candidate proficiencies, competence of graduates, unit operations, and program quality. Using multiple assessments from internal and external sources (see Key Assessments for Undergraduate Programs, Key Assessments for Alternative Master’s Programs, Key Assessments for Advanced Teacher Preparation Programs, and Key Assessments for Educational Leadership Programs), the unit collects data from applicants, candidates, recent graduates, faculty, and other members of the professional community. Assessment Calendars for each program (i.e., Undergraduate Initial Programs Assessment Calendar; Graduate Initial Programs Assessment Calendar; Advanced Master’s Assessment Calendar; Educational Specialist Assessment Calendar, and Educational Leadership Assessment Calendar) demonstrate that candidate assessment data are regularly and systematically collected, compiled, aggregated, summarized, and analyzed to improve candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations.

The unit maintains records of formal candidate complaints and documentation of their resolution. The unit maintains its assessment system through the use of information technologies appropriate to the size of the unit and institution. The unit utilizes the university Banner System, LiveTexts, and a series of desktop computers to store and manage data as part of the units assessment system First-year Follow-up and Employer Surveys are distributed, collected and analyzed using SurveyMonkey™. Candidate learning outcomes are collected and analyzed using the LiveText™ program. All assessment reports for the unit are collectively stored in the School of Education Electronic Documents Room, using the PBWorks system. Data is regularly shared with faculty during school meetings, TEC meetings and at the annual summer data retreat with school leadership. During preparation for admission to the internship all candidates undergo a rigorous assessment of which each candidate receives a copy in the mail. Faculty, candidates and the general public have access to the Electronic Documents Room where all candidate assessment data is kept, subsequently, candidate assessment data are regularly shared with candidates and faculty to help them reflect on and improve their performance and programs.

Use of Data for Program Improvement

The unit regularly and systematically uses data, including candidate and graduate performance information, to evaluate the efficacy of its courses, programs, and clinical experiences. The unit analyzes program evaluation and performance assessment data to initiate changes in programs and unit operations.






1. Briefly summarize the most significant changes related Standard 2 that have led to continuous improvement. (If no significant changes related to this standard have occurred since the previous visit, indicate “None” in this section.)

The unit has engaged in a number of continuous improvement initiatives over the last three years. However, the most significant and far reaching continuous improvement initiatives include the following: 1) conducted two Praxis II studies, 2) conducted a university wide curriculum review and Praxis II curriculum alignment study, and 3) engaged in a facilities enhancement project. The two Praxis II studies were conducted so that the unit could develop a greater understanding of the academic background and knowledge needed for candidates to pass Praxis II. The studies enabled the unit to develop an academic profile of candidates who passed the test which subsequently assisted us to better recruit candidates and to advise currently enrolled candidates. The study results were used to assist the unit to establish Saturday morning Praxis II review sessions that were strategically targeted to assist candidates. Upon implementing the Saturday morning review sessions analysis of this data revealed that we need to conduct a more intense university review of teacher education programs. The overall university curriculum review and Praxis II alignment allowed the unit to closely study where in the curriculum candidates receive specific instruction on Praxis II test competencies or to discern that specific content was omitted from the curriculum. During the curriculum review and alignment initiative it was determined that individual programs needed to establish a capstone course to assist candidates or some special review course aimed specifically to assist candidates to pass Praxis II . This study in ongoing and will continue until all university teacher education curriculums are aligned to Praxis II examinations. Upon review of the school budgets and an assessment of school facilities the unit requested additional resources from the university to enhance school facilities. As a result of these assessments the university provided additional Title III and capital funds to conduct renovations in school of education facilities. These renovations resulted in major building upgrades to include enhanced flooring, installation of two teaching laboratories, installation of a Smart/lecture room and bathroom upgrades.

3.Exhibit Links

Exhibits

1. Description of the unit’s assessment system in detail including the requirements and key assessments used at transition points

2. Data from key assessments used at entry to programs


1. Teacher Education Interview Data

2. Basic Skills and Speech-Language-Hearing Screening Data

3. Grade Point Averages in Pre-Professional Courses for Candidates Admitted to the TEP

4. Grade Point Averages in Professional Courses for Candidates Admitted to the Internship


1. Basic Skills and Speech-Language-Hearing Screening Data

2. Grade Point Averages in Pre-Professional Courses for Candidates Admitted to the TEP

3. Praxis II Content Exam

iii. Other School Personnel Program

1. Praxis II Content Exam

2. Transition Point Data

3. Procedures for ensuring that key assessments of candidate performance and evaluations of unit operations are fair, accurate, consistent, and free of bias

4. Policies and procedures that ensure that data are regularly collected, compiled, aggregated, summarized, analyzed, and used to make improvements.

5. Samples of candidate assessment data disaggregated by alternate route, off-campus, and distance learning programs

6. Policies for handling student complaints

7. File of student complaints and the unit’s response (This information should be available during the onsite visit.)

8. Examples of changes made to courses, programs, and the unit in response to data gathered from the assessment system

D. Standard 3. 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.

1.How does the unit work with the school partners to deliver field experiences and clinical practice to enable candidates to develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to help all students learn? [maximum of three pages]

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. The mission is accomplished through the following procedures, policies, and processes: The Director of Field Experiences and School Partnerships represents the Unit in collaborations with school partners as decisions are made regarding placements at all levels of the field experiences program. The unit collaborates intensively with the four local school districts: Huntsville, City, Madison City, Madison County, and Decatur City. The unit has a signed memorandum of understanding agreements with each of the four school districts.

At the Class B undergraduate and Alternative A graduate level, the design of the field experience program requires a minimum of 205 hours of diverse field experiences prior to the internship. The requirements include opportunities to examine the opening and closing of the school year and experiences with each of the following: Title 1 (low income) schools, schools that include children with exceptionalities and special needs, schools with high populations of English Language Learners, urban schools, and rural schools (see placement school site demographics 2007 – 2010 for Level I, Level II, and Level III). There are approximately 300 placements each semester, made by, or in conjunction with, the Office of Field Experiences and School Partnerships (OFE & SP). The OFE & SP is administered by a director who reports to the dean of education. There are three levels of field experiences: Level I, Level II, and Level III. The management system for ensuring diversity of placements, e.g., experiences with low income schools, exceptional learners, urban students, rural student, and ELL learners, is that the field experiences are attached to specific courses as candidates complete the various programs of study at the university (see field experiences model and table).

Level I of the field experiences program (the early pre-professional experiences) enables candidates to complete a minimum of 50 hours of observations and reflective activities in P-12 schools. These experiences are diverse and offer opportunities for gaining experiences with children in poverty, with exceptionalities, and English Language Learners. Generally, the experiences are acquired during 7 days. Three days are completed in Title 1/low income schools while candidates are enrolled in FED 200, Introduction to Education or FED 521 Multicultural Education /FED 501 Foundations of Education (graduate level courses). The other four days of experiences are gained when candidates’ are enrolled in SPE 201 Introduction to Exceptional Learners or SPE 501 Introduction to Exceptional Learners (graduate equivalent). (see OFE & SP Model and Program Management System to Ensure Diversity). An additional 14 hours are completed (beyond the 50 attached to the courses) when candidates complete experiences at the opening (first day) of the school year and the closing (last day) of the school years (see opening and closing policies). Level I supports the “planning” phase of the School of Education’s Conceptual Framework. (See Level I Handbook)

Level II of the field experiences program (practicum) requires a minimum of 155 hours of planning and teaching micro lessons, designing and/or administering examinations, and engaging in professional activities associated with teaching and classroom management. The hours are acquired as part of professional courses in pedagogy as well as in program-specific methods courses. Candidates alternate semesters in rural and urban schools (see OFE & SP Model and Program Management System to Ensure Diversity). Level 2 supports the “preparing” phase of the School of Education’s Conceptual Framework. (See Level II Handbook)

Level III of the field experiences program is the internship, a full semester of supervised teaching and engagement by candidates in professional activities within the assigned schools. Cooperating teachers and university supervisors, collaboratively, provide oversight and evaluations of candidates’ abilities to facilitate student learning (see responsibilities of supervisors, cooperating teachers, and interns). Candidates complete a capstone electronic portfolio, through LiveText, of the artifacts, teacher work sample (see teacher work sample requirement), and reflections completed during the internship. Level III supports the “performing” and “assessing proficiencies” phases of the School of Education’s Conceptual Framework. (See Level III handbook).

Diversity in experiences is ensured as candidates progress through the program. The Huntsville City Schools require that area universities, such as, Alabama A & M University, UAH, Oakwood, and Athens State University, rotate school clusters (see cluster school documents for 2007 – 2010) each year, as a result of a previous desegregation lawsuit. Diversity is tracked through the programs through various field experiences assigned to various courses within the program areas.(See school site placements and demographics 2007-2010)

The design of the program is strengthened through the involvement of principals from the local school districts as active members of the Teacher Education Council (see minutes and sign in sheets from meetings). The other members of the Council are representatives from each of the various teacher education programs offered at Alabama A & M University. The function of the council is to design and approve policies and procedures for the Unit. A Field Experiences Advisory Committee and Recent P-12 Experiences Advisory Committee (with members represented by the various school districts) provide critical expertise and relevance in collaborating on the design of the program and in developing policies and procedures that govern the program and with any revisions of the design, delivery, and assessment of the field experiences program or the written policies and procedures contained in the handbooks.

The implementation and evaluation of the program is facilitated by the joint involvement of P-12 and university collaborators, as is indicated in the Collaborator Chart. (See Chart 1 - Collaborators for Field Placements – Implementation)

All candidates complete all levels of the field experience program. As can be seen from the numbers in the placement table, a considerable amount of collaboration takes place between the unit and its school partners. (See Chart 2 Candidate Placement Table Fall 2007 – Spring 2010)

The implementation and evaluation of the program is facilitated through a foundation of policies, procedures, assessments, and other relevant forms relating to field experiences that are included within a handbook for each level of the program (see Office of Field Experiences and School Partnerships webpage with Level I, Level II, and Level III handbooks and other documents)

Field experiences provide opportunities for candidates to engage in a variety of real-world activities relating to their roles as professional educators. Within each level of the field experience program, candidates’ activities become more engaged as is illustrated in Chart 3. The assessments collected at each level of the field experiences, Level I, Level II, and Level III, along with the electronic portfolio, with teacher work sample, allow the unit to gain knowledge and insight regarding the program and the candidates professional repertoire of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions, to make an impact on student learning. (See Chart 3 Implementation and Evaluation of Field Experiences)

The clinical faculty is diverse and reflective of the population of candidates completing the program (see table for diversity of cooperating teachers 2007 – 2010). The criteria for selection of school faculty and clinical faculty are clear and communicated to all parties involved. All cooperating teachers of interns, for example, must have a master’s degree and a minimum of three years of teaching experience (see letter sent to principals with requirements). The school principal makes the recommendation for the cooperating teacher, in collaboration with The Director of Field Experiences and School Partnerships. University faculty that teach methods courses and/or supervise interns are required to have engaged in recent experiences in schools (at least a minimum of 10 hours per semester), co-teaching or instructing courses at the school sites (see recent P-12 experiences requirements). The assignments and selections of university supervisors and methods courses instructors are completed through the departments by the department chairpersons.

Various assessments are administered during each level of the field experiences and are collected and analyzed by The Office of Field Experiences and School Partnerships. During Level I of the field experiences, candidates are assessed by the course instructor and the classroom teachers after completing each field experiences, using a Level I assessment form that is in the Level I handbook (see Level I Assessment Rubric). Specifically, the Level I Assessment Rubric addresses professional disposition necessary to make an impact on student learning (See Level I Assessment Analysis Table).

During Level II of the field experiences, candidates are assessed by the course instructor and the cooperating teacher after completing each field experiences, using a Level II assessment form (see Level II assessment rubric) that is in the Level II handbooks. . Specially, the Level II assessment rubric goes beyond looking at professional dispositions and moves into examining the knowledge and skills needed for candidates to be successful during the internship (see Level II Assessment Analysis Table).

Prior to admission to the internship, candidates are evaluated to verify that the grade-point average has remained at the acceptable level (minimum of 2.50 in all areas for undergraduate and minimum of 3.00 in all areas for graduate work). Candidates provide documentation that the Praxis II examination has been passed and that criminal background checks do not contain information that would disqualify him or her from the Internship. Candidates are formally admitted to the Teacher Education Program after completing the admission requirements, which include an interview, with a panel composed of school principals and university faculty and a professional power point presentation by the candidate (see sign in sheets from interviews). Data on candidates who have been admitted to the Internship show that they are knowledgeable in the subjects they intend to teach as reflected in their performance on Praxis II and that they have successfully passed the criminal background check (see Chart 4 Candidates Admission Qualifications for the Internship).

At Level III, the internship, multiple measures are used to assess the performance of interns During the internship, assessment data from the following instruments are collected and analyzed: (1) Pre-internship survey (self assessment) (see Pre-survey Table 2007 – 2010), (2) Post-internship survey (self assessment) (see Post-survey Table 2007 – 2010, (3) Cooperating Teacher Questionnaire (see Cooperating Teacher Questionnaire Table 2007 – 2010), (4) Internship Abilities Evaluation (AQTS) (see AQTS Table 2008 – 2010), and (5) Internship Assessment Instrument - Educate Alabama (replaces PEPE) (see assessment instrument), and (6) electronic portfolio (including a teacher work sample) submitted through LiveText.

Sixty-one candidate abilities are evaluated using the Alabama Quality Teaching Standards. Each candidate is evaluated by the cooperating teacher who uses two different instruments. One instrument, used in past years, was a modification of the Professional Educators Performance Evaluation (PEPE). By using the PEPE, candidates were given a preview of what performances would be considered during their first year of teaching. During the Spring of 2010, the PEPE-like internship assessment was replaced with a formative continuum based on the Alabama Continuum for Teacher Development (EDUCATEAlabama) with five standards for pre-service and beginning teachers (see rubrics for PEPE and EDUCATEAlabama). It is during the internship that the abilities or skills to make an impact on student learning are developed, strengthened, and assessed. The Cooperating Teacher Questionnaire looks at the strength of the teacher preparation program, not the intern specifically. The results are used to refine or modify the Unit to more effectively provide a strong teacher education program. When looking at the table, it was noted that the Unit’s program was marked lower in one area, that being “ability to use community resources to enhance the instructional program”. After receiving the feedback, The School of Education initiated and implemented Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI) and Alabama Math Science and Technology Initiative (AMSTI) training prior to or during the internship. The utilization of state and community resources provided a greater pool of resources for the candidates and strengthened the performances during the internships.

Advanced Programs - Traditional master’s degree candidates complete a minimum of ten hours of field experiences while enrolled in FED 501 Foundation of Education or FED 521 Multicultural Education. Ed. S candidates complete a minimum of ten hours of field experiences while enrolled in FED 600 Advanced Curriculum Development. Candidates select a study with a class or group of students who have demographics that are the opposite of the demographics for the children, they are currently teaching (see field experiences for traditional students). The placements and documentation are maintained through the OFE & SP. The development of the study is supervised and later assessed by the course instructor.

Placements, assessments, and handbooks for advanced clinical practice for other school personnel are made by the respective program coordinators in collaboration with school district administrators and agency directors. The OFE & SP receives reports of completion of clinical placements and assessments from the respective program areas

Clinical practice for other school professionals is sufficiently extensive and intensive for candidates to demonstrate proficiencies in the professional roles for which they are preparing. Candidates in programs for other school professionals engage in field experiences and supervised clinical practice that require them to analyze data, use technology, apply current research, and apply knowledge related to students, their families, and communities.

During the first 12 hours of coursework, candidates in the respective programs, in advanced programs for teachers, complete a field project in which they apply coursework in a classroom setting, analyze the extent of learning by P-12 students, and reflect on the practice, based upon specific theories of teaching and learning. The candidate develops a portfolio of his/her field project and submits it to a committee of faculty members for review and comment. (See other school personnel programs and handbooks)

A description of the instructional leadership program delineates collaboration in the design, delivery, and assessment: The residency/internship in Instructional Leadership is designed to insure that candidates have meaningful and practical experiences in actual school settings during the course of the instructional leadership preparation program. It is designed to place candidates in the cooperating school during critical times of instructional planning. The collaborative model requires that LEA’s provide release time for candidates and for the university to work with LEA’s so that the candidates’ experiences are comprehensive and valuable. The internship experiences are the total sum of practical experiences, either field or clinical, as part of every course taken for preparation, plus residency. The residency is uninterrupted service in an active school with students present. The residency is no less than ten (10) consecutive days in the school setting with students present and allows interns to experience leadership in as many of the Alabama Leadership Standard indicators and SREB’s Critical Success factors as possible. As part of the internship, candidates prepare and maintain a comprehensive portfolio which indicates the level of experiences and knowledge gained in instructional leadership through observing, participating and leading. The portfolio is juried by the university supervisor, mentoring supervisor, and the intern before the candidate is recommended by the university for the instructional leadership certification.

The internship experience is demonstrated throughout the program. The make-up of the program calls for students to begin working on mastery of ability outcomes at the onset of the program. The internship objectives per semester coincide with the specialty area courses that students take each semester; therefore, students perform ability related objectives in the internship reflective of the courses in which they are enrolled.

The program has a one (1) semester hour internship incorporated within the first three semesters of coursework, and an additional three (3) semester hour residency/internship incorporated either in the summer or the spring semester depending on when the student begins the program. During the three hour residency/internship the student performs the ten (10) day residency requirement. The objectives to be fulfilled during the ten (10) day residency are objectives identified by the university, objectives identified by the mentor based on the district’s needs, and objectives identified by the student based on a need for more development. The residency location is based on collaboration between the university supervisor and the district liaison. (See documents and handbook for advanced programs).






1. Briefly summarize the most significant changes related to Standard 3 that have led to continuous improvement. (If no significant changes related to this standard have occurred since the previous visit, indicate “None” in this section.)

The following are the most significant changes to Standard 3 since the last visit:

2. The School of Education has signed Memorandum of Understandings (MOU)s with all four of the local school districts.

2. The requirements for hours of field experiences, prior to admission to the internship, was increased from a minimum of 155 hours to a minimum of 205 hours prior as one prerequisite for admission to the internship.

2. Candidates complete experiences at the opening of the school year and at the closing of the school year. A minimum of one day (7 hours) at each, the opening and closing, is required. Candidates initiate the experiences through the school administrators and complete and submit documentation of the experiences to the Office of Field Experiences and School Partnerships (see Level 1 handbook or opening and closing documents)

2. Candidates complete experiences with English Language Learners (ELL). The School of Education has added a Professional Development School Partner, McDonnell Elementary School, because of its high ELL population. The school is unique, in that over one-third of its population is ELL, and the school houses a full service Boys and Girls Club, whose Director is Hispanic and fluent in Spanish. (link to McDonnell Elementary School’s webpage) Butler High School houses the program for high school and the Director and Center for English Language Learners for the school district.

2. The School of Education maintains it Professional Development School Partnership with Montview Elementary School that was started in 2005. The focus of the partnership has evolved, however. The school is now an exemplary site for the parenting laboratory that is housed at the school.

2. Interns complete extensive training during or before the internship, to include the following: Lee vs. Macon Training, three full days of Alabama Reading Initiative Training (ARI), and Alabama Mathematics, Science, and Technology (AMSTI) training.

2. The School of Education is currently examining the feasibility of a full year of internship with the remainder of methods courses and field experiences being completed during the first semester of the internship, allowing for the second semester of the internship to focus on the role of the teacher. At the beginning of the Fall 2010 school year, The Director of Field Experiences and School Partnerships and the Dean of the School of Education met with and presented a proposal to each of the area superintendents (Huntsville, Madison County, Madison City, and Decatur) for a full year of internship. The proposal was then presented to local principals.

2. Interns complete an electronic portfolio, rather than a hard portfolio, during the internship. The electronic teacher work sample is assessed during the midterm point of the internship. All interns complete and submit a teacher work sample via LiveText.

2. The PEPE assessment has been replaced with a more anecdotal, formative continuum assessment (during the internship), based on the Alabama Continuum and standards for pre-service and beginning teachers called EDUCATEAlabama. This assessment is aligned with the state changes in assessments. The AQTS assessment is the summative assessment collected during the internship. The EDUCATE Alabama Assessment Rubric examines the pre-service candidates ability to perform effectively in the following areas: content knowledge, teaching and learning, literacy, diversity, and professionalism (see rubric). The AQTS Abilities Rubric examines the intern’s ability to perform effectively in the following areas: content knowledge, teaching and learning, literacy, diversity, and professionalism (see rubric).

2. An Advisory Committee for Recent P-12 Experiences was formed – composed of university faculty and school administrators to identify appropriate activities for university faculty to co-teach or shadow highly effective practitioners, in order to gain recent classroom teaching experiences..

2. The Teacher Education Council added school administrators to its membership, in order to help with collaboration.

2. The interview committee for admission to teacher education changed the process for interviews. The committee is now comprised of university faculty and school

administrators. Candidates demonstrate proficiencies through a power point presentation as a part of the interview process.

2. The advanced programs in corporate field experiences into the coursework. Traditional master’s degree candidates complete a minimum of ten hours of field experiences while enrolled in FED 501 Foundation of Education or FED 521 Multicultural Education. Ed. S candidates complete a minimum of ten hours of field experiences while enrolled in FED 600 Advanced Curriculum Development. Candidates select a study with a class or group of students who have demographics that are antithetical of the demographics for the children, they are currently teaching. The placements and documentation are maintained through the OFE & SP. The development of the study is supervised and later assessed prior to the completion of the coursework by the course instructor. Placements, assessments, and handbooks for advanced clinical practice for other school personnel are made by the respective program coordinators in collaboration with school district administrators and agency directors. Clinical practice for other school professionals is sufficiently extensive and intensive for candidates to demonstrate proficiencies in the professional roles for which they are preparing. Candidates in programs for other school professionals engage in field experiences and supervised clinical practice that require them to analyze data, use technology, apply current research, and apply knowledge related to students, their families, and communities. During the first 12 hours of coursework, candidates in the respective programs, in advanced programs for teachers, complete field projects in which they apply coursework in a classroom setting, analyze the extent of learning by P-12 students, and reflect on the practice, based upon specific theories of teaching and learning. The candidates develop portfolios of field projects and submit to a committee of faculty members for review and comment.

2. The instructional leadership program was redesigned, including the field experiences requirements. A description of the instructional leadership program delineates collaboration in the design, delivery, and assessment: The residency/internship in Instructional Leadership is designed to insure that candidates have meaningful and practical experiences in actual school settings during the course of the instructional leadership preparation program. It is designed to place candidates in the cooperating school during critical times of instructional planning. The collaborative model requires that LEA’s provide release time for candidates and for the university to work with LEA’s so that the candidates’ experiences are comprehensive and valuable. The internship experiences are the total sum of practical experiences, either field or clinical, as part of every course taken for preparation, plus residency. The residency is uninterrupted service in an active school with students present. The residency is no less than ten (10) consecutive days in the school setting with students present and allows interns to experience leadership in as many of the Alabama Leadership Standard indicators and SREB’s Critical Success factors as possible. As part of the internship, candidates prepare and maintain a comprehensive portfolio which indicates the level of experiences and knowledge gained in instructional leadership through observing, participating and leading. The portfolio is juried by the university supervisor, mentoring supervisor, and the intern before the candidate is recommended by the University for the Instructional Leadership Certification. The internship experience is demonstrated throughout the program. The make-up of the program calls for students to begin working on mastery of ability outcomes at the onset of the program. The internship objectives per semester coincide with the specialty area courses that students take each semester; therefore, students perform ability related objectives in the internship reflective of the courses in which they are enrolled. The program has a one (1) semester hour internship incorporated within the first three semesters of coursework, and an additional three (3) semester hour residency/internship incorporated either in the summer or the spring semester depending on when the student begins the program. During the three hour residency/internship the student performs the ten (10) day residency requirement. The objectives to be fulfilled during the ten (10) day residency are objectives identified by the university, objectives identified by the mentor based on the district’s needs, and objectives identified by the student based on a need for more development. The residency location is based on collaboration between the university supervisor and the district liaison.

2. Beginning Fall 2011, the following courses, graduate and undergraduate will require a 10 hour (minimum) action research service learning component. The courses are the following: undergraduate – FED 300 Foundations of Education (all undergraduate candidates are required to take, graduate – FED 503 Research (all masters level are required to take, FED 603 Advanced Educational Research (all Ed.S. candidates are required to take).

3.Exhibit Links

Exhibits

1. Memoranda of understanding, contracts, and/or other documents that demonstrate partnerships with schools

1. Criteria for the selection of school faculty (e.g., cooperating teachers, internship supervisors) – Contained in Level III Handbooks, pp. 10-12, 52-68, 69-90)

1. Documentation of the preparation of school faculty for their roles (e.g., orientation and other meetings) – Agendas from cooperating teacher and supervisor meetings

1. Descriptions of field experiences and clinical practice requirements in programs for initial and advanced teacher candidates and other school professionals – Level I, II, and III Handbooks

1. Guidelines for student teaching and internships – Level III Handbook, pp. 13-51

1. Assessments and scoring rubrics/criteria used in field experiences and clinical practice for initial and advanced teacher candidates and other school professionals (These assessments may be included in program review documents or the exhibits for Standard 1. Cross reference as appropriate.)

E. Standard 4. 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.

1.How does the unit prepare candidates to work effectively with all students?

[maximum of three pages]

Unit leadership, faculty, and staff have worked very diligently to ensure excellence in all areas regarding program diversity to include curriculum development, field experiences, clinical practice, and diversity among faculty and candidates. The unit has extended tireless energy and resources to ensure that candidates have extensive experiences on and off campus that will enable them to effectively teach all children. Diversity in the conceptual framework is addressed in the program commitments and serves as a strand that runs through all institutional standards, which are: 1.) exhibiting effective communication, 2.) displaying current professional knowledge and abilities, 3.) maintaining a positive and supportive learning environment, 4.) facilitating learning by all students, 5.) effectively assessing student learning, 6.) engaging in continuous professional development and 7.) exhibiting professional dispositions at all times. All unit faculty integrate knowledge, skills and dispositions regarding diversity as strands in the seven institutional standards in their daily instruction evidenced in course syllabi. Candidates not only learn diversity content but are also taught to understand cultural context of learning and how they are to use their knowledge and skills to teach all students. The curriculum (courses) is structured such that all candidates are tracked throughout the program to ensure that they have a diverse experience. Diversity content and experiences are integrated throughout the curriculum and the structure of all field experiences and clinical practice ensure that all candidates have diversity throughout the program. For example, at Level I, field experience candidates complete at least three full days, when taking FED 200, FED 500 or FED 521 in a Title I (low income) school. Also at Level I, they complete at least 4 days working in classrooms with exceptional learners and ELL students, when enrolled in SPE 201 and SPE 501. At Level II, candidates in the program areas alternate field experiences (attached to the methods courses) between semesters with urban and rural settings.

Periodic assessments are administered and are shared with candidates through classroom instruction and at Teacher Education Council meetings. Also, faculty members regularly review the assessment data at Unit faculty meetings. The Candidate Self-Assessment Report outlines the unit expectations for candidate knowledge skills and dispositions in the area of diversity. This document is an assessment that is given periodically to interns and candidates enrolled in CSD 421 – Multicultural Issues and FED 521 – Foundations of Multicultural Education. This self-assessment instrument is used to assess candidate perceptions of their knowledge skills and abilities in these areas.

Diversity in teaching and learning is a mentality that is continuously cultivated with candidates. In a survey of the Unit faculty, 100% stated that they infuse diversity into their coursework, which totaled 114 different courses. In the general education curriculum, all candidates study art/music, literature, and psychology from different cultures and periods as a core requirement. All candidates must successfully complete FED 200 Introduction to Teacher Education, FED 300 Foundations of Education, HDF 211 Child Growth and Development or FED 212 Human Growth and Development, and FED 403 Educational Psychology, which provide the foundation for understanding stages of development, learning styles, multiple intelligences, learning disorders, learning theories, research, best practices, and sociocultural aspects of education. FED 404 Tests and Measurements provides candidates with the knowledge to assess the learning of all students. In SPE 201 Introduction to Exceptionalities, candidates learn how diversity relates to exceptionalities and associated teaching strategies. In ECE 301 Methods/Materials for Teaching Language Arts and MUS 327 Methods/Materials for Teaching Elementary Music, candidates ascertain specific techniques to address English as a second language (ESOL), such as "Singlish," a method of teaching English through singing selected songs.

Candidates learn to incorporate diversity content and learning styles into lesson plans while in the methods courses, and this continues into the internship. Candidates also discover how to interact with actual students in their practica and internship. The candidates’ abilities to relate to their own students are evaluated using multiple methods such as the Teacher Education Interview Evaluation Rubric, A variety of cultural perspectives are highlighted in the methods courses as well as during the internship. In order to further cultivate these competencies, the Curriculum Laboratory, Learning Resources Center, and Computer Laboratories are available to all candidates.

Candidates also interact with university faculty from a broad range of academic and culturally diverse groups. Candidates not only have the ability to gain a wealth of knowledge and experience from faculty who have taught in all grade levels, but the professional education faculty members have varied socioeconomic backgrounds as well. This affords the candidates the opportunity to learn from someone who may be from a different part of the country or even another continent. The Unit has faculty representing national and international territory. For example, since the 2004 NCATE visitation, the Unit has recruited faculty from Albania, Africa, and Jamaica as well as faculty who have studied in regions different from their native environment. Candidates have an opportunity to interact with diverse faculty members through classes, advising, and student and departmental organizations. These exchanges are valuable for the candidates, providing an experience that facilitates the development of tolerance, respect, and understanding of persons who may be culturally and socially different from them.

Candidates engage in learning with other candidates from a wide array of diverse groups. The Unit has candidates from urban and rural hometowns, candidates with disabilities, racial and ethnic backgrounds, as well as candidates from various social, political, and religious views. As indicated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) - AAMU 2008 Report, over half of the candidates engage in serious discussions with peers from diverse environments. This type of atmosphere ensures that the Unit is helping to enrich educational experiences.

Alabama A&M University is among the most diverse campuses in the United States, with 95% of its student population consisting of individuals from minority backgrounds. The institution is a hub of learning for students who hail from over 40 countries. The School of Education is representative of individuals from a variety of backgrounds and continues to promote diversity among its future educators. Candidates are continuously involved in experiences in traditional and contemporary learning programs with individuals from diverse backgrounds. The diversity of our candidates is illustrated in the tables below.

Candidates are invited to serve on numerous committees that help shape the vision and direction for the School of Education. Examples of these committees are: Candidate Assessment, Clinical and Field Experiences, Student Development/Appeals, Faculty Professional Development, Special Programs/Occasions, and Teaching/Learning Resources. Candidates also served on the NCATE Conceptual Framework and Standard 1 committees.

Candidates also interact with professional education faculty from a broad range of academic and culturally diverse groups. Candidates are able to participate in at least 115 registered student organizations that focus on building leaders to inspire others, uplifting the school, and supporting the community. These student organizations are an essential part of the University. They provide students with a variety of opportunities to explore their academic, professional, political, social, cultural, recreational, spiritual, and community service interests. Student organizations allow students to develop interpersonal, organizational and leadership skills in a supportive, challenging, and diverse environment.

One of the Unit’s professional education organizations that promote excellence in diverse candidates is Kappa Delta Pi. Every Fall semester, Kappa Delta Pi hosts a forum in which the Dean and Chairpersons are expected to attend and participate in mandatory meetings with students where the students share their ideas and concerns about the Unit.

Another of our extraordinary organizations is the Student Council for Exceptional Children (SCEC). This is a student chapter for the National Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). CEC, a non-profit association, accomplishes its mission which is carried out in support of special education professionals and others working on behalf of individuals with exceptionalities, by advocating for appropriate governmental policies, by setting professional standards, by providing continuing professional development, by advocating for newly and historically underserved individuals with exceptionalities, and by helping professionals achieve the conditions and resources necessary for effective professional practice.

Additionally, when Graduating Seniors were surveyed and asked if the University contributes to the personal growth of the candidates’ ability to relate well to diverse backgrounds, positive results were rendered by 82% (Fall 2007) and 85% (Spring 2008) of the population surveyed. 78% indicated that they were quite satisfied with Disability Services, while 83% responded positively during the Spring 2008 semester. The aim of the Unit is to take this information and build upon the wonderful things that are happening at the University in order to produce a well-trained professional who is committed to excellence related to diversity.

The School of Education faculty believe that it is essential to facilitate a climate in college courses that is supportive and nurturing of all candidates so that class members become a community of learners. Small and large group