1.1 Teacher Education Academic Assessment: Basic Skills and Content

Each semester the Unit monitors the candidates’ academic performance in accord with the Unit’s academic standards, e.g., grade point averages (e.g., liberal studies, majors/minors, professional education studies program, etc. in conjunction with limits on the number of repeats and no grades below a C in the majors/minors/professional studies programs), ACT/SAT or PPST and MTTC basic skills test scores, a letter of recommendation for admission to the methods courses, etc. The monitoring of the G.P.A. requirements for selection into, retention in, and completion of the program for the recommendation to the State is through the Director, Office of Teacher Education Student Services, who has a computer program which develops a profile of the candidate’s academic qualifications and progress relative to the academic standards (e.g., MTTC and PPST basic skills, University English proficiency requirements, Teacher Education G.P.A. requirements and course repeat limits, MTTC subject matter tests, and completion of prerequisites). See Exhibit # 2.2 for sample teacher education student computer data sheets.

1.2 Teacher Education Professional Assessment: Pedagogical Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions

Under the leadership of the Director of Field Experiences, the faculty meet at the end of each semester to review the progress of candidates in demonstrating the application of knowledge, skills, and dispositions per the State’s Entry-Level Standards as they move through the Professional Education Studies Phases outlined in Standard One. For example, the faculty who instruct in Block One of Phase II, Elementary Education Professional Studies, will meet as they will share the same candidates. They will discuss the extent to which candidates are demonstrating the capacity for professional discourse, the quality of lesson and unit planning (e.g., the research-base for the design of a lesson and unit), the ability to use the Michigan Curricular Frameworks and Benchmarks for the design of lessons and units, the use of multiple modes of assessing a candidate’s performance, the acceptance of responsibility in collaborative projects, basic literacy skills as expressed in written and/or oral presentations, etc.

On occasion, the faculty will confer to review a candidate’s performance during the semester as opposed to the end of the semester when warranted, e.g. particular concerns arise about the quality of a candidate’s performance. Appropriate notification is afforded the candidate as to what the concerns are and the changes in performance needed. The faculty member or members will record their concerns and meetings with a candidate during or at the end of the semester, should documentation be needed to assure timely notification and due process for the candidates. The meetings of the faculty to review the candidates’ performance afford a “check and balance” against any individual, idiosyncratic observations and evaluations by a faculty member of a candidate’s performance, e.g., projects, lesson/unit planning, performance in classrooms, etc.

The assessment during and/or at the end of the semester also addresses the progress of the candidates’ actual performance in the phases of interning and practice of teaching, e.g., basic skills, pedagogical skills and dispositions. The University and/or school faculty participate in evaluating the candidates as observed in the professional education studies courses, including the required interning in school classrooms in Phases I, II, and III. The University has “studio” sites that are school/university collaborative sites in which the University faculty and teacher candidates meet and engage in designing projects for practice with learners in the school, reflective discourse about practice, the research base for practice, etc. It is in these studio settings that the candidates come to know learners well, to observe teachers who have crafted well the art of their practice and its effectiveness, and for the teacher education candidates to begin developing and advancing their practice with the support of nurturing and coaching from classroom and university facilities.

To recapitulate, the Director, Office of Field Experiences, arranges meetings of University and/or classroom faculty as appropriate, especially the review of all candidates in Phases I and II at the end of the semester with the faculty sharing their reflections, observations, and evaluations of each candidate’s demonstrated ability to assist, plan for, to guide the learning of all students, ability to care for and commit to all students, etc.

In the situations where a candidate’s performance is failing to progress toward the target level of being proficient per the Entry-Level Standards, the Director, Office of Field Experiences, the faculty member, and/or classroom teacher confer and prepare the appropriate documentation for presentation to the candidate, especially for any future review as to whether or not the candidate should be permitted to continue in the program or be recommend to the State for a teaching certificate. See Exhibit # 2.12 for example documentation and notification to candidates.

1.3 Advanced Programs for Teachers and Other School Personnel

With the appointment of a new teacher, the school district has the legal responsibility to assess, evaluate, and support teaching performance and support the professional development of teachers and other school personnel, school guidance counselors and administrators.

The University and school districts, as previously indicated, collaborate to provide support through the teacher induction/mentoring initiative, through the various 18 semester credit hour programs, and likewise the Master degree programs for teachers. The Master degree programs use the traditional academic measures for evaluating candidates for advanced degree programs relative to admission, progress through, and completion of the programs, e.g., academic performance as reflected in a diverse array of projects (e.g., graduate research papers, reflective journals, website designs, lesson/units designs in accord with the Michigan Frameworks, etc.), school-based internships, and class presentations/reports, etc. See Exhibit # 2.3. The instructors, faculty advisor, and graduate school personnel evaluate the academic progress of candidates in accord with the graduate plans of study for the master degrees in education. See Exhibit # 2.4 (graduate plans of study, e.g., counseling, elementary/secondary, educational administration).

2.0 EVALUATING PROGRAMS

Evaluating and improving the Unit’s programs are through multiple means and at different points:

2.1 Evaluating Instruction

The Unit affirms the principle that essential to evaluating and improving the Unit’s programs are evaluating and improving instruction. The faculty in the School of Education has the primary responsibility for the instruction of the professional education studies courses in the basic and advanced programs, including for other school personnel. For the basic and advanced programs, the evaluation of instruction includes the professional studies knowledge base, the professional pedagogical knowledge base, the skills, and the dispositions within the definitions set by NCATE. It is the full-time Professional Education Unit members in the School of Education that have the professional and ethical responsibility to embody in their practice the conceptual framework for the basic programs and the advanced programs, teachers and other school personnel. Of course, the adjunct part-time faculty also hold a responsibility to embody in their practice the conceptual framework and the embodiment of best practice.

Each semester, the full-time faculty and part-time faculty who teach courses in the School of Education are required to have candidates evaluate the courses and the instructors. The evaluation instrument reflects significantly the value the Unit has for teaching. See Exhibit # 2.5. The School of Education faculty understand and accept that, unlike other faculty, the personnel responsible for preparing all educators must exemplify before the candidate their proficiency about knowledge, skills, and dispositions which are expected of the candidates.

The protocol for the end of semester course and instructor evaluation by candidates is:

1. The faculty member has a candidate distribute the form and leaves the room.
2. A candidate collects the survey instrument and delivers the “electronic bubble” sheets to the Office of the Director, School of Education, whose secretary forwards them to the Computer Center for a summary report for each course.
3. The written comments are typed to preserve confidentiality and placed with the computer summaries.
4. The director reviews them and forwards them, usually with comment, to the faculty members after grades are issued.

The candidate end-of-semester evaluation of courses and instructors must be included in the annual evaluations for review by the School of Education Personnel/Evaluation Committee. That Committee designates a committee member to observe each faculty member instruct. This in turn permits the School of Education Personnel/Evaluation Committee to identify outstanding faculty to mentor new faculty members in the School of Education as well as to honor outstanding faculty. See Exhibit # 2.6.

The evaluation of courses and instructors permits the faculty to consider how well particular courses that comprise the curriculum are “fitting together,”, how the sequencing of courses are maximizing the candidate’s learning, experience, etc. For example, an instructor’s content/ pedagogy and candidates’ learning may be better served by placing the course earlier or later in the sequencing of courses, as well as enhancing the ways in which the course can better support the achievement, performance, and developing practice of the candidates. Of course, it may as well be suggestive how a particular course’s content is not achieving what was intended, and thereby other changes may be in order.

The faculty evaluation processes are also used to address issues where the instructor’s pedagogy is ineffective. If there are related curricular questions to be examined, then various program development committees (e.g., School of Education Curriculum Committee, the Unit’s Program Development Committees) may be utilized. For example, the development of ED 307: Integrating the Arts into the Elementary Curriculum evolved from an unsuccessful situation in terms of pedagogy and content issues. The same exploration and examination led to changes in ED 500A: Introduction to Educational Research and ED 500B: Graduate Research Project, ED 541A: Improvement of Instruction and ED 541B: Supervision of Instruction, ED 506: Cultural Foundations I, ED 507: Cultural Foundations II, and ED 349: General Secondary Methods.

So it is that evaluating and improving the Unit must entail the evaluating and improving of instruction, an evaluating that includes advisement. See Exhibit # 2.7.

2.2 Evaluating Programs: Basic and Advanced

For purposes of improving the Unit and its programs, the Unit reviews its programs through a number of “end of program” evaluations. These processes are described below.

2.2A The Michigan Test for Teacher Certification: The Summary Reports of Performance

The Office of Teacher Education Student Services receives notification when each Northern Michigan University teacher education candidate passes or fails the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification (MTTC) basic skills tests and the teachable endorsement areas, i.e., the content tests. MTTC results are summarized and reported to the head of the Professional Education Unit who shares the results with the faculty and with the general public through press releases. Depending upon the performance of the candidates and/or changes in the test objectives or number of items, a change or changes may be recommended in the teachable major/minor requirements. Given the same benchmark score for a major and a minor, for elementary and secondary certification, the review of the MTTC results is extremely important relative to the course requirements in the major/minor as well as the teaching effectiveness in those fields.

2.2B The Michigan State Board of Education Approved Standards for Certificate Endorsements

The Unit reviews its required courses for the teaching endorsements in terms of their compliance with the Michigan State Board of Education Standards securing the State Board of Education approval to recommend candidates for an endorsement on a teaching certificate, e.g., mathematics, music, chemistry, history, Spanish, English, etc. Since the same standards are for both elementary and secondary levels, a review is made of the requirements for the elementary major/minor and also for the secondary major/minor in each content field, e.g., mathematics, English, history, etc.

2.2C End of Practice Teaching

Candidates in the teacher preparation program (basic) complete an end of program evaluation. The form (see Exhibit # 2.8) is distributed to the candidate teachers in their practice teaching seminars. The form includes a rating as to how well they believe the program has helped their proficiency and opportunity for comments. The form addresses practice teaching, e.g., placement, University supervision, etc., but is not limited to practice teaching experience. The summaries are shared with the Elementary Program Development Committee (Block I and Block II) and the Secondary Program Development Committee, and the University supervisors of Practice Teachers. The faculty explore improvements in the program relative to knowledge, skills, and dispositions of the candidates. Also, quite important is the examination of issues related to context, namely, how details of context maximizes the level of achievement expected relative to the Michigan Entry-Level Standards, such details as scheduling, school sites, etc. See Exhibit #2.9 for Fall Semester 2000 summary results.

2.2D Classroom Supervisors of Practice Teachers: Teacher Education Advisory Council

The University hosts quite regularly the Northern Michigan University Teacher Education Advisory Council (TEAC). The Council’s membership is the classroom supervisors of practice teachers. TEAC reviews proposals submitted by the University for program changes and improvements and also presents suggestions to the University. The chair of TEAC is a classroom teacher. The Director of Field Experiences is the liaison to TEAC. The Council is extremely important to the Program’s improvement inasmuch as the supervising teacher has the responsibility to recommend or not recommend a candidate to be certificated. If a classroom supervising teacher does not sign the document, a recommendation to the State for the award of a teaching certificate does not move forward from the University. The University may still award a degree. It is important to understand that the University awards the degree while the State Department of Education awards a teaching certificate. At Northern Michigan University, the award of the certificate requires the “sign off” of the classroom supervisor of the practice teacher. In other words, the professional educator who is with the candidate from day to day will recommend or not recommend the candidate for a teaching certificate. With the certificating responsibility assigned to the classroom supervising teacher, TEAC expresses to the University the kinds of support, adequacy of preparation, etc. judged important to enhance the performance of the candidates and thereby improvements in the program. The Director of Field Experiences attends all TEAC meetings to communicate TEAC suggestions to the appropriate faculty, committees, etc., which helps improve the Unit.

See Exhibit # 2.10 for a quantitative summary of the Fall 2000 Classroom Supervising Teacher’s Evaluation of the Practice Teaching Program. This exhibit also includes teachers who are not in attendance at fall TEAC meetings.

2.2E Graduates of Advanced Degree Programs

The Unit conducts a number of different follow-up studies of graduates from advanced degree programs. The formats and items do vary, see Exhibit # 2.11 for evaluation forms and 2000 results. The follow-up studies of graduates in the MAE programs (e.g., Learning Disabilities, Educational Administration, School Guidance Counseling, and Elementary/Secondary Education) are the function of many factors, e.g., professional standards, State Board of Education approved standard, etc. These follow-up studies are then shared with the appropriate individuals or committees, e.g., faculty, program coordinator, curriculum review committees, etc.

3.0 EVALUATING AND IMPROVING THE UNIT

The Professional Education Unit will continue to develop and refine the collecting and analyzing data on applicant qualifications and the performance of candidates in basic and advanced programs. The evaluation of programs will proceed attending to refining both the procedural and substantive aspects of evaluating programs as distinct from assessing candidates and evaluating the Unit. A website will be developed for a more extensive and accessible evaluation (formal and informal, qualitative and quantitative) of the Unit’s programs, e.g., assessments from supervising classroom teachers for the pre-practice teaching experience and practice teaching programs, the teacher induction/mentoring programs, first-year performance evaluations by principals, and evaluation of content majors/minors relative to State and National standards.

The evaluation system will include programs for other school personnel.

The Professional Education Unit’s Coordinator for Assessment and Evaluation and the Assessment and Evaluation Committee is responsible for developing, administering, and refining the Unit’s assessment system for the primary purpose of evaluating the Unit and its operations as well as for assuring that the graduates of basic and advanced programs successfully promote teaching and learning for all students. The Committee members are:

1. Director of Field Experiences;
   The Director prepares a yearly assessment report as to the recommendations of faculty, classroom teachers and school administrators for improving field experiences in Phases I through IV, especially data-based as to how candidates can more effectively and efficaciously demonstrate the integration of content, skills and dispositions for teaching all students within the Michigan Core Curriculum Frameworks and Teaching/Learning Standards. See Conceptual Framework, Derivative #1: Habits of Judgment and Development of Character.
2. Director, Teacher Education Student Services;
   The Director prepares a yearly report (data-based) as to the alignment between teacher selection criteria and the academic performance of graduates to assure that the graduates have the content knowledge (content as medium) which is prerequisite to effectively teaching all students the content, e.g., the performance of candidates on the MTTC test, University standards for academic performance, etc. See Conceptual Framework, Derivative #3: Subject Matter Content as Medium.
3. Chair, School of Education Graduate Review Committee;
   The Chair prepares a yearly report regarding the improvement of advanced programs (e.g. MAE in Elementary and Secondary Education, Learning Disabilities, School Guidance Counseling, and Instructional Leadership/Educational Administration) based upon compliance with state and national standards, the assessment of the performance of candidates in advanced programs, employers of the graduates from advanced programs e.g., their candidate projects, journals, research reports, and internships.
4. Chair, School of Education Undergraduate Review Committee;
   The Chair prepares a yearly report regarding the alignment of the teacher education professional studies courses and sequence including elementary teachable majors/minors with the MTTC content objectives, the Michigan Core Curriculum Standards, the Michigan Teaching and Learning Standards, the Michigan Entry-Level Standards for teachers, and national standards for the professional/pedagogical preparation of elementary and secondary teachers. See Conceptual Framework, Derivative #2: Teaching as Artistry.
5. Director, Office of Diversity Student Services; Director, Office of Admissions; and Director, School of Education;
   The Directors will prepare a yearly report and projected plan of action for improving the School of Education’s recruitment of diverse candidates and opportunities for all teacher education candidates to interact with diverse students and faculty, and likewise, for faculty to interact with diverse professional educators. See the Conceptual Framework , particularly Derivative #4: Race, Culture, and Social Justice.
6. Chair, School of Education Faculty Evaluation Committee;
   The Chair prepares a yearly report on the School of Education’s Professional Education faculty for the Professional Education Studies Phases I-IV relative to instructional effectiveness in preparing educators and for the preparation of other school personnel, e.g., how well the faculty model the kinds of pedagogies and dispositions expected of candidates in Standard One, the protocols for and the quality of the course evaluation instrument which is administered at the end of the semester, especially relative to the Conceptual Framework.
7. Dean, College of Arts and Sciences;
   The Dean prepares a yearly report regarding the alignment of all teachable majors/minors with national/state standards, the alignment of the secondary content methods course content and instruction with the Michigan Entry-Level Standards and the Unit’s Conceptual Framework, teaching and supervisory loads, and diversity of secondary teacher education faculty.
8. Director, School of Education;
   The Director prepares a yearly report regarding the evaluation of the Unit, e.g., operations of the Unit relative to the recruitment of diverse faculty, faculty loads, Unit resources and capacities relative to enrollments.
9. Chair, Teacher Education Advisory Council (practice teaching program representative);
   The Chair prepares a yearly report regarding improvements in the supervision of both pre- and practice teaching field experiences, particularly representing the voices of classrooms supervisors and school administrators.

Dr. Paul Duby, Associate Vice-President for Planning and Analytic Studies, is an advisor to the Unit’s Coordinator for Assessment and Evaluation and to the Committee as needed regarding developing and administering an assessment and evaluation system for the Unit, e.g., 1) review of questions for assessing and evaluating candidates’ qualifications and performance and for improving the Unit’s operations and programs; 2) review of assessments of the candidates and Unit which are in place; 3) available assessment data and supporting resources within the University to support assessing and evaluating the candidates and the Unit; 4) using the technology for collecting the data, collating, and interpreting the assessment data.

The design for assessing the Unit and its operations relative to the Conceptual Framework and the NCATE Standards will proceed in the Winter, 2001 semester under the leadership of the Coordinator, Dr. Earl Kaurala. The design phase, including the various reports, will be based on a thorough review of the assessment information and technologies in the University, available through the Office of Planning and Analytic Studies, as well as the assessment instruments, information, and procedures that are conducted by the Unit. Implementing of the assessment system design will begin the summer, 2001. The Coordinator will engage and provide leadership to the Committee during both the design and implementation.

The Coordinator and Committee will submit in January, 2002 a final set of recommendations for improving the Unit that is based upon assessment and evaluation data. The Unit coordinator presents the recommendations and supporting data to the Head of the Professional Education Unit, the Professional Education Council, and to the appropriate subcommittees in the Unit, recommendations for improving: 1) applicants qualifications; 2) candidate and graduate performance; 3) the Unit’s programs; 4) the assessment and evaluation system; and 5) the Unit’s operation. The recommendations are to be formatted as long-range plans to improve the Unit, e.g., performance proficiency of candidates, candidate recruitment and retention (e.g., academic proficiency, diversity, etc.), staffing, candidate/faculty ratio, alignments of the curricula with State and National Standards, the efficacy of the programs, technology, and other areas essential to improving the Unit.

Within the governance structure of the master agreement, the Unit recommendations will go to the Associate Dean for Teacher Education (Unit Head) and Director, School of Education for review, approval and implementation by the appropriate committees, the Professional Education Council, and the appropriate University administrators.