2000 Ncate / Ipsb Annual Report

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

and

Indiana Professional Standards Board

Annual Report

2000

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

Marilyn J. Haring,

Dean and Director of Teacher Education

West Lafayette, Indiana

October 1, 2000

2000 NCATE / IPSB ANNUAL REPORT

Purdue University

Introduction

Significant in shaping this report is the fact that Indiana has entered into a performance-based partnership that mandates close ties between professional preparation and accreditation endorsed by both the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). As a result, accreditation visits are conducted by joint teams; and Indiana institutions of higher education are required to submit a single report annually to IPSB and NCATE. Thus, this report addresses requirements specific to NCATE and those specific to IPSB, as outlined in a memorandum of June 9, 2000, from the Teacher Education Committee of the IPSB.

First, however, this report presents an overview and update on progress in implementing recent programmatic revisions in teacher preparation at Purdue University. These revisions are the central focus of faculty in moving to a performance-based system that is consistent with IPSB and NCATE 2000 standards. Then, two sections of the report follow that address, respectively, NCATE weaknesses as cited by the Unit Accreditation Board in spring 2000 and progress in developing and implementing the Unit's Assessment System (UAS) mandated by IPSB.

Purdue's Journey to Performance-Based Preparation

Overview of Recent Programmatic Revisions

Purdue's School of Education (the Unit) undertook far-reaching revision of its elementary education major and its secondary education professional core in 1995. This coincided with the IPSB move toward performance-based licensure and accreditation. Thus, faculty have committed enormous time and energy in the past 5 years to developing performance-based, stellar programs, which, also, will meet NCATE/IPSB standards when fully implemented.

Beginning in fall 1999, massively revised courses and preparation experiences were offered for those cohorts just beginning in Purdue's teacher education programs (such beginners usually are sophomores at the University). One semester at a time, a new block of sequenced experiences has been offered such that Blocks I, II, and III are now being implemented for students who are in those phases of their study. At the same time, students who were relatively advanced in the preparation pipeline (second semester sophomores, juniors, and seniors) are finishing the old programs. In this rolling implementation, then, newer students are taking courses and blocks that are recently adopted and designed. These are the performance-based curricular experiences that are consistent with the new NCATE/IPSB standards.

Major features of the redesigned elementary education program include a cohort approach in which two or three specified courses are taken together in a semester and are linked through an integrative field experience called Theory into Practice (TIP). In addition to TIP field experiences (which take elementary education majors into field settings for substantial periods of time during six different semesters), the following strands also are woven throughout the program: Technology, diversity, and portfolio assessment.

Major features of the redesigned secondary education professional core include cohorts of students and some blocking of courses linked by TIP experiences. The core is designed to be taken sequentially by students in order to optimize reflection and growth in knowledge, performances, and dispositions. Sequencing also contributes to program coherence, an element of secondary programs that national reform has identified as a pressing need.

Update on Progress in Implementing New Programs

Attached are schematics showing the organizational strategy for specifying details of each block in the new programs. Already Blocks I, II, and III have been fully specified and approved and have been offered at least once. In fall semester 2000 courses and the early field experience TIP in Block IV in the elementary education program are completed, approved, and ready for implementation in spring 2001. Block V has been designed and has received approval by the Accountability Team, which is the first step of faculty approval in the formal governance of the Unit. It will be implemented in fall 2001. Block VI, which includes student teaching, will not be the subject of major curricular change.

The secondary education professional core is fully designed and those courses are being implemented at this time. The Secondary Education Committee is considering final questions such as maximum number of credits students can earn in student teaching, which is a degree question, not one related to performance-based licensure.

Another large preparation program--special education—currently is being redesigned to conform to the new licensing pattern designated by the IPSB. The Unit will offer an undergraduate major that will meet new, generic special education standards for mild intervention. One specialization is being considered in the IPSB-approved area of intense intervention (severe and multiple disabilities).

Finally, two exciting funded initiatives at Purdue have begun this fall that will address aspects of the new NCATE/IPSB standards. First, the Purdue Project to Prepare Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (P3T3) will utilize $2.2 million to prepare pre-service and beginning teachers to develop unique electronic portfolios. In this project, students will learn to utilize multimedia technology for teaching and learning by developing their own electronic portfolios. Techniques for electronically documenting the meeting of all relevant standards will be taught in a sequenced manner throughout the teacher education curriculum. In addition to gathering and storing dynamic artifacts representing their own and their students' learning, pre-service teachers will reflect upon their evolving practice. Also, they will manipulate their portfolios by being able to stream documentation for meeting any one of the IPSB standards they are required to meet. This will facilitate their knowledge of standards, as well as portfolio assessment by faculty teams. These portfolios will provide a strong foundation for portfolios required of these same students when they become beginning teachers in a teacher induction program.

A second funded project, “Managing Data in a Unit’s Assessment System to Prepare More Effective Teachers and Improve Student Achievement,” will link IPSB standards to state K-12 standards for purposes of pre-service preparation and assessment. Central to activities in this project will be leadership provided by the Co-Chairs and Steering Committee of the Purdue Professional Development Schools partnership (PPDS). Further, an assessment coordinator funded by this project will coordinate a number of assessment projects in the SOE, all of which are focused on performance (a diagram is attached depicting these assessment projects). The funded project begins October 1, 2000.

Response to NCATE Weaknesses Cited Spring 2000

Weakness: I. H. Quality of Field Experiences (sufficient field-based and clinical experiences with culturally diverse and exceptional populations are not provided).

The most recent review of K-12 student populations within a 65-mile radius of the Purdue West Lafayette campus revealed that the school with the highest percentage of racial/ethnic minorities had a 25% Hispanic population. Further, many schools in this area have less than 10% minority students. It is apparent, then, that at the present time there are not sufficient field-based and clinical sites that will meet NCATE standards for diversity. This problem has been exacerbated by the newly-redesigned SOE programs requiring triple the number of field experiences that the previous programs required. That is, in order to strengthen the number of required field experiences for each pre-service student, the Unit has had to use all available school sites within driving distance of the campus, rather than simply choosing those with the most diversity (which apparently still would not have enough diversity to meet NCATE standards).

In order to be creative and to enrich Purdue students' experience with diversity, the Unit has laid a foundation for some portions of the required field experiences to be completed by distance learning connections with classrooms in urban areas. For example, the first block of courses in the new programs includes courses in introduction to teaching and diversity, and they share an integrated field experience. As a pilot project, part of that field experience is guided observation and interaction with K-12 students in classrooms in East Chicago, where diversity of learners is far greater than in central Indiana. In addition, the P3T3 project mentioned earlier provides for Purdue pre-service teachers to tutor K-12 students in urban areas such as Indianapolis' north side, which is far more diverse than the West Lafayette area. These pilot projects are expanding the Unit's relationships with distant, diverse field sites and enriching field experiences for pre-service teachers.

It should be mentioned that considerable commitment has been made by the Unit to these pilot projects inasmuch as these distant field sites must be equipped with videoconferencing capabilities and must be provided with technical expertise to engage in the virtual interaction. Response from the field sites has been enthusiastic, as has been response of the Unit's faculty and students.

Weakness: I. H. Early field experiences program is not planned and monitored to ensure meaningful experiences for candidates.

Planning. At the time of the fall 1999 visit by the BOE, rolling implementation of the new programs had just begun. Those programs, including the role of each course and field experience relative to the Unit's conceptual framework, had been described in lengthy documents that were approved by faculty in 1998. Enclosed is a summary plan for the early field experiences (Blocks I – V), which was updated in spring 2000.

Building upon the careful design of those coherent programs, the target has been to have each course and field experience fully developed and approved at least 8 months prior to actual implementation. (The University's approval process is a lengthy one that involves input and scrutiny by six different groups of faculty that range from the program area that is proposing the curriculum change in the School of Education to [eventually] the University-wide Teacher Education Council). Faculty have successfully met the target of approval 8 months prior to implementation of each new block; and descriptions are attached for the integrated, early field experiences for Blocks I - V. (Note: Block VI is the professional semester [including student teaching] and is not an early field experience; thus, it is not an issue in addressing this NCATE weakness.)

In summary, the Unit has successfully followed a plan to phase out previous programs as it rolls out new programs. This has allowed candidates to begin coursework in approved new programs that have been fully specified in written documents prior to syllabi being developed for courses students will take in the following academic year. Rolling implementation has enabled the Unit to introduce new programs two years earlier than would have been possible if syllabi in every block course were required prior to any implementation of the program. A key faculty committee, the Accountability Team, is charged with ensuring that every course syllabus developed for the new programs is consistent with the lengthy conceptual documents approved in 1998.

Monitoring. Early field experiences are very carefully monitored inasmuch as they are integrated into blocks of courses and have been designed to meet specific objectives. Materials referenced in the preceding sections demonstrate that there are objectives in each early field experience and specified assessments of the assignments designed to meet the objectives. Further, both the University faculty member coordinating the field experience and the K-12 cooperating teacher participate in the monitoring and assessment of the field experience and students enrolled in it.

In addition, a portfolio assessment will be part of the Unit’s Assessment System (see section 3 of this report that addresses the UAS mandated by IPSB). Attached is a draft of the checkpoints where faculty teams will assess portfolios and other criteria to determine if candidates’ experiences (including TIPs) have facilitated their meeting performance-based standards required at that point in candidates’ preparation. These checkpoints provide extensive monitoring of each student and will result in formative feedback. After this feedback has been utilized by a candidate and additional support is given (if needed), each checkpoint ultimately becomes a juncture at which summative decisions are made by faculty.

In summary, the Unit submits that its monitoring of carefully planned early field experiences is particularly strong and purposeful.

Weakness: II. B. The Unit has not successfully recruited and retained a sufficiently diverse student population.

In fall 2000, 71 minority students were enrolled in SOE undergraduate majors in elementary education, special education, and social studies education. Thus, minority students comprised 5% of the SOE 1402 enrollees. In addition, 42 minority undergraduate students were enrolled in secondary education programs (5.7% of 743). Finally, 5 minority undergraduate students were enrolled in early childhood programs (3.5% of 142). It should be noted that the University does not have an open admissions policy; and only the most qualified students gain admission to the institution, based upon seven variables that include rank in class, high school grade point average, courses completed, leadership activities, and scores on an entrance examination. Racial preferences are not given in admission decisions.

From discussion with BOE and UAB members concerning NCATE training guidelines, the Unit has learned that, despite preparing a large number of minority students to be teachers and despite faculty scholarship and teaching that emphasizes diversity, Purdue labors under a weakness for this standard because it has not met a quota. Further, the quota has been determined by the percentage of undergraduate students at the institution who are minority group members and/or the percentage of general population in the state who are minorities. For teacher preparation at Purdue University located in the state of Indiana, then, the quota is roughly 10% minority students.

Obviously, such a quota system does not meet current legal standards for affirmative action. It also may be discriminatory against public institutions preparing teachers when they seek NCATE accreditation, particularly now that Title II reporting requirements may render an institution "low performing" if it does not meet the diversity standard (with the penalty being withdrawal of federal funding from that institution). That is, the stakes are now higher than ever; and basing any portion of UAB decisions—even implicitly--upon whether an institution has met a racial quota appears to be questionable, at best.

As argued in the rejoinder to the BOE report in spring 2000, it seems patently unfair and irrational to criticize a large, public, research institution in a semi-rural setting (i.e., 120 miles from a major city) in a predominantly white state for "only having" 118 minority students in preparation to be P-12 teachers. Might it be more meaningful to ask, "Given its context, is this institution making highly committed recruiting/retention efforts that are successful and contribute significantly to the state's pool of minority teaching candidates?" If that is the question of interest (rather than whether an institution has met a racial quota), a university such as Purdue might well stand out as being a successful contributor to the diversity of the teaching corps in its state—and receive some of the positive attention it deserves for attracting a relatively large number of minority candidates to its teacher preparation programs (while faculty also are teaching and publishing on issues of diversity).

It is incongruous that an (hypothetical) small, private institution that is only preparing a handful of teaching candidates (e.g., 30, 3 of whom are minorities) receives praise from NCATE, while a large, public institution that is preparing many new minority teachers is described as having a weakness in this area. Thus, the Unit places on the record the fact that teacher education at Purdue University is highly motivated and energetic in recruiting minority students and has been successful in recruiting 118 minority candidates. This recruiting effort and its result are a significant part of a continuing overall effort to recruit outstanding candidates of all races and prepare them to be stellar teachers. This recruiting effort is inextricably linked to faculty values, beliefs, and actions in preparing teachers who are extraordinarily sensitive and capable with regard to issues of cultural diversity.

Finally, it is becoming apparent that the teaching profession (and all of education) would be better served with a more creative approach to diversity at institutions such as Purdue. That is, rather than flogging a horse than cannot possibly run any faster and then berating it for giving its best effort, why not create an alternative for all institutions to run a good race—regardless of their geographic and other liabilities--from which everyone benefits?

Specifically, it is argued that institutions may contribute best to the goals of diversity by preparing all its teacher candidates to work effectively with and embrace diverse learners. In fact, it appears racist to say that only members of the same race can work effectively with students of that race, which is the basis of the argument for quotas that reflect demographics of an institution or state. Our society, fortunately, seems well beyond a belief of yesteryear that only Anglo teachers can teach Anglo children. Hopefully, myths also have been dispelled about children of minority groups needing teachers of those minority groups.

Why, then, is the answer to challenges created by increased diversity of P-12 learners increased racial diversity among teachers? Alternatively, isn’t it a better answer to say that whatever race a teacher is, she/he must be exceptionally able to teach learners of various races and of significant differences in learning characteristics? This is the focus of Purdue’s new programs, and students of all races will benefit from that perspective. This focus will not change whether 5% or 10% of Education undergraduates are members of minority groups. A significant reason for why this focus will not change is that Purdue faculty are totally committed to preparing teaching candidates who value and respect all learners, have exceptional skills, and have high expectations of all children.