Present: A. Buehler, (UOTC); B. Fiehn, (ETRA); J. Jacobson, (LEPF); C. Montgomery, (Associate Dean, Graduate School); J. Saban, (LEPF); C. Sorensen (Dean CoE); S. Stratton, (LEPF); P. Tattersall, (COMD); G. Waas, (Psychology); S. Wichman, (CAHE)
Not Present: E. Seaver, (Vice Provost); N. Stahl, (LTCY)
The meeting convened at 8:30 AM. No items were added to the agenda. S. Stratton asked that the April 5 minutes be corrected to show her as a member of the CAPCE committee that will serve to identify common assessment measures across CAPCE programs. J. Saban asked that his program designation be corrected to LEPF. A motion was made by J. Jacobson and seconded by G. Waas to approve the April 5, 2004, minutes with the above corrections. Motion passed
Members were asked whether they knew who would be representing each program at CAPCE next year. While elections have not yet been held, it appears the following are likely to be CAPCE member for 2004-2005: J. Saban, (LEPF); R. Butler and/or B. Fiehn, (ETRA); F. Giordano, (CAHE); S. Stratton, (LEPF); J. Jacobson, (LEPF); G. Waas, (Psychology); P. Tattersall (COMD); and (LTCY) to be named. Non-Voting members of CAPCE for 2004-2005 will be: E. Seaver, (Vice-Provost), C. Sorensen, (Dean CoE); A. Buehler, (UOTC); and the Interim Associate Dean of Graduate School.
Joe Saban was relected by acclamation as CAPCE chair for 2004-2005. Greg Waas was named as CAPCE Vice-Chair for 2004-2005.
Reporting on his NCATE training, Al Buehler noted the importance of the Conceptual Framework because it describes a shared vision for both initial and advanced certification programs as to the qualities program completers should possess. The Conceptual Framework must contain five structural elements. Currently, element five, a description of how candidate performance is regularly assessed is the only element that our Unit’s Conceptual Framework doesn’t address. Periodic review and updating of the Conceptual Framework is expected by the NCATE Board of Examiners. This is a task for the Unit Assessment Committee. If the Conceptual Framework is written correctly, it will outline expected dispositions of program completers.
NCATE’s Standard 2, Assessment System and Unit Evaluation, is often the most difficult standard for institutions. One purpose of the assessment system is to monitor candidate performance. All evaluation instruments across the unit’s programs should reflect the standards and show they are measuring the desired candidate qualities as expressed in the Conceptual Framework. NCATE examiners will be looking for evidence that the unit used aggregated data to improve programs. Also, the Unit database should contain information for Title II, state, institution, and annual NCATE reports.
The key goal of NCATE examiners regarding diversity will be to find evidence that candidates can effectively teach to all students. Diversity evidence includes data showing candidates are exposed to a diverse faculty and that a good faith effort is made to increase or maintain diversity among candidates, as well as evidence that candidates have experiences in diverse settings.
Evidence that candidates can effectively teach using technology will be another point of focus for NCATE examiners. It is expected that most candidates will be placed in schools where appropriate technology exists. Understanding that this is not always possible, institutions should have evidence of alternative opportunities for candidates to demonstrate their ability to incorporate technology into their instruction.
The cost and development time involved in designing e-portfolios are two reasons why institutions look for packaged e-portfolio solutions. LiveText and TaskStream are the primary vendors most institutions are looking at for e-portfolio platforms.
Chris Sorensen provided an update regarding the College of Education’s choice for e-portfolios. She reported that the College has selected LiveText as their electronic platform for student portfolios. She noted that training for level one will be offered on three dates, May 14 & 17 and June 2. Individuals interested in training should contact Diane Jackman. Training dates will be set later for level two regarding program assessment and level three which is unit assessment. College of Education technology support personnel have already received training and will provide training for students and field personnel next year. She added that the recent crash experienced by LiveText was a human error. A new employee changed program lines without permission. LiveText has taken measures to protect against that occurring again. Student fees to purchase access to the software for five years will be about $100. Initially, there will be 175 slots for faculty plus slots for assessment personnel.
Chris Sorensen reported upon recent developments in Springfield. SB1074 is still being held in committee. President Peters has testified in opposition to the bill. Governor Blagojevich called for a meeting to work out a compromise but no compromise was reached as universities will not support any bill that gives one group (in this case unions) a majority vote on a board that holds responsibility for approving certification programs. Regarding program reviews, efforts are being made by deans of public institutions to eliminate state reviews if institutions are nationally accredited either by NCATE or TEAC. The prospect of reduced costs that this effort would bring is getting some attention in the legislature. Some smaller private institutions are lobbying against this effort. In other legislative hearings related to re-certification and moving from initial to standard certification, there was a proposal to pro-rate master’s degree credits. Currently one option to move from initial to standard is to complete a master’s degree. It was felt that teachers often do not select this option because completing a degree in four years may be difficult. It is likely that the number of credit hours required will be reduced.
Chair, Joe Saban, stated he wished to extend the appreciation of CAPCE to Carla Montgomery for her work with the committee.
A motion to adjourn was made by S. Stratton and seconded by G. Waas. Motion Passed.
Date of next meeting: September 13, 2004