Committee on Advanced Programs for Certification In Education
November 3, 2003
Graham Hall 423  8:30-10:00 A.M.

Present: A. Buehler, (UOTC); R. Butler, (ETRA); J. Jacobson, (LEPF); J. Saban, (LESO); G. Seaver, (Vice Provost); C. Sorensen, (Dean, CoE); P. Tattersall, (COMD); G. Waas, (Psychology)

Not Present:; C. Montgomery, (Associate Dean, Graduate School); J. Murphy, (LEPF); N. Stahl, (LTCY); S. Stratton, (LEPF); S. Wichman, (CAHE)

The meeting convened at 8:30 AM.  No items were added to the agenda.

A motion was made by G. Waas and seconded by J. Jacobson to approve the September 8, 2003, minutes.  Motion passed

Earl Seaver noted the Unit Assessment Committee met and reviewed what had been done to date.  Craig Barnard will develop a graphic to illustrate what data have been collected.  The unit will need to establish common categories of data at identified sample points that initial and advanced programs will report to the unit. This data will be aggregated by the unit to evaluate the unit and its programs for improvement.

Chris Sorensen commented on the need to collect common data adding that portfolios whether self-designed or bought packaged, need a common way to report data.  Some institutions have hired professional staff for managing data and electronic portfolios, including maintaining the technical infrastructure.

Programs will be requested to submit annual assessment reports to the Vice Provost.  It is anticipated that July 1st will be the annual due date for the program reports.

Al Buehler reported some key points from a performance based evidence accreditation workshop he attended.  He stated that the Conceptual Framework should be based on the professional teaching standards and everything done at the program level should relate to the Conceptual Framework.  The focus of programs is to collect data evidence of compliance with state standards.  The focus of the unit is to aggregate data from the programs to show compliance with NCATE standards.  In terms of unit assessment systems, NCATEís purpose for reviewing aggregate data was to find in the attached narratives, how the data drove decisions regarding program changes.  NCATE will also seek to review data from surveys of employers to assess the preparation of graduates.  Their focus will be to determine how well graduates were able to facilitate positive learning environments.  Student lesson plans will be examined to determine how well the lessons were tied to state standards and to see if the lessons illustrated that adaptations were made to meet the needs of all students.  The primary purpose of portfolios is for institutions to collect evidence to show program quality.  Students modifying portfolios later on to market themselves is secondary.  Artifacts in portfolios should relate to a standard and show how it was met in the lesson.  And finally, the reminder that 80% of a unitís graduates must pass the content-area tests.  Programs will need to provide remediation for students who were not successful on those tests.

Joe Saban asked what is an acceptable reportable experience at the program level and at the unit level?  Using Diversity Experience as an example, at the program level a tracking system will need to report that x% had experience with one measure of diversity and x% had experience with two or more identified measures.  At the unit level, the response will need to be only a yes or no in terms of students having diverse experiences.

Al Buehler requested that advanced program personnel who are responsible for maintaining the entitlement screens provide their name, log on ID, and social security number to Suzanne Warber by November 7, 2003.  He further asked that the names and social security numbers of candidates who have been admitted and enrolled in advanced certification programs be sent to the UOTC in Excel or Access by November 14, 2003.  This information is needed for the AACTE/NCATE report.

Participants in the second regional P-20 Summit noted that it was not well attended by parties outside of NIU.  The focus of one session was to identify the transition points in education and explore ways of making the transitions smoother.

Chris Sorensen commented that Senate Bill 1074 is alive and well.  This bill creates the Professional Teaching Standards Board that will govern certification of teachers and other certified school personnel and the approval of teacher and administrator preparation programs.  Her concern was that higher education representation was lacking, in particular, she said the appeals committee contains no higher education representation.  She also made reference to Abraham Flexner, whose critical study of American Medical Education in the early 1900ís resulted in the closing of a number of medical schools.  A similar study for teacher education has been called for at the federal level.

For the next meeting, Suzanne Warber will be asked to address the committee about the new electronic entitlement plan and how it will be phased in.  Also, CAPCE will need to discuss how it sees itself reporting on the annual assessment report.

A motion to adjourn was made by R. Butler and seconded by J. Jacobson.  Motion passed.

January 5, 2004
February 2, 2004
March 1, 2004
April 5, 2004
May 3, 2004