Apply Visit Give

Addendum

Addendum to the Institutional Report - in response to the Board of Examiners Offsite Report - September 13, 2013

In July of 2013, the Board of Examiners Offsite Report was received and carefully reviewed by the Newman University School of Education faculty. The report identified five critical areas of concern. The purpose of this document is to provide context and structure for a number of exhibits that are being submitted in response to the areas of concern specified in the offsite report. The process of addressing these areas of concern is ongoing and that work will continue until the visit by the Onsite team in October 2013. This document is intended to summarize examples of completed actions and identify evidence and artifacts related to each of these concerns.

Standard 2--Area of Concern 1

The unit does not present clear evidence that it regularly and systematically uses data to evaluate the efficacy of its courses, programs, and clinical experiences. 
Rationale: While the unit provides some examples of data-based changes, many of the changes reported at both initial and advanced levels are not clearly the result of analysis of data collected through the assessment system.

The rationale provided for this area of concern prompted further analysis and implementation of a systematic and structured review process along with careful documentation of program changes and reporting of assessment information. This concern is being addressed in the following ways:

Critical attention has been given to developing complete sets of assessment data for the 2012-13 academic year. Complete information allows data driven decisions based on accurate and timely assessment data. This was identified as a priority, especially in cases where a) assessments have been adjusted or b) assessment information was limited in previous years.  This is an ongoing process and we continue to add usable data to the data sets for review, analysis, and decision making.

The culmination of this process is the development and implementation of a systematic data review and analysis process. In order to initiate the process, a special unit meeting is scheduled for September 27, 2013 devoted to program assessment review. On a continuing basis, the unit has designated "5th Thursdays" during the academic year as assessment review and analysis meetings that will allow approximately three assessment review sessions to be held each academic year.

Standard 2--Area of Concern 1 Exhibits

ad.s2.c1.ex1 Updated Secondary Biology Data Summary
ad.s2.c1.ex2 Updated Secondary English Data Summary
ad.s2.c1.ex3 Updated Secondary History Government Data Summary
ad.s2.c1.ex4 Updated Secondary Mathematics Data Summary
ad.s2.c1.ex5 Assessment Plan for NU Elementary Education major standards
ad.s2.c1.ex6 Updated ELED Comprehensive Math Assessment data summary
ad.s2.c1.ex7 Updated ELED Comprehensive Physical Education Assessment data summary
ad.s2.c1.ex8 Updated ELED Literacy Portfolio data summary
ad.s2.c1.ex9 Updated ELED Newman University Lesson Plan data summary
ad.s2.c1.ex10 Updated ELED Praxis II content test sub score data summary
ad.s2.c1.ex11 Updated Early Childhood Unified program data summary
ad.s2.c1.ex12 Initial Program OAFTI Ratings data summary
ad.s2.c1.ex13 Initial Program NUTPP data summary

Standard 2--Area of Concern 2

The unit does not present evidence that it collects and analyzes data from recent graduates and members of the professional community, including employers. 
Rationale: The same AFI has been listed since at least 2009. Although several attempts at surveying graduates and employers have been reported, insufficient data have been collected or analyzed from these constituents.

The development of useful and effective survey instruments along with a plan for systematic use of these instruments has been an ongoing conversation within the School of Education. The efforts for both the initial and advanced program to develop an effective feedback system to obtain data from graduates and members of the professional community is on-going. Two pilot survey efforts to gather from program completers have been concluded. Data from these two collection efforts are provided for review. Additional surveys for each program, along with the details of a systematic process for ongoing data collection are being finalized.

Standard 2--Area of Concern 2 Exhibits

ad.s2.c2.ex1 Initial Program Survey Questions
ad.s2.c2.ex2 Initial Program Survey Data
ad.s2.c2.ex3 Advanced Program Survey Questions
ad.s2.c2.ex4 Advanced Program Survey Data

Standard 2--Area of Concern 3

There is no clear evidence that proficiencies of the conceptual framework are being assessed in initial and advanced programs. 
Rationale: Although the OAFTI is listed as a measure of conceptual framework, the alignment between the assessment and the proficiency is not always clear and neither vision nor ethics appears to be assessed.

The Newman University School of Education Conceptual Framework continues to be an important focus for both faculty and students in the unit. As an illustration, each course syllabus in the initial program includes a chart identifying the connection of course objectives or outcomes to Conceptual Framework elements. However, the specific relationship of Conceptual Framework elements to program assessments has not been provided in our previous submissions. The exhibits provided with this addendum include a program matrix clearly showing the relationship of program assessments, standards, and Conceptual Framework elements for each program of study in the School of Education.

Standard 2--Area of Concern 3 Exhibits

ad.s2.c3.ex1 Secondary Biology Assessment Standard Course Conceptual Framework Chart
ad.s2.c3.ex2 Secondary English Assessment Standard Course Conceptual Framework Chart
ad.s2.c3.ex3 Secondary History Assessment Standard Course Conceptual Framework Chart
ad.s2.c3.ex4 Secondary Math Assessment Standard Course Conceptual Framework Chart
ad.s2.c3.ex5 Early Childhood Assessment Standard Course Conceptual Framework Chart
ad.s2.c3.ex6 Elementary Education Assessment Standard Course Conceptual Framework Chart
ad.s2.c3.ex7 Building Leadership Assessment Standard Course Conceptual Framework Chart
ad.s2.c3.ex8 ESOL Assessment Standard Course Conceptual Framework Chart
ad.s2.c3.ex9 Reading Specialist Assessment Standard Course Conceptual Framework Chart

Standard 2--Area of Concern 4

The unit does not show evidence of attempts to eliminate bias or to test for fairness, accuracy, and consistency. 
Rationale: The appeals for exceptions or waivers are decided by consensus of members of the open membership Admission and Progression Committee for candidates in initial programs while only university policy governs advanced candidates.

The rationale for this area of concern provided the opportunity for a careful examination and documentation of the Admission and Progression (A&P) process along with the specifics for granting exceptions to program policies. It was determined that fairness was an important part of the process but that documentation of the process and the actions of the A&P committees—with a focus on the elimination of bias—was not clearly provided. A checklist has been developed for the Initial Program exception request process, and descriptions and procedures for the Advanced Program A&P process have been included as exhibits.

Standard 2--Area of Concern 4 Exhibits

ad.s2.c4.ex1 Exceptions Checklist - initial program
ad.s2.c4.ex2 Advanced Programs Admissions and Progressions Committee
ad.s2.c4.ex3 Advanced Programs Exception Guidelines and Checklist

Standard 4--Area of Concern 1

The unit has not provided evidence that it has a systematic process for tracking diversity in clinical placements for initial and advanced candidates.
Rationale: The unit has not documented the process to ensure that all candidates have had experience in diverse settings with a variety of student populations.

While this area of concern identifies our lack of careful documentation of the process ensuring candidates the opportunity to work in diverse settings with a variety of student populations, such placements have always been part of both the initial and advanced programs. To address this concern, we have included two exhibits which more carefully and fully describe the processes and procedures already in place to ensure that our students are placed in field and clinical settings which include work with diverse populations.

Standard 4--Area of Concern 1

ad.s4.c1.ex1 Procedures for Diversity Placement - initial program
ad.s4.c1.ex2 Procedures for Diversity Placement - advanced program