In addition, in the last section of each standard is a list of evidence that the team plans to validate during the visit to ensure that the standards continue to be met. This validation will occur as the team interviews faculty members, administrators, school-based partners, and other members of the professional community. Validation could also occur in the visits to two local schools with which the unit regularly partners and observations on campus. The validation list also includes specific documentation that the team would like to review during the onsite visit. Much of this documentation has been made available in this report so that it can be reviewed prior to the onsite visit.
Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.
1.1 Statement about the evidence
All of the unit’s initial teacher preparation programs and the advanced program in Educational Leadership have been submitted for national review, with the exception of Adolescence Spanish due to under-enrollment (average of three candidates per academic year). The alumni survey data indicate candidates believe that the unit provides effective preparation in content, pedagogy, skills, and professional dispositions (response rate of 12%). A prospective employer survey indicated that employers consider CSI graduates to have a strong understanding of content and pedagogy. Because the prospective employer survey was sent not only to employers but also those likely to be future employers of CSI graduates, the response rate (2.42%) for this survey was not high.
The pass rates on all licensure for initial preparation are at or above 80%. The pass rate on the state licensure test for School District Leader CST was 44% for the 2008-2009 academic year. Pass rates for the state licensure test for School Building Leader CST were not provided in IR. At completion of all programs, candidates are expected to demonstrate 1) reflective practice, 2) collaboration, and, 3) respect for others. These three dispositions constitute Goal 3 of the unit’s conceptual framework. Initial candidates are assessed on dispositions primarily through the evaluations of their clinical experiences. Advanced candidates are assessed through key assignments. The data reporting professional dispositions competency were unavailable.
Progress toward meeting the target level on one or more standards: Not Applicable
1.2 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs)
AFI corrected from last visit:
|AFI Number & Text||AFI Rationale|
|The program in Adolescence Social||The program in Adolescence Social Studies is not nationally recognized.|
AFI continued from last visit:
|AFI Number & Text||AFI Rationale|
|Candidates are unable to articulate the conceptual framework and its implication for practice.||No evidence was provided in IR or electronic exhibits.|
1.3 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard
These data are presented below by transition point and aggregated by overall program type here.
In addition, the Key Assessments are fully aligned with the unit’s Conceptual Framework, as is conveyed in the SPA reports and the Alignment of Key Assessments in Advanced Programs with State and Professional Standards Table.
The Assessment System, created by the unit in association with intra- and extra-campus stakeholders and explicated in the Assessment System Handbook, is the vehicle through which the primary assessment data are collected. Perhaps the clearest representation of what data are collected—and when they are collected—is provided in the tables of Transition Points by programs.
The data for those who have taken either exam during the current academic year are not yet available.
1.4 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
The Conceptual Framework is posted on the unit’s website (as are further details about it and the Assessment System). The basic tenants of the Conceptual Framework and how a given course advances these are included in all syllabi in the unit (both for the initial and advanced programs). Finally, all key assignments required by candidates in both initial and advanced programs are foremost aligned with the Conceptual Framework.
In addition to the evidence provided here, the unit believes that the onsite visit and interviews with current and former candidates (completers) will also demonstrate the extent to which candidates can articulate the Conceptual Framework. Oral feedback from the previous BOE Team in December 2007 enables the unit to confidently say that its candidates will be prepared for this line of questioning. This AFI and the evidence to support that it has been addressed is discussed below in 1.4.1.
Nonetheless, from the perspective of assessment and Transition Points, the scores that comprise the portfolio are typically regarded as “pulled apart” and considered in relation to performance in courses. Moreover, they are also considered in terms of with-in candidate growth at different points during their career in their programs. Therefore, the data have been presented here as they are most often considered by the unit, viz., by program, by Transition Point, etc.
The coordinator of the program, Dr. Ruth Silverberg, has also offered more review sessions to help candidates prepare for the exam. The Onsite BOE Team will have the opportunity to interview Dr. Silverberg who can outline the steps the unit has taken to increase pass rates.
Only the results from two administrations of the SDL and one administration of the SBL are currently available. The unit and program coordinator feel it is premature to decide upon an intervention strategy before the candidates have taken all of the courses covering the licensure exam content and until a larger pool than ten candidates have taken either exam.
The SPA reports—including the reported results—are provided here.
The unit now requires candidates to actively opt-out of the exit survey prior to graduation. This has led to a slight increase in response rates to 83%. However, recognizing that these response rates are low and that the unit cannot offer incentives to increase these rates, the unit is collaborating with the institution’s Office of Institutional Research and Assessment to address this issue.
Currently, to garner the highest possible response rates for the alumni survey, the unit sends out two postal letters to alumni, as well as an email to any emails the unit has for graduates. Note that the primary way the unit communicates with its diffuse student population (the campus has no residence halls) is through an email address that is given to each student upon acceptance to the college. These emails are deactivated when a student leaves. The unit does try to gather additional email addresses for its candidates, but fully gathering email addresses in infeasible.
The prospective employer survey is sent not only to those schools at which the unit knows its graduates are employed, but to all public schools both on Staten Island and in Brooklyn, the two areas where most of the unit’s graduates secure teaching jobs. This is done not only to try to collect data on those graduates whose place of employment is unknown to us, but also to learn from those who did not hire the unit’s graduates, and why they did not. Therefore, this low response rate is not surprising.
The limited range of scores possible within a 4-point scale already constrain data analyses by restricting the possible variance between candidates or between assessments from the same candidates at different times. Therefore, the Assessment Coordinator and the unit’s Chair have encouraged assessors to use the full range of values.
Although there are cases in which a candidate does receive a 1 on a given assessment of a given standard, it is the unit’s policy that candidates must receive at least a 2 on all standards. This is explicated in the Assessment System Handbook, in the Student Teaching/Special Education Practicum Handbook, and on page 7 of the Program Portfolio Handbook.
Of course, there are times when candidates are not performing at target levels. Instances of when a candidate is not performing at target levels are usually caught by the evaluators themselves, although all instances are caught when candidates reach a Transition Point since candidates cannot progress through a Transition Point without meeting all of the requirements enumerated for that Point.
When a candidate is not demonstrating proficiency in a given area, the Program Coordinator will consult with the candidate to find what intervention and resources can help the candidate progress. Academic issues are handled within courses or fieldwork, depending on when and where the candidate demonstrates the need.
Given that our candidates often have demanding extracurricular obligations, interventions include many non-instructional resources as well as focused instruction, including referring candidates to campus services such as the Children’s Center (for on-campus day care), the Women’s Resource Center, the Counseling Center, the Office of Disability Services, the employment opportunities on campus, the Student Financial Aid Office, etc. In addition, the unit is currently surveying the extent of outside obligations and stressors among its candidate body and the relative impact of these outside factors on academic success.
Data on candidate clinical practice self-evaluations are given here.
The unit has an Assessment System that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the performance of candidates, the unit, and its programs.
2.1 Statement about the Evidence
The unit has implemented an Assessment System that includes multiple key assessments collected overtime with the purpose of enabling the unit to get a complete picture of candidates, the unit and its programs, in order to make data driven decisions and monitor changes. Most data on candidates’ performance are collected through TK20 (except data provided by cooperating teachers). Key assessments are aligned with the unit’s Conceptual Framework and with state and professional standards. However, the Offsite BOE team had no access to TK20 data, which impeded its ability to determine whether the data are being systematically collected, aggregated, summarized, and analyzed.
2.2 Progress toward meeting the target level on one or more standards: Not applicable.
2.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs): No AFIs were cited at the previous visit.
2.4 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard:
2.5 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
The analyses based on data—both through the formal Assessment System process and less formally—have resulted in a number of data-driven changes that are summarized inteh Table of Major Data-Driven Changes (available as either a .pdf file or an Excel spreadsheet). The Onsite BOE Team’s interview with the unit’s Assessment Committee will confirm this committee’s key role in promoting and monitoring data-driven changes.
Unit operations are evaluated formally through the exit survey. The facets of unit operations that are evaluated through this instrument are:
The Professional Advisory Committee (PAC) is the primary, formal venue for input from the unit’s school- and community-based stakeholders. PAC holds an important place in the unit’s Assessment System, where it:
The link to the PAC minutes is now active. We are sorry for the inconvenience.
The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practice so that teacher candidates and other school professionals develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
3.1 Statement about the evidence
The unit is connected to its partners through collaboration with the New York City Department of Education’s (NYCDOE) Office of Student Teaching (Exhibit 3a.1.2), local private and parochial schools, the CUNY Discovery Institute, and colleagues at other institutions. The majority of the schools and school leaders, in collaboration with the unit, are from geographical districts 31, 20 and 21 covering Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn. The unit also has a Partnership Advisory Committee (PAC), chaired by the Director of Fieldwork, whose members are drawn from the Education Department (Chairperson, Deputy Chair, Program Coordinators, Director of Fieldwork, NCATE Coordinator, and a teacher candidate), from the College, and from the schools (principals, teachers). Exhibits included only state guidelines and NYC’s handbook. Student teaching handbooks refer to Staten Island schools with long-standing relationships, but the schools were not identified. However, the Sequence I SPED handbook and several syllabi note that candidates may find their own placements.
The partners cited in 3a.1 continue to play key roles in the design, delivery, and evaluation of the unit’s field and clinical experiences in a number of ways. The Director of Fieldwork and school partners are in regular communication about ways to strengthen and enhance the fieldwork experiences. Specific examples are provided in the IR from syllabi for two initial licensure courses and from one syllabus for a course in the advanced program for school leaders. The activities of the Partnership Advisory Committee (PAC) are also noted in the IR. The only evidence provided is NYC school’s student teaching handbook.
Facilitated by the unit’s Director of Fieldwork, the unit and the local school district select sites for clinical practice, both on Staten Island and in select parts of Brooklyn. Sites are selected based on criteria established by the unit’s faculty and support the unit’s conceptual framework. Each semester, the Director of Fieldwork reviews evaluations of fieldwork sites by the College supervisor and the teaching candidate, and uses these data to develop and refine placements. All components of fieldwork, from observation to clinical practice, are planned in a collaborative manner with the unit and local schools. The unit and the district developed a process for the logistical and procedural aspects of fieldwork placements. The process enables candidates to identify early in the semester which schools are available for observation. A network of partner schools receives observers on a regular basis. The Director of Fieldwork compiles names of candidates for each school and emails the list to the appropriate administrator. Candidates are directed to contact each school in a manner previously arranged with the Director of Fieldwork. The Director of Fieldwork negotiates sites for clinical practice for initial programs. Schools that are long-time collaborators continue to host student teachers as long as the school continues to meet the guidelines set forth by the unit. The IR does not address placement of school leaders for the advanced program in this section. No supporting evidence is provided as exhibits.
The unit and its school partners share expertise and resources in a number of ways in order to support learning in field experiences and clinical practice. The unit has designed its field experiences to provide candidates with the opportunity to participate in a variety of school experiences that help the continual development of their knowledge, skills, and dispositions. During clinical practice, the cooperating teacher views the candidate almost as a co-teacher and relinquishes some classroom control to the candidate. To become acquainted with the non-instructional tasks of teachers, candidates in clinical practice and the leadership program help in the lunchroom or schoolyard, shadow a dean, and participate in school-wide activities. Required assignments ensure that candidates reflect on these experiences and think deeply about their roles as teachers and leaders in school. In most partner schools, principals personally encourage candidates to attend regularly scheduled professional development. Syllabi were the only evidence provided by the unit to demonstrate how expertise is shared between unit and school partner personnel. No other evidence was provided to address how unit personnel share resources or expertise with partner schools.
The unit has established firm entry and exit requirements for clinical practice and uses a variety of means to ensure that these requirements are fulfilled. Educational Leadership candidates follow a cohort model and complete their internships in the summer following their first full year of coursework. A complete description of their field experience entry and exit requirements can be found in the handbook. Transition points and other evidence have very little emphasis on performance; focus is on required courses, field experience hours, and on criteria such as GPA and test scores.
Table 7 data provide an overview of required activities and field hours by program. The advanced program (Leadership) is not addressed. No supporting evidence is provided in exhibits. Syllabi provided as exhibits in other sections do not provide a clear picture of field and clinical expectations for these advanced candidates.
The unit makes a concerted effort within and across programs to ensure that candidates develop proficiencies outlined in the conceptual framework, state standards, and professional standards during candidates’ field and clinical experiences. The unit’s emphasis on intellectual autonomy and professional responsibility is reflected in the syllabi of all courses. Evaluation instruments that are used in the field, such as the student teaching evaluation form used by College supervisors, cooperating teachers, and the teacher candidate, also reflect the conceptual framework. The CSI goals and objectives outlined in the unit’s conceptual framework are the performance measures for the fieldwork experience.
Candidates use technology in their teaching and learning throughout the initial and advanced education programs. Although there is no course on Technology in Education that is required for all candidates, technology is built into the majority of courses for initial certification through assignments that require the use and integration of technology. Teacher candidates in all programs are required to show competence in using technology in the classroom in both their field experiences and in their student teaching. In addition, candidates must include examples of their use of technology in the field in their program portfolios. Expectations are addressed adequately in the “Communication and Technology Assignment for Reflection and Analysis in Student Teaching and Special Education Practica,” and in electronic portfolio examples. The criteria used to select school-based clinical faculty (referred to by the unit as the “cooperating teacher”) are made clear to prospective school-based clinical faculty and the candidates themselves prior to the clinical experience. The cooperating teacher must be a classroom-based educator who agrees to mentor a student teacher in her/his classroom. Cooperating teachers are required to be experienced, exemplary educators, certified in their areas of instruction. They must have attained their master’s degrees, or be near completion, and have taught for a minimum of three years. These guidelines are in accordance with those set by the City’s Department of Education. They are not only excellent in their classrooms, but must have the disposition necessary to share the task of planning, delivering, and assessing instruction in conjunction with a student teacher. School administrators select cooperating teachers based on the criteria mentioned above. Cooperating teachers receive a written description of these expectations and the Student Teaching Handbook prior to placement, and they are discussed with the College supervisor. NYC Student Teaching Handbook establishes district policies for selection; “Cooperating Teacher Expectations” addresses unit criteria for the selection process for cooperating teachers. Advanced program (Leadership) criteria are not addressed. School-based faculty members, i.e., the cooperating teachers, are adequately prepared by the unit and their school for their role as clinical supervisors. Prior to assuming the role of clinical supervisor, each prospect meets with the Director of Fieldwork to review the Cooperating Teacher Expectations and Student Teaching Handbook. At this time, prospective school-based clinical supervisors are asked to complete a Cooperating Teacher Data form that provides the unit with evidence regarding prospect’s qualifications. Assuming the prospect meets the qualifications established by both the unit and the New York City Department of Education, the Director of Fieldwork collaborates with an administrator from the cooperating teacher’s school to ensure that the performance parameters are clear and executable. The unit often relies on cooperating teachers who have been successful mentors with previous candidates. Despite these past successes, the unit regularly collects and analyzes data derived from its Cooperating Teacher Evaluation Form, which candidates complete at the end of their clinical experience. These data are regularly reviewed by the Director of Fieldwork and form the basis of an ongoing conversation between the unit and the school-based clinical faculty members. These conversations help further the development of school-based faculty members and better prepare them for the challenges associated with their mentoring roles. The unit believes that this iterative process ensures that cooperating teachers are prepared for their critical role. Evidence addresses selection criteria and responsibilities but does not address preparation (training) for roles as clinical supervisors. However, evidence to support collection and use of data regarding training and assessment of clinical evaluators was not provided.
The unit has devised a system through which clinical faculty provide regular and continuous support for its candidates. Moreover, at various points throughout this process, the unit collects data to ensure that the process is beneficial to its participants. During clinical field experience, supervisors and cooperating teachers share the responsibility of assessing each candidate’s performance. Toward this end, cooperating teachers, supervisors, and the candidate engage in frequent onsite discussion focused on capitalizing on the strengths of the candidate as well as noting weaknesses that must be addressed. During clinical field experiences, the supervisor meets with the candidate throughout the semester and observes the candidate teaching a lesson for a minimum of four times (two observations in each placement.) The College supervisors record the dates and times of their visits and provide evidence of the candidate’s growth during the semester. The “Student Teacher Evaluation Form” is provided as evidence. The provision of support for candidates is not addressed at the advanced level.
Descriptions of research project for EDA 729 and EDA 731 suggest that “structured activities involving the analysis of data and current research are required in the advanced” certificate program for school leaders.
On average, the unit has approximately 100 candidates eligible for clinical practice each semester (although this number varies widely from semester to semester). Eighty-five percent, on average, successfully complete clinical practice. Raw numbers provided are somewhat confusing; for example, more candidates completed clinical practice than were eligible in AY 2007 - 2008.
Candidates, clinical supervisors, and school-based faculty play critical roles in the assessment of candidate performance during clinical experience. This intense, collaborative approach provides the candidate with multiple opportunities to reflect and adapt as new situations emerge. This model for fieldwork involves increased levels of interaction among participants. Because these roles are well-defined, each participant enters the relationship with a clear set of expectations that are reinforced through continuous conversation about how well the candidate is performing during her/his clinical experience. However, the Student Teaching Evaluation Form provided as evidence does not support the conclusion that candidates, cooperating teachers and supervisors consistently perform these expected roles.
Time for reflection is incorporated into each course that requires a set number of observation hours. Moreover, during the clinical experience, each candidate is registered in a Student Teaching Seminar, a course that has been explicitly designed as a forum through which candidates can reflect on their clinical practice. Occurring once a week during the semester in which the candidate is completing her/his clinical experience, the Student Teaching Seminar is a valuable opportunity for candidates to share, reflect, and adapt instructional strategies in consultation with peers. Also, during clinical practice candidates write lesson plans in preparation for teaching, so that the school-based faculty member or the clinical supervisor can see what is planned. Lesson plans end with a reflection, written once the lesson has concluded, about the experience of teaching the lesson. These plans and reflections are regularly shared with the school-based faculty member and the clinical supervisor. However, no evidence to support these processes was provided.
College supervisors, cooperating teachers, and candidates utilize an evaluation form developed directly from the conceptual framework that uses a rubric to describe the level of competency reached by candidates in a variety of areas. The form asks for evidence supporting the competency level reached, which can be descriptive or physical. The form is completed for each lesson that is observed by the supervisor, and, at the end of each placement, by the cooperating teacher, teacher candidate, and supervisor. However, the link to “Data from Supervisor and Cooperating Teacher Clinical Practice Evaluations” is broken so no evidence was available. Evidence provided suggests that candidates collect and analyze data on student learning, reflect on those data, and improve student learning during clinical practice.
Evidence provided does not provide adequate evidence that the unit ensures that all candidates have field experiences or clinical practice that includes students with exceptionalities and students from diverse ethnic/racial, linguistic, gender, and socioeconomic groups. Transition points’ overview and other evidence focuses on required hours and on criteria such as GPA and test scores. Candidates in several course-related field experiences self-select; student teachers may also self-select into non-Staten Island and private schools.
3.2 Progress toward meeting the target level on one or more standards: Not Applicable
3.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs)
AFIs continued from last visit:
|AFI Number & Text||AFI Rationale|
|The unit has little formal collaboration with school partners.||State, NYC, and unit policies are provided but convincing evidence of formal collaboration is absent. School personnel have not been involved in the development of the unit’s conceptual framework. Evidence of the involvement of school-based faculty was not found.|
|School personnel have not been involved in the development of the unit’s conceptual framework.||Evidence of the involvement of school-based faculty was not found.|
AFIs partially corrected from last visit:
|AFI Number & Text||AFI Rationale|
|The program portfolio required and completed during student teaching is utilized inconsistently. (ITP)||Use of the TK20 electronic portfolio by student teachers is documented but evidence is not provided to show that performance data is utilized for program/unit improvement by program and unit personnel|
5.1 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard
In addition to establishing or maintaining good relationships with the unit, these meetings ensure that candidates are participating in quality fieldwork experiences at diverse schools. More specifically, these regular meetings address whether the candidates are performing well and adjusting to the school and their responsibilities; that the cooperating teachers are not only highly qualified but also truly motivated and willing to mentor the candidate(s); that the schools present a professional and engaging environment for the students and candidates; and that the administrators are actively involved in creating a safe, fair, and professional setting where both educators and students can grow and treat each other with respect.
The principals at all participating schools are given copies of the Student Teaching Handbook for Administrators to help them know what is required of the unit’s candidates while they are participating in their clinical practice. The Director of Fieldwork or a designated representative of the Director also regularly participates in NYC DOE-sponsored meetings as one of many ways to stay apprised of developments. These meetings are coordinated by the DOE’s Office of Student Teaching, which works collaboratively with all local colleges and universities to inform field placements.
Finally, the development of the unit’s Assessment System, described in Standard 2 of the IR, has enabled the unit to regularly monitor candidates progress through transition points, particularly with entry and exit from clinical practice. The Unit also encourages the Onsite Team to speak with Dr. Armitage, who can further articulate the design of the unit’s field and clinical experiences.
Evidence of actual candidate and cooperating teacher/supervisor practices are summarized through the supervisor and cooperating teacher evaluations, candidates’ clinical fieldwork self-evaluations, and the Table of Candidates Eligible for and Completing Clinical Practice. Some samples of candidate work created during clinical practice are here, and—for Goal 3—here.
Teachers and teacher candidates have student learning as the focus of their work. They are able to develop and administer appropriate assessments and to use assessments as formative and summative tools. They are able to create meaningful learning experiences by judging prior student knowledge, planning and implementing lessons, assessing student learning, reflecting on student learning, and making adjustments to their teaching to improve learning. Other school professionals are able to create and maintain positive environments, as appropriate to their professional responsibilities, which support student learning in educational settings.
Although aspects of this are contained in all of the CSI Conceptual Framework Objectives, the Objectives most representative of this are:
3.4 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
The implementation of these policies is monitored through the unit’s Assessment System. For example, 1) candidates’ self-evaluations and 2) supervisors’ evaluations of candidates are collected through the system. This enables the unit, in particular the Director of Fieldwork and Assessment Committee to determine how and how well policies related to field experiences are being implemented.
The unit’s Director of Fieldwork will be able to fully articulate these policies when interviewed by the Onsite BOE Team. In addition, the Assessment Coordinator will be able to demonstrate how the Assessment System captures how these policies are followed in practice.
Other recent activities of the PAC are detailed in a selection of minutes from recent meetings. The PAC has also informed a number of changes listed on the unit’s Table of Major Data-Driven Changes, available in the online exhibit room (Exhibit B.6), and as either a .pdf file or an Excel spreadsheet. In particular, the PAC was involved in the unit’s decision to encourage school-based faculty members to involve candidates in clinical practice in parent/teacher conferences.
The Onsite BOE Team will also have the opportunity to meet with PAC to further discuss its recent activities.
Please note as well that the majority of full-time faculty have served as college supervisors for clinical fieldwork. Those who have served in this capacity within the last three academic years are presented here. The large number of full-time faculty serving in this capacity helps the unit ensure consistency in the standards candidates must meet and crietra by which they are evaluated throughout their programs.
In addition, because the unit assigns a number of observation hours to courses prior to clinical practice, the unit is able to ensure that candidates complete fieldwork in a number of different settings. Typically, faculty members collaborate with the Director of Fieldwork to identify certain schools whose characteristics match specific course goals. For example, because all introductory Social Foundations courses emphasize the influence of race, class, gender and ability on educational processes and outcomes, faculty members intentionally target certain schools that best enable candidates observe these dynamics. This collaboration between faculty members and Director of Fieldwork speaks to the unit’s commitment, to ensure that field placements complement course-based instruction.
College Supervisors, whose selection is described in Exhibit 3.b.6.1, work closely with the unit’s Director of Fieldwork to recommend whether a school-based faculty member should work with a candidate during clinical practice. This critical collaboration between University Supervisors, many of who are full-time faculty members in the unit, and the Director of Fieldwork helps ensure that candidates are placed in appropriate settings with highly qualified, school-based faculty.
Faculty members are expected to employ of variety of technologies in their instruction. Examples of the different ways in which technology is used are provided in Exhibit 5b.4.2, which includes syllabi from a set of different courses and details the way in which those courses employ technologies. The technologies employed by faculty range from blogs, course management platforms (e.g., BlackBoard), SMART Boards, advanced statistical software applications, among others. Instructional support for these technologies is provided by the institution’s Center for Excellence in Learning Technology (CELT, described in Exhibit 5b.4.1), which provides faculty with the environment and support necessary for the seamless integration of technology and teaching.
The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and provides experiences for candidates to acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates can demonstrate and apply proficiencies related to diversity. Experiences provided for candidates include working with diverse populations, including higher education and P–12 school faculty, candidates, and students in P–12 schools.
4.1 Statement about the evidence
The unit provides data showing their candidates successfully complete key assessments (lesson plan exhibits, clinical practice, and course assignments) that are aligned to INTASC and NBPTS in the area of diversity. However, neither the assignments nor the assessments were available to show how these assessments and assignments measure the success of candidates’ attitudes and knowledge about diversity. On the chart titled “Summary of Major Data-Driven Changes Made to the Unit,” created in the fall of 2007, one of the issues cited by assessment analysts from other CUNY campuses was to better assess student diversity.
On this same “Summary of Major Data-Driven Changes” chart, in the spring 2008, an NCATE consultant recommended a review of the Assessment Systems methods of assessing student diversity. One item was added to the Cooperating Teachers’ form about the diversity of their student population and to the Student Teaching Evaluation form. Data from spring 2009 show the data that were collected from this new question.
Data were not available about the diversity of the unit’s faculty members and candidates in the exhibits for Standard 4. Data were not available about the number of applicants or the diversity of the applicants for faculty positions.
This Unit was previously cited by the Middle States Periodic Review in 2006, stating that the Unit “needs to recruit prospective faculty more strategically and more energetically among Blacks and Hispanics, African-Americans and Latinas/os.” This same issue was cited as an area for improvement after the NCATE visit of April 2008: “The unit, which lacks diversity in its large adjunct faculty, does not provide sufficient opportunities for candidate interaction with diverse faculty.” Since then, the unit hired a new Director of Compliance and Diversity, who drafted a plan to recruit prospective faculty more strategically and energetically among underrepresented groups. The Faculty Hiring Practices, 2005 manual developed by the new director ensures a more energetic search and recruitment plan with required protocols. Data were not available to support Element 4d, “Experiences working with diverse students.” There are one semester’s data about the diversity of the students in the schools, but there are no data to determine if a candidate’s experiences actually involve students from different populations or different types of special needs or giftedness, rural or urban.
4.2 Progress toward meeting the target level on one or more standards: Not Applicable
4.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs)
AFI continued from last visit:
|AFI Number & Text||AFI Rationale|
|The unit, which lacks diversity in its large adjunct faculty, does not provide sufficient opportunities for candidate interaction with diverse faculty. (ITP & ADV)||The unit has instituted a plan to recruit more diverse faculty but no evidence was provided to support the effectiveness of the recruitment plan.|
4.4 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard
In addition, all initial candidates must complete a number of fieldwork hours in Title I schools (those that have at least 40% of students who are eligible for free or reduced lunch). These fieldwork hours are recorded and audited by the unit’s Director of Fieldwork, Dr. Deirdre Armitage. Over 90% of clinical practice placements are in a Title I school and 100% of those enrolled in the institution’s selective Teachers Education Honors Academy perform their fieldwork and clinical practice in Title I schools. The unit capitalizes on the diversity of the City’s schools (the demographics of the Borough’s schools are presented in Table 10 of the IR) to ensure that candidates have a range of fieldwork experiences prior to clinical practice.
4.5 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
Finally, university-based supervisors rate the diversity of the classes within schools in which candidates are placed. This rating is noted on candidates’ evaluations. Because stratification occurs within seemingly diverse schools, this rating helps ensure that the classroom-level environments in which candidates are placed are diverse.
The unit has historically not collected demographic data on its school-based faculty members. However, in the fall of 2009 a set of items was added to the Cooperating Teacher Data Form that will enable the unit to collect and analyze these characteristics.
It should be noted that the unit is currently working with the Associate Vice Provost of Institutional Effectiveness, Dr. Susan Holak, to develop a more effective means through which the unit can better track the process through which candidates have entered one of the unit’s programs. The goal of this project is to measure how and how well certain formal and informal initiatives attract candidates to the unit’s initial and advanced programs.
Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance; they also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.
5.2 Statement about the evidence
The institution evidences some strengths in the area of faculty qualifications, performance and development although there are some areas of uncertainty where more evidence is necessary to show this standard is being met at the acceptable level. All full time faculty have terminal degrees. School faculty, as evidence by the Cooperating Teacher Selection Form and verified by the Director of Fieldwork, are licensed in the field they teach and have additional training. Faculty vitæ provide evidence that faculty have a thorough understanding of the content they teach. This content knowledge, along with the standards and content on the selected syllabi, confirms candidates are receiving guidance in the application of current educational research and practices. SPA reports demonstrate candidates’ learning. Also the Program Portfolio Handbook includes a section entitled “Definition and Clarification on Reflections.” The portfolio requires at least ten reflections and these reflections were evidenced in samples given. The emphasis on diversity and the use of technology is evidenced in the syllabi. Although evidence exists for faculty being assessed in student evaluations, peer evaluations and some instructor-made evaluations (termed Supplementary Course Evaluation Forms), evidence that the professors assess their own effectiveness as teachers (i.e. the reflective practitioner aspect of evaluations), is not clear.
Dynamic sample vitae and online links to Amazon.com, where numerous books written by faculty are being sold, support that faculty members are demonstrating scholarly work. Faculty vitæ provide evidence that professors are collaborating with P-12 schools. Collaboration with other college units to improve teaching is sometimes accomplished though peer evaluations and co-authored articles. Active involvement in professional organizations through publishing in refereed association journals was demonstrated in the three-sample vitae; presentations for professional conferences were demonstrated in one. No evidence of leadership roles in any professional organization was provided, but the faculty’s leadership in the profession is manifested through other scholarly activities. In addition, a number of initiatives, such as “Teacher on Sabbatical,” are taking place with surrounding school districts.
The PSC-CUNY contract specifies nine areas in which faculty are to be evaluated: classroom instruction, administrative assignments, research, scholarly writing, department and college assignments, student guidance, course and curricula development, creative works and public and professional activities. On the other hand, the sample chair evaluation evidences faculty being evaluated on scholarship, teaching and service. In addition, student evaluations are given every semester and peer-evaluations are done on a yearly basis.
Although the IR states that faculty development is being offered, the evidence was weak and no evidence of a compilation of faculty needs was provided. “Brown bag” seminars are mentioned, and although one was described in the IR, no exhibit was provided to show that such activities are held in a systematic manner. Although no current schedule was available, the Office of Information Technology website suggests that trainings in technology are offered to faculty. The Pluralism and Diversity program was exhibited as part of the professional development activities offered to faculty, but through the Pluralism and Diversity program website this program appears to consider its mission as candidate-oriented and not faculty-oriented. The website states, “CSI’s Pluralism & Diversity Program is intended, through workshops and other events, to introduce students to many interesting aspects of our diverse campus community and to offer support on various issues.” No evidence was provided to indicate that this program is also for faculty development. In addition, although the IR states, and there is evidence that faculty members are involved in professional organizations, there is no evidence as to how often and how this is supported, financially or otherwise, by the institution.
5.3 Progress toward meeting the target level on one or more standards
It appears that the institution is making progress toward meeting the Element 5a target. The full time faculty has earned doctorates; clinical faculty are licensed in the area they are teaching and are considered master teachers. However, the team is unable to ascertain that all full time faculty have contemporary professional experiences in school settings, although evidence does show professional development being performed by some professors. It was stated that full time faculty members are encouraged to supervise student teachers. In addition, the “recently retired” term used to describe clinical faculty needs to be defined.
5.4 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs): There were no areas for improvement cited at the previous visit.
5.5 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard
Faculty members individually review their own student evaluation forms, but also with the unit’s Chair. The Chair, in turn, uses them to evaluate and suggest ways to improve performance. The Chair strongly considers both the student evaluation form data and peer reviews in this process. Both student and Chair evaluations are components in decisions for re-appointment and promotions; so, faculty members carefully consider the feedback. The unit’s Appointments Committee is the formal, elected body that is charged with evaluating performance and ensuring that junior faculty members’ development is in accordance with unit expectations. The Onsite BOE team will have the opportunity to speak with the Appointments Committee to further discuss faculty evaluation and the role of self-assessment in this process.
Peer reviews include a planning conference in which faculty members discuss their own strengths and weaknesses in depth, and then a post-conference at which the reviewed faculty member reflects deeply upon her/his own effectiveness. Both faculty members write a 1 - 2 page reflection about the observation, and the pre- and post-conference with their peer typically last an hour. Both full- and part-time faculty members use this process. Faculty members often voluntarily pair themselves together and do mutual observations where they build on each other’s observations and reflections. Some faculty have chosen to observe each other on an ongoing basis e.g., Drs. Vivian Shulman and Liqing Tao who have written a study on this collaboration. The research sequence faculty (EDD 630 and 631, a sequence required for all graduate candidates) meets regularly to discuss their teaching experiences and practices, as do the Educational Leadership faculty who also sometimes co-teach . Finally, the discipline committees meet regularly and include discussions about their teaching practices and interests as they create new courses, programs, and improve current ones. The unit’s Appointments Committee will discuss these initiatives and procedures with the Onsite BOE Team.
The self-made assessments are used to gather more and deeper feedback than the already-useful standard student evaluation form. Although not all faculty members create and use supplemental assessment forms, all are strongly encouraged to discuss their own instructional practices with their candidates and learn from their feedback.
The unit rightfully prides itself in maintaining a collegial environment that fosters collaboration and professional growth among its faculty (as well as candidates); the many ways they assess their own teaching effectiveness and act upon this information is one manifestation of this.
5.6 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
These opportunities for self-assessment occur as part of an evaluation process that formative in nature. The unit strongly believes that the evaluation of its teaching effectiveness needs to be captured from multiple perspectives using a variety of formal and informal tools. This fluid process is articulated in responses 5e.1-3 in the Institutional Report.
Samples of the candidate work created through these technology-rich experiences are here.
Three “brown bag” events are conducted by the unit each semester and are coordinated by the unit’s Deputy Chair, Dr. Ruth Silverberg. Attendance at these events varies as they are held on different days and times, but generally range from 7 to 12 participants. These informal venues provide a wonderful means through which faculty can explore and comment on topics that are relevant to one’s research or professional life. Generally, because they are held during the day, adjunct participation is minimal.
The unit and institution have increased the amount of support provided for professional development. Those opportunities not offered by the institution, e.g., discipline-specific conferences, are covered by “Other Than Personnel” allocations from the Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences. Generally, allocations over the past several years have provided compensation for each full-time faculty member to travel to one academic conference per year. This support has directly contributed to an increase in the number of presentations made by the unit’s faculty at regional and national conferences. Examples of recent presentations include: 1) Dr. Brian Carolan’s talk at the 2009 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting (p. 2), 2) Dr. Helen Mele Robinson’s talk at the 2009 National Association for the Education of Young Children Annual Conference, 3) Dr. Bethany Rogers’ talk at the 2009 History of Education Society Annual Meeting (p. 16), and 4.) Dr. El Samuels’ talk at the 2009 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Support for conference participation is one of the many ways that the unit’s Chair and Divisional Dean support the professional development of faculty. Both individuals can speak directly to this issue when interviewed by the Onsite BOE Team.
Finally, the unit’s faculty has been involved with the institution’s Pluralism & Diversity Program in a number of ways. For example, several faculty members, including Drs. Liqing Tao and Deborah DeSimone have presented their work on Chinese literacy and Historical Perspectives on Black Lynchings to undergraduates who are required participate in this program. These opportunities provide the unit’s faculty with a means through which their expertise reaches a broader and more diverse undergraduate audience. In addition, candidates also participate in this program as guest speakers. An example of this is Ms. Tiffany Pham’s talk on her experiences growing-up in Vietnam.
First, it has broadened its pool of candidates by creating a program that has attracted members of an older demographic group. Because the qualifications for this program, as stipulated by the New York City Department of Education (DOE), include both a master’s degree and seven years of teaching experience, this program has given faculty the opportunity to hone their instructional skills with learners whose needs and interests are in many ways different than the unit’s average initial or advanced candidate.
Second, the program has further strengthened the relationship between the unit and New York City Department of Education (DOE). This has primarily occurred because courses had to be developed and approved by the DOE prior to offering them as options to prospective and eligible sabbatical participants. In addition, this relationship offers the opportunity to expand and improve contacts with a variety of teachers in the City’s schools with the potential of finding different sites for candidates’ field placements, expanding the pool of potential adjuncts, and re-shaping course experiences that better match the realities to current P-12 classroom conditions.
Third, the Teachers on Sabbatical program has also encouraged the unit to work with its colleagues in other academic departments as some courses are hosted and taught by faculty whose primary affiliation is not within the unit (e.g., Computer Science). Coordination across the institution’s academic department speaks to the collaborative approach generally advanced by the unit in regards to its preparation and development of P-12 educators.
The unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources, including information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state, and institutional standards.
6.1 Statement about the evidence
Narrative in the IR generally documents that the unit has the leadership and authority to plan, deliver, and operate coherent programs of study. Since advisement for undergraduate candidates occurs outside the unit, at the College level, validation of advisement effectiveness at the initial level should occur through on-site interviews.
Narrative in the IR generally documents adequate budget that is at least proportional to other units on campus with clinical components. The actual budget is protected on the evidence room site. The Chair and/or a team member should review the actual unit budget onsite to validate this contention.
Narrative in the IR generally documents that the unit workload policies allow faculty to be effectively involved in teaching, scholarship, assessment, advisement, collaborative work in P-12 schools, and service.
Narrative in the IR generally documents that the unit has adequate campus and school facilities to support candidates in meeting standards. The on-site team should validate this contention through observation while on campus.
Narrative in the IR generally documents that the unit allocates resources effectively to prepare candidates to meet standards in their fields and that information technology is adequate and integrated.
6.2 Progress toward meeting the target level on one or more standards: Not applicable
6.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs)
AFIs continued from last visit:
|AFI Number & Text||AFI Rationale|
|The quality of programs in the professional education unit is compromised by an over reliance on adjunct faculty. (ITP & ADV)||Information presented in the IR and yearly updates (only two available) document an ongoing attempt to hire new, full-time faculty, thus reducing somewhat the need for a large number of adjunct faculty. The state of New York requires that the majority of courses are taught by full-time faculty, but these data were not located by the Offsite Team. Further data and validation are needed to determine whether this AFI has been corrected.|
First, because the unit’s adjuncts have been faculty members for an average of nearly six semesters, the unit is able to ensure that its adjuncts’ teaching consistently reflects the unit’s goals and objectives as outlined by the conceptual framework. This mean was calculated using data from the 64 different adjuncts that have been employed by the unit in the last five years. As noted in the IR, the unit employed 40 of these adjuncts in fall 2009.
Second, the unit recently developed the role of Discipline Chairs, in part, to oversee the quality of its adjunct faculty. These Chairs are charged with the recruitment and evaluation of adjunct faculty that teach courses in the unit’s different disciplines (e.g., Social Studies, Psychological Foundations, etc.), which cut across its numerous initial and advanced programs.
Third, to ensure that quality is not compromised by adjuncts, the unit’s various committees actively seek adjunct participation. For example, two committees that are central to the unit’s Assessment System, the Partnership Advisory and Assessment Committees, both have adjuncts as members.
Fourth, there is reason to believe that these efforts to include adjunct faculty into the life of the unit and to nurture their professional growth have been fruitful. An analysis of the student evaluation forms completed during the 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 academic years for full-time versus adjunct education faculty found no statistically significant differences between either the overall ratings or between any of the subcategories.
6.4 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard
In addition, the BOE Team is encouraged to inquire about the issue when speaking with the unit’s Chair, Dr. Kenneth Gold, and the Divisional Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dr. Christine Flynn Saulnier. Both of these individuals can articulate the process through which funds are allocated to the unit’s initial and advanced programs. It should also be noted that the larger system of which both the unit and institution are a part strongly influences the ways in which support is allocated to programs. Both Dean Flynn Saulnier and Provost Fritz will describe this unique architecture of the CUNY system and how it affects the unit’s budget allocations.
6.5 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit
The Onsite Team will be able to evaluate the critical role played by the Program Coordinators in an interview that will be scheduled during the onsite visit. Also, candidates’ awareness of counseling options can be assessed when meeting with current candidates and completers.
The most recent quantitative survey data were collected and published by the University Faculty Senate in 2009 through its CUNY Faculty Experience Survey. These data compared the institution’s mean responses on a large number of items to other CUNY institutions. Mean responses to items related to professional development (e.g., availability of sabbaticals, support for improvement of teaching, etc.) showed little to no difference between the institution and its CUNY counterparts. Although these data were not disaggregated within institutions, they do speak to the general point that the level of satisfaction of the institution’s faculty is consistent with other faculty across the University’s campuses. This report is available here. These documents present both university-wide (Appendices A and C) and campus-specific results (Appendices B and D) across varied categories, such as faculty satisfaction with facilities, with campus culture, and with the level of respect afforded to faculty by college administrators.
Orientation and mentoring of adjunct faculty is also an issue that the institution has made a priority. The institution’s Divisional Deans have recently requested proposals to support the development of an institution-wide program to directly address this issue. This program is scheduled to start in fall, 2010. The Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dr. Christine Flynn Saulnier, can speak to this issue.
Finally, the institution has marked its commitment to supporting faculty engagement in scholarship by creating a new administrative position, Dean of Research and Graduate Studies, Dr. Eun K. Park, to support new faculty as they develop their research agendas.
The adequacy of unit facilities as measured by the candidates’ exit survey reveals that, in general, candidates are satisfied with the availability of information and electronic facilities. Earlier analyses of exit survey data suggested a need for adjuncts to meet with students. As a result of these data, the unit created an adjunct office, where faculty has a desk, mailboxes, and meeting space. As the institutions moves forward with its strategic planning process, the issue of office and conference space, especially for adjunct faculty, will continue to shape future facility needs.
The most recent survey data that measures the adequacy of facilities from the perspective of faculty members was conducted in 2005. The results of this survey indicate that, on average, the CSI faculty is not significantly different than their CUNY peers on most items related to facility adequacy, e.g., classroom space. The zip file is available at the bottom of this link summarizes these data.
In addition, by touring the campus, the BOE Team will be able to observe a number of state of-the-art facilities, which provide candidates with opportunities not offered by other proximate schools.
The unit has historically interpreted NYSED’s guidelines regarding the number of adjuncts to mean that full-time faculty members must teach a majority of sections in any given program. The most recent data show that the unit is in compliance with this guideline. Specifically, in the fall of 2009, full-time faculty taught a majority of sections in each of the unit’s programs. Data demonstrating this point are available here.
In addition, because the institution has greatly expanded the support (e.g., sabbaticals) given to faculty for its scholarship, this has had the unintended consequence of dampening its efforts to reduce its number of adjunct faculty. Related to this, as of result of the institution’s unprecedented hiring of new faculty—43 in fall, 2009—the unit and institution have not yet been able to better balance its ratio of full-time to adjunct faculty. This is attributable to the fact that all new faculty members are given 24 hours of release time in their first seven years of employment. While this is most beneficial to one’s scholarship, it has required the institution to further rely on adjuncts to make-up the difference.
faculty teaching assignments shall not exceed 12 semester hours per semester for undergraduate courses, or 9 semester hours per semester for graduate courses, or 21 semester hours per academic year for faculty who teach a combination of graduate and undergraduate courses, while still providing sufficient course offerings to allow students to complete their programs in the minimum time required for earning the degree. Individual faculty members shall not supervise more than 18 student teachers per semester.