Page Contents
Top Standard 1 Standard 2 Standard 3 Standard 4 Standard 5 Standard 6
Resources
IR SPA Reports Exhibits CF Data Schedule Contact List

Response to the
Offsite BOE Feedback Report:
College of Staten Island/CUNY

Offsite BOE Team Members

Christine A. Moseley, University of Texas at San Antonio, Chair
Gladys R. Capella-Noya, Universidad De Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras Campus
Philip S. Roberson, Tennessee State University
Vicki L. Sprague, Retired Educator, Bay Village, Ohio
Donald E. Stowe, South Carolina Department of Education
Nancy L. Witherell, Bridgewater State College, Massachusetts

Offsite BOE Team Observers

Richard D. Gervais, New York State Education Department, State Consultant
Donna M. Gollnick, NCATE Staff
Patty Garvin, NCATE Staff

Onsite BOE Team Members

Christine A. Moseley, University of Texas at San Antonio, Chair
Gladys R. Capella-Noya, Universidad De Puerto Rico-Rio Piedras Campus
Philip S. Roberson, Tennessee State University
Vicki L. Sprague, Retired Educator, Bay Village, Ohio

Onsite BOE Team Observers

Richard D. Gervais, New York State Education Department, State Consultant
Patty Garvin, NCATE Staff

Unit Representatives and Members

Representatives from the Office of the Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences
Christine Saulnier, Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences
El Samuels, Associate Dean and Assessment Coordinator

Unit Representatives
Brian Carolan, NCATE Coordinator
Ken Gold, Unit Chair
Ruth Powers, Unit Deputy Chair
Deirdre Armitage, Director of Fieldwork
Joanne German, Fieldwork & Assessment Secretary
Unit Faculty



Please Note:
The following report indicates areas of concern on which the Onsite BOE Team will focus during their visit to the College of Staten Island, March 14-16, 2010. The unit’s responses to each area can be found in the blue text boxes highlighted below; the rest of this document remains as it was received by the unit for easier tracking of areas cited for improvement and the unit’s responses to those AFIs.

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.



Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions

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

  1. Assessments of candidate performance appear to be limited to surveys.

    Rationale: Data reported in Standard 1 were limited to three methods of assessment: SPA reports, alumni survey, and employer survey. Standard 1 reports no data from other key transition point assessments except GPAs of applicants to the graduate programs. Examples of rubrics are given under Standard 1 but no data are aggregated from the rubrics in the IR and electronic exhibits. There is no mention of portfolio assessment or data from the portfolios in the IR in Standard 1. No data from the rubrics or portfolios are aggregated and reported in the IR or electronic exhibits for Standard 1. Sixteen of the twenty-five submitted SPA reports have not been evaluated at this time.
  2. The unit regularly collects and monitors different types of data, including candidate performance on key assignments, at four transition points. These are detailed on the Transition Point Tables, but are summarized here:

    1. Upon application into an education program (the unit’s first transition point), candidates are assessed through application rubrics that assess the candidates’ dispositions and preparation for their program. Grades, course requirements, etc. are also assessed at this time.
    2. Throughout their program, candidates’ performances on key assignments are assessed according to Conceptual Framework- and standards-aligned rubrics. Candidates write reflections on those key assignments that are incorporated into her/his portfolio; these reflections provide an assessment of their reflective dispositions.
    3. Upon entrance into either clinical fieldwork (for initial programs and the advanced certification program) or the educational research seminar sequence (for advanced programs), candidates’ are assessed
    4. Upon application for graduation, candidates’ portfolio (for all Initial and all Special Education programs), relevant New York State Teacher Examination scores, cumulative GPA, and any final key assignments rubrics scores are assessed.

    These data are presented below by transition point and aggregated by overall program type here.


  3. Assessment data that appear to be collected in the unit’s Assessment System were not available to determine if candidates are meeting professional, state, and institutional standards.

    Rationale: There appears to be a disconnect in data reported in Standard 1 and the assessment methods and transition points in the Assessment System as indicated in Standard 2.
  4. All of the data reported in Standard 1 and in the transition points are collected through the Assessment System.

    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.


  5. The pass rate on the School District Leader licensure exam is below 80 percent.

    Rationale: Pass rates of the School District Leader licensure exam were reported as 44%. No data were reported for School Building Leader licensure exam.
  6. Candidates in the unit’s School Leadership program have now taken the School Building Leader licensure exam. Those data are included in the updated ELCC Key Assessment 1 Report. The results for both the School Building Leader and the School District Leader licensure exams are also given here.

    The data for those who have taken either exam during the current academic year are not yet available.


  7. Data on candidate performance on the outcomes identified in the conceptual framework were not available.

    Rationale: In Standard 1 there is a lack of reported data being connected to the conceptual framework, with the exception of dispositions. The rubrics developed for the portfolio, described in Standard 2, directly link the conceptual framework to the performance assessment. However, those data were not aggregated and reported in Standard 1.

Links to the assessment data by Transition Points are provided here; data for each of the initial programs are available by SPA here.

1.4 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit

  1. Articulation of the conceptual framework by candidates.
  2. Candidates at both the initial and advanced levels are expected to articulate the unit’s conceptual framework and its implication for practice. In addition to including the conceptual framework on all the unit’s course syllabi and asking that instructors openly discuss how each course currently or will affect candidates’ teaching practices, the unit also asks that candidates perform tasks that relate to this articulation. For example, all initial candidates present a portfolio whose artifacts are aligned with the unit’s conceptual framework, as well as state, national and professional standards. This portfolio is presented at the conclusion of candidates’ course work and is a formal exit requirement. All graduate candidates also participate in the unit’s Celebration of Educational Research. It is at this event that candidates share and reflect on their original research with other candidates, faculty, and community members. This presentation is explicitly aligned with CSI Goal 3, Objective A (Reflective Practice), and is one of many examples in which course work is tightly aligned with the unit’s conceptual framework.

    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.

    Evidence:

    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.


  3. Performance data. How have candidates performed on performance assessments recorded in the portfolio?
  4. From the perspective of candidates, the portfolio was created to serve as a means by which the various courses, fieldwork, etc. can be seen to come together as a cohesive whole. Given the close and explicit alignment of Key Assignments with the Conceptual Framework and various national standards depicted in the Program Portfolio “Matrices,” the portfolios also provide a concrete way for candidates to understand the alignment between what they do and why they do it.

    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.


  5. Educational Leadership licensure pass rate. What steps have been taken to improve pass rates?
  6. The instructors of the program have spoken at length with the small number of candidates who have taken the exams to date. These candidates have indicated that the exam content is covered in the Educational Leadership program’s menu of courses. However, those who have taken the exams have not completed all of the courses, and so they have not had the opportunity to learn the material covered in the exams. The second time candidates took the School District Leadership exam (and after they had taken a few more courses), their scores rose, and the percent passing rose slightly as well.

    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.


  7. Data from key assignments and fieldwork evaluations. Many links in exhibits did not work prior to the offsite visit.
  8. Data from key assignments and fieldwork evaluations are now available in the unit’s online exhibit room. This is the same exhibit room to which the unit referred in its original Institutional Report. The technical difficulties encountered by the Offsite BOE Team have been resolved. In addition to accessing the exhibits electronically through the online exhibit room, the unit will prepare CDs for the Onsite BOE Team, which will include exhibits, reports, results, and other supporting materials. These CDs will be available upon the Onsite Team’s arrival and can be read using any computer that has a disc drive.

  9. Update of the program findings by SPAs that should be posted in AIMS by February 1.
  10. The unit recently received notification about the outcomes of the 15 SPA reports that were submitted on 9/15/09. The unit is pleased to report that all programs that were re-submitted for approval have retained their national recognition status. However, it should be noted that the outcome of these submissions has either been 1) Further development required or 2) Recognized with probation. The unit plans on submitting revised reports by 9/15/10 and then a final revision next spring (3/15/11). The unit is confident that it can fully address the issues raised by reviewers so that it can attain national recognition. Several programs have been submitted for the first time and these, too, have been identified as either needing further development or recognized with probation. If the Onsite BOE Team does not have access to these reports through AIMS, the unit will provide access to all SPA-related reports and decisions that have been uploaded onto AIMS.

    The SPA reports—including the reported results—are provided here.


  11. Response rates for surveys and plans for increasing the rates. The response rates are low in some areas.
  12. The unit has tried various means to increase response rates of the surveys.

    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.


  13. Final report from the state on school leadership examinations and pass rates if available by the time of the visit.
  14. The overall pass rate on the School District Leadership exam has increased slightly to 50%. The overall pass rate on the School Building Leadership exam was 67%. Although both sets of results are reported within the updated ELCC Key Assessment 1 Report, these state exam results alone are here.

  15. Steps being taken to ensure that all candidates become proficient on the assessments. Not all candidates are rated at the proficient level. What does the unit do to ensure they become proficient before completion?
  16. Please note that a rubric score of 1 is set as not meeting acceptable levels; at all other levels, candidates are to be deemed as meeting the standard, albeit minimally when scored as a 2.

    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.


  17. Use of rubrics in the assessment process. Data on how candidates performed on the rubrics were not located.
  18. Links to the assessment data—including the rubric score data—are provided by Transition Points here. Data for each of the initial programs are available by SPA here.

  19. Data on assessments of professional dispositions.
  20. Data on candidates’ professional dispositions are provided here.

  21. Aggregated data on field experiences and clinical practice.
  22. Aggregated data on field experiences and clinical practice are given here.

    Data on candidate clinical practice self-evaluations are given here.


  23. Aggregated data related to candidates meeting outcomes identified in the unit’s conceptual framework.
  24. Aggregated data related to candidates meeting outcomes identified in the unit’s conceptual framework are presented here.

  25. Assessment data on advanced teaching programs in English, social studies, and mathematics education for professional certification. The state of New York lists these programs as advanced teaching. (The institution should contact Rich Gervais for clarification.)
  26. Data are disaggregated by content areas in the SPA Reports, which are available here. The unit will be sure to clarify with the Onsite Team the difference between its initial and advanced programs.

  27. Syllabi for professional education programs.
    Sample syllabi from the advanced education programs are provided here.


Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation

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:

  1. Candidate assessment data do not appear to be collected, aggregated, summarized, and analyzed regularly and systematically.

    Rationale: The Offsite BOE team had no access to TK20 data. Since most data are collected through TK20, the team’s access to data was extremely limited.
  2. The Onsite BOE Team will meet with the Assessment Coordinator, Dr. El Samuels, to review the unit’s procedures for collecting, aggregating, analyzing and summarizing candidate assessment data. Dr. Samuels will review the process as articulated in Exhibit 2a.3, The Assessment System Handbook.

2.5 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit

  1. Implementation and use of TK20. What performance data are being collected? What reports are generated by the system? Who reviews the data? How are data being used by faculty?
    1. What performance data are being collected?
      Most of the data that are collected for the Assessment System are collected through Tk20. These include key assignment scores, clinical fieldwork evaluations from supervisors and candidates (cooperating teacher evaluations are collected through paper-and-pencil forms), and candidate survey data. New York State Teacher Certification Exam scores, transcripts, and contact information are also loaded into Tk20.
    2. What reports are generated by the system?
      Both the unit’s faculty and staff review the data made available through Tk20. A sample of many of the reports accessed through Tk20 are given here.
    3. Who reviews the data?
      The faculty, Chair, and Assessment Coordinator monitor these data.
    4. How are data being used by faculty?
      These data are used by faculty members to inform curricular changes and advise candidates. The Assessment Committee also uses these data to make recommendations to other unit bodies, as summarized in the Table of Major Data-Driven Changes (available as either a .pdf file or an Excel spreadsheet).

  2. Links to data reports. They could not be accessed by Offsite Team.
  3. The BOE Team should now be able to electronically access all data reports as past technical issues have been resolved.. In addition, to electronically accessing the reports and exhibits prior to the onsite visit, team members will be given CDs containing all of the exhibits. The links to all exhibits in Online Exhibit Room should now be active.

  4. Data on assessments used and the resulting data for each transition point (Institutional Report, Table 2b.1.2 on p. 25 and the electronic exhibits).
  5. Data by Transition Points are given here.

  6. Use of data to make program improvements. How is faculty involved? What data led to changes?
  7. The process by which data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted is outlined in the Diagram Flow of Data through the Unit, found in the Assessment Handbook. The unit’s faculty members are ultimately the ones charged with proposing and formalizing programmatic changes that emerge from the data. Both full- and part-time faculty members have access to a set of data reports through Tk20 to inform practice and policy. The unit also conducts additional analyses as desired.

    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.


  8. Faculty members involvement in the review of assessment data. When are data shared with faculty members? What data are shared?
  9. The unit’s faculty members formally act on the data collected through the Assessment System in a process that is summarized in the Diagram Flow of Data through the Unit and elaborated on in the Assessment Handbook. To explain it here:
    • Faculty members help collect and generate data by assessing candidates and guiding the candidates’ submission of data,
    • Faculty members sit on the Assessment Committee, which reviews regular data, requests ad hoc analyses and data from the Assessment Coordinator, and makes recommendations based on these data and their interpretations of it. At the meetings of this committee, all of the data regularly collected through the Assessment System are reviewed every semester. The Assessment Coordinator, the institution’s Office of Institutional Research, etc. provide additional data upon request.
    • Faculty members serve on committees to which Assessment Committee recommendations are made (e.g., the Partnership Advisory Committee and the Teacher Education Advisory Committee).
    • Every faculty member serves on either the unit’s undergraduate or the graduate curriculum committee, and all data-driven curriculum changes pass through one of these two unit-level committees.
    • 4.5. Final decisions emanating from this process are determined at the unit’s monthly department meetings.
    Both full-time and adjunct faculty members have access to data through a set of data reports through Tk20 as well.

  10. Surveys of Candidates. Table 2a.5 indicates that candidates are surveyed, but response rates are not indicated, nor are the results of survey indicated.
  11. Candidates’ responses to the exit survey are given here. Response rates are indicated at the bottom of that table.

  12. Evaluation of unit operations. What unit operations are evaluated (e.g., faculty, admissions, advisement)? How is the Professional Advisory Committee involved? The link to minutes of PAC opened to a blank page.
    1. What unit operations are evaluated (e.g., faculty, admissions, advisement)?

      Unit operations are evaluated formally through the exit survey. The facets of unit operations that are evaluated through this instrument are:


      • Quality of advisement received from education department faculty.
      • Quality of advisement received from education department staff.
      • Availability of education department faculty.
      • Availability of education department staff.
      • How well candidates felt they were treated by the education department faculty.
      • How well candidates felt they were treated by the education department staff.
      • Availability of information about education program requirements and procedures.
      • Availability of information about Tk20 requirements and procedures.
      • Clarity of written documentation e.g. catalog, program handbooks.
      • Clarity of program requirements.
      • Clarity of candidate appeal procedures.
      • Offering of education courses when candidates needed to take them.
      • Overall services provided by candidates’ programs.
      • Overall services provided by the Department of Education, as well as
      • For what sorts of information or services candidates typically went to the secretarial staff.
      In addition, the Chair maintains a record of candidate complaints, which may concern unit operations and that help guide decisions. Finally, of course, faculty and staff interact regularly with candidates and take what candidates say to heart.

    2. How is the Professional Advisory Committee involved?

      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:

      • makes decisions based upon data-driven recommendations made to it by the Assessment Committee,
      • provides input and guidance on the implementation of the unti’s Conceptual Framework (it is also scheduled to make recommendations for changes on the Conceputal Framework this semester), and
      • helps ensure that unit, program, and course operations complement field-based operations.
      In addition, since the unit’s Director of Fieldwork serves as the Chair of this committee, PAC also serves as a forum for the creation and contiunance of unit-school partnerships.

    3. The link to minutes of PAC opened to a blank page.

      The link to the PAC minutes is now active. We are sorry for the inconvenience.


Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

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

  1. Systemic collaboration between the unit and its school partners appears to be limited.

    Rationale: Exhibits provided are typically policy and procedure documents. Specific evidence of actual practice is generally absent. Minutes provided under 2C.4 are somewhat helpful. However, the PEC Minutes section is blank; TEAC Minutes and Unit Faculty Minutes focus mostly on faculty and curricular issues.
  2. Due to the restructuring of the New York City Department of Education (NYC DOE), there is no central administrative body overseeing or coordinating fieldwork in the City’s 1500 individual schools. In lieu of this, the unit’s Director of Fieldwork has developed deep relationships with schools with whom the unit partners. In addition, the Director—or on occasion, a designated representative—meets with 100% of the schools in which observations or clinical practice are conducted. Designated representatives are employed when a candidate is participating in an advanced program internship and is fully employed at a school that is difficult for the Director to reach during her schedule; the representative is always an experienced person who has close relationships with the unit: either a full-time faculty member or a college supervisor who has been working for the unit for at least three years.

    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.


  3. Evidence does not adequately support the implementation and evaluation of well-designed field and clinical experiences.

    Rationale: Exhibits provided are typically policy and procedure documents. Policy and procedure documents are provided, but syllabi provided sometimes suggest that practice is inconsistent with policy. Evidence of actual candidate and cooperating teacher/supervisor practices are absent.
  4. Since its initial visit in 2005, the unit has invested numerous resources to ensure that its field and clinical experiences are well-designed and regularly evaluated. As noted in Standard 3 of the IR, the unit now has a full-time Director of Fieldwork, Dr. Deirdre Armitage, and full-time administrative assistant, Joanne German, who oversee the unit’s field and clinical experiences. The creation of these two positions has enabled the unit to:
    • work closely with the New York City Department of Education’s Office of Student Teaching to ensure that its placements conform to the DOE’s guidelines;
    • develop instruments that enable its school-based faculty members and university supervisors to measure candidates’ performance during clinical practice in a comprehensive and systematic fashion and;
    • collaborate with faculty members to ensure that fieldwork sites match unit guidelines and course requirements.

    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.


  5. Evidence does not adequately support the conclusion that candidates in the advanced teaching and leadership program attain the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to support student learning.

    Rationale: Exhibits provided do not address advanced programs as defined by NCATE.
  6. NCATE indicates that, in order to demonstrate the requisite knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions to support student learning,
    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:

    In addition to the above links, data for candidates in advanced programs that demonstrate the extent to which they meet Conceptual Framework Objectives are summarized on this Table of Data by Conceptual Framework Objective.


  7. Evidence does not address field experiences and clinical practice for advanced programs other than the Educational Leadership program.

    Rationale: Exhibits provided do not address advanced programs as defined by NCATE.
    Because all candidates in the unit’s advanced programs have initial certification, the unit, in compliance with New York State Education Department’s guidelines, does not require any further clinical hours. Advanced programs lead to what New York State refers to as a Professional Certificate and do not require further field experience or clinical practice. However, the unit does mandate that, as part of the aforementioned EDP 660, a required course described in the Graduate Catalogue, candidates complete 20 field hours in a setting that includes students with special needs. The introductory orientation to be given by the unit will clarify the distinction between the unit’s initial and advanced programs.

3.4 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit

  1. School partnerships, field experiences, and clinical practice from the perspectives of the Director of Fieldwork, candidates, university supervisors, school-based faculty members.
  2. The Onsite BOE Team will have the opportunity to interview the Director of Fieldwork, Dr. Deirdre Armitage. In addition, Dr. Deirdre Armitage will conduct site visits to two schools with whom the unit works closely, P.S. 031 and I.S. 061, an elementary and middle school that are regularly used as sites for fieldwork and clinical practice. Both sites will provide BOE Team members with opportunities to speak with university supervisors and school-based faculty members. It is recommended that BOE team members visit the online portals of each of schools prior to the visit. The NYC DOE has made transparent a large number of demographic and performance metrics that are likely relevant for the team. In addition, BOE Team members will be able interview current and former candidates to discuss the quality and evaluation of the unit’s fieldwork and clinical practice.

  3. Policies related to field experiences. How are policies being followed in practice?
  4. Policies related to the unit’s field experiences are outlined in the unit’s Student Teaching Handbook, the Graduate Fieldwork Pamphlet, and the Educational Leadership Handbook. The requirements for entry into clinical fieldwork for initial programs are also outlined here.

    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.


  5. Role of the Partnership Advisory Committee. What are the recent activities of the PAC?
  6. There have been no changes to the Conceptual Framework since the 2007 focused visit. This is explained in more detail in the Institutional Report, response C.2. Nonetheless, the Partnership Advisory Committee (PAC, which is the main, formal body for input for stakeholders outside of the college, such as schools and the community) has placed reviewing the Conceptual Framework on its agenda for the Spring 2010 semester.

    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.


  7. Candidate performance data in field experiences and clinical practice.
  8. Candidates’ performance data in clinical field experiences are available here. Data on candidate clinical practice self-evaluations are given here.

  9. Role of school-based and university supervisors in the assessment of candidates in field experiences and clinical practice.
  10. The unit takes seriously the roles of school-based faculty members and university supervisors in the assessment of candidates in field and clinical practice. During the course of the onsite visit, BOE team members will be afforded the opportunity to speak with school-based faculty members and university supervisors in an effort to evaluate the extent of their participation. As noted in Standard 3 of the IR (3c.2), both roles are critical to supporting and evaluating candidates, especially during clinical practice.

    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.


  11. Selection of field placements. How are placements for early field experiences and clinical practice made? Who is involved in determining field placements? What is the role of candidates in this process?
  12. The Director or Fieldwork is best positioned to comment on the selection of sites for field placements and clinical practice. Therefore, onsite validation is best attained through interviewing Dr. Armitage. However, the unit’s general policy for early field placements is that instructors of certain courses in which field hours are attached work with Dr. Armitage to identify appropriate field sites given a particular course’s objectives. Fieldwork hours vary by program (described in the IR, Table 7, 3b) and are distributed across each program’s required courses. Field placements ultimately conform to the requirements established by the New York State Department of Education; specifically, candidates must perform a certain number of fieldwork hours in Title 1 schools and Special Education settings. Candidates have leeway in selecting sites to complete fieldwork hours so long as the sites 1) are aligned with the course’s objectives and 2) have an established relationship with the unit and its Director of Fieldwork. Candidates do have the opportunity to identify preferences for schools in which clinical practice is completed. However, the Director of Fieldwork is the person who ultimately makes the decision. This decision is informed by a number of factors, including the diversity of sites in which a candidate has completed fieldwork. This is often negotiated with candidates the semester prior to clinical practice during an interview with the Director of Fieldwork.

  13. System for determining that candidates are placed in settings with P-12 students from diverse populations.
  14. The unit has a system that ensures its candidates are placed in settings with P-12 students from diverse populations. In addition to all candidates being required to perform fieldwork hours in Title 1 schools (Federal designation for schools with high percentages of low-income families), over 90% of placements for clinical practice are also in Title I schools. Candidates are not eligible for clinical practice unless they have completed the minimum number of fieldwork hours in a variety of settings. These hours are audited by the Director of Fieldwork prior to candidate’s admission into clinical practice. They are also reviewed with the candidate in a meeting with the Director of Fieldwork the semester prior to one’s clinical practice.

    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.


  15. Clarification of Table 3c1. The table shows more candidates completing than starting the program for AY 2007-2008.
  16. Table 3c.1 was originally designed so that those who participated in clinical experience in one semester were shown as having completed it by the next semester. This table has now been amended so that candidates are shown as participating in and completing clinical experience in the same semester, where appropriate. (Note that the numbers are slightly different in this revised table since a small group of candidates conduct clinical fieldwork over two semesters.) This amended table also accurately notes the number of candidates who have successfully completed clinical practice these past three academic years. The average percentage of those who have successfully completed clinical practice is just shy of 100%.

  17. Criteria for the selection of school-based faculty members. How are school-based faculty members selected for clinical practice? What role do university supervisors have in the selection process?
  18. School-based faculty members are recommended by school leaders whose sites have been identified and verified as appropriate by the unit’s Director of Fieldwork. School-based faculty members must meet a set of criteria established by the unit and described in Exhibit 3b.5.2. Qualifications are collected and reviewed by the Director of Fieldwork through the Cooperating Teacher Data Form, available in Exhibit 3b.6.4. This process ensures that the selection and evaluation of school-based faculty is in accordance with the New York City Department of Education’s Office of Student Teaching’s recommendations (Exhibit 3b.5.1).

    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.


  19. Use of technology by faculty and candidates in programs.
  20. The unit has ensured that its candidates use technology throughout their course work and clinical practice. Specifically, the unit has designated a key assignment that is to be completed during clinical practice (Exhibit 3b.4.1). In addition, reflections on this assignment are included in candidates’ portfolios, which are presented to peers and faculty members prior to graduation. Examples drawn from candidates’ portfolios are available in Exhibit 3b.4.2.

    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.


Standard 4: Diversity

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

  1. The unit does not have a system for ensuring that all candidates work with P-12 students from diverse populations during their field experiences or clinical practice.

    Rationale: Candidates’ work with students from disabilities appears to be tracked, but not students from other diverse groups. (See statement above 4.2 above)

Because the unit primarily prepares teachers that are or will be employed in New York City’s public schools—by far the nation’s largest school district—the unit ensures that candidates work with students from diverse populations during field experiences or clinical practice. For example, all initial candidates take an introductory course in the Social Foundations of Education; a course that requires a number for fieldwork hours (this varies by program) that complement the course’s focus on how race, class, gender, and ability shape classroom interaction.

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

  1. Assessments of diversity proficiencies. What are the key assignments used in these areas? What is the lesson plan form? How does it incorporate adaptations for students? What is the quality of the assessments? What do the data show about candidate performance? Are the data over-inflated?
  2. The key assignments assigned during candidates’ clinical practice are submitted and graded through Tk20, the unit’s online data management system.

  3. System for ensuring that candidates are assigned to schools with P-12 students from diverse populations. How are field experiences and clinical practice assignments tracked?
  4. The unit’s Director of Fieldwork (or, when necessary, a qualified representative) visits every school at which candidates are placed for clinical practice. The Director only places candidates in non-Title I schools when no other option is feasible (when the candidate is already working at a non-Title I school); in all, nearly 100% of candidates are placed at Title I schools. In addition, the process through which the unit’s Director of Fieldwork tracks candidates’ field experiences and clinical practice assignments is addressed above in Standard 3.

    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.


  5. Changes in the diversity of the faculty, including adjunct faculty and possibly cooperating teachers, since the previous visit.
  6. Table 8 in the IR summarizes the distribution of the unit’s full-time and adjunct faculty members by traditional demographic categories. Compared to the data presented in the 2005 IR (initial visit), the unit’s progress in this area has been limited. Recognizing this, the unit is working closely with the institution’s new Director of Diversity and Compliance, Ken Iwama, Esq., to broaden its applicant pool for full-time and adjunct vacancies. For example, this has resulted in the unit advertising in a number of print venues that may potentially reach a more diverse set of applicants. The Onsite BOE Team is encouraged to meet with Ken Iwama to further discuss the ways in which his office is promoting “inclusive excellence” initiatives across the entire institution.

    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.


  7. Evidence that candidates are interacting with candidates and students from diverse populations during their preparation program. How do candidates analyze their experiences working with diverse groups?
  8. The Director of Fieldwork audits candidates’ fieldwork hours prior to clinical practice to ensure that they have had experiences with diverse student populations. Moreover, because faculty members who teach courses with assigned fieldwork hours mandate that candidates complete these hours in diverse settings, the unit is able to ensure that candidates have arrange of fieldwork experiences. In addition, because the unit does not offer an undergraduate major in education, all undergraduate candidates have multiple opportunities to interact with the institution’s diverse student body through coursework offered by the other academic units. The same applies the unit’s graduate candidates in adolescence education programs since a significant amount of course work is taken through other academic units. Candidates analyze their experiences working with diverse groups through a key assignment.

  9. Success of candidates in the Black Males Initiative project: How has this project increased the diversity of candidates? Is there a Troops to Teachers program available through the VA Center on campus?
  10. The unit’s relationship with the Black Male Initiative is too new to conclusively state that it has resulted in demonstrable progress. The Initiative’s Coordinator, Debra Evans-Greene, was appointed to the institution’s Teacher Education Advisory Committee (TEAC) by the Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dr. Christine Flynn Saulnier, in the fall of 2009. The unit expects that her influence on this committee will ultimately benefit the unit. The institution does not have a “Troops to Teachers” program. But, its Veteran Center provides a range of services to support servicemen and women as they adjust to college life. This office works closely with the University’s Office of Veteran Affairs. This partnership has resulted in the institution recently being named as one of the top military-friendly schools in the nation by G.I. Jobs. Anecdotal reports from the unit’s faculty confirm that a number of current candidates and recent completers are veterans. The unit is currently working with the institution’s Office of Institutional Research and Assessment to compile data that confirm these reports. The unit expects to have these data by the onsite visit.

  11. Evidence that confirms that the Office of Disabilities, the VA Center and the CORE 100 help recruit and retain diverse candidates. What are the results of these efforts?
  12. The Office of Disability Services (ODS) directly engages faculty members to ensure that candidates with special needs are afforded every reasonable accommodation. The evidence that its efforts are successfully in retaining this population of candidates is thin simply because records on candidates’ disabilities remain confidential. However, all faculty members are under strict guidelines to adhere to the protocols established by the ODS. Guidelines for working with candidates with disabilities are available here. Results of the unit’s efforts to engage veterans are detailed in response 4.5.5 above. Finally, the success of using CORE 100 as a means through which a more diverse pool of candidates enters the unit’s programs is confirmed through the anecdotal reports of faculty members who have taught this course, including Drs. Greg Seals, Rich Van Heertum, and Deb DeSimone.

    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.


Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

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

  1. Faculty does not appear to be assessing their own effectiveness as teachers.

    Rationale: Although there are student evaluations, peer evaluations, chair evaluations, and some supplementary evaluations, nothing is mentioned as to what professors do with this information. Though we might assume that this information is being used in a self-reflective activity, evidence does not show that all professors are assessing their own effectiveness as teachers.
  2. As mentioned in the Rationale, unit faculty use various means to assess their own effectiveness as teachers, including student evaluation forms, peer observations, and—most indicative of the depth of the process—supplementary course evaluations they create and assess themselves.

    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.


  3. Professional Development opportunities for professors are not clear.

    Rationale: Although the exhibit did provide evidence of professional development in the area of technology training, and mentioned “brown bag” lunches, the Pluralism & Diversity Program appears to be student oriented. In addition, no evidence was given to support faculty attendance at professional association conferences.
    Faculty participation on the institution’s Pluralism & Diversity Program is addressed below. Also addressed below is the issue concerning faculty support for participation in professional association conferences.

5.6 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit

  1. Self-assessments of teaching effectiveness by faculty. Why are some faculty members involved and not others? How do self-assessments complement other assessments of faculty performance?
  2. All of the unit’s faculty members below the rank of full professor are required to engage in the self-assessment of their teaching effectiveness. As part of the evaluation process (described in detail in the Institutional Report, response 5e.1), the faculty member who has been observed meets with the colleague who has done the observation. This meeting provides an opportunity for the faculty to member to respond the initial draft of the observation report. The observed faculty member then has the opportunity to include a self-assessment that reflects on the observer’s comments. At the observed faculty member’s discretion, this self-assessment component can be included in the formal observation report. The observation report is discussed with the unit Chair, who then writes the yearly evaluation report. During this conversation with the Chair, the faculty member is asked to comment on her or his own perceptions about their teaching effectiveness. These comments may also be included in the formal yearly evaluation. Finally, all faculty members who are being presented for tenure and promotion are required to write a personal statement assessing and reflecting on their performance in teaching, service and scholarship. The unit’s Chair, Dr. Ken Gold, as well as the unit’s Appointments Committee, will be able to elaborate on this dynamic process when interviewed 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.


  3. Use of technology by faculty members as they teach.
  4. The full-time and adjunct faculty members employ a number of different learning technologies. Examples include SMART Boards; websites such as those that detail content area standards; BlackBoard; scientific calculators; and video equipment. A selection of these is described in these syllabi. A small number of the full-time faculty has become proficient enough with incorporating technology that they have published books in this area (as shown here and here). Another full-time faculty member regularly conducts workshops on how to use graphing calculators and scientific equipment in the classroom. Finally, the Library and its affiliate, The Center for Excellence in Learning Technology (CELT), offer ongoing workshops in technology, including SMART Boards, Blackboard course management technologies. The institution has also offered a series of seminars on developing hybrid and online courses in which several unit faculty members participated, including, Drs. Vivian Shulman, Susan Sullivan, Margaret Bérci, and Helen Mele Robinson.

    Samples of the candidate work created through these technology-rich experiences are here.


  5. Full-time and adjunct faculty involvement in professional development. What professional development activities are being provided by the unit? How many faculty are involved in “brown bag” and other professional development opportunities? What is the financial support for professional development? How are faculty members involved in the Pluralism & Diversity Program?
  6. All full-time faculty members are expected to participate in a range of professional developments activities related to their area of expertise or their desired area of improvement. Examples of the former include presentations at regional, national and international conferences, while examples of the latter include participation in a number of institution-sponsored opportunities designed to improve the teaching practices of faculty. These opportunities include study tours to China, the Staten Island Colloquium, jointly sponsored by the institution’s Staten Island Project and Library Department’s Archives and Special Collections, and a number of others sponsored by the City University of New York’s Professional Development Program. Adjunct faculty, though not formally required to participate in professional development opportunities, are encouraged by the unit’s leadership to do so.

    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.


  7. The Teacher on Sabbatical program. How does it contribute to programs?
  8. The institution’s Teachers on Sabbatical program does not directly contribute to any of the unit’s initial or advanced programs. However, the growth of this program has enabled the unit to accomplish three goals.

    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.


  9. Samples of faculty evaluations. How do they help faculty reflect on their own teaching?
  10. As mentioned in the response to Area of Concern 5.5.1., above, faculty members engage in several types of self-evaluations. All of these evaluations, except the supplementary evaluations faculty create themselves, are incorporated into the Chair’s annual evaluations of the faculty. They also figure prominently in the Chair’s recommendations for faculty re-appointments and promotions. A blinded sample of faculty evaluations is presented in Exhibit 5e.3.2. The BOE Team will be able to further probe this issue when interviewing the unit’s Chair and Appointments Committee.


Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources

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.
As noted in the unit’s most recent annual report (2009), available through AIMS, the unit and institution have made progress in addressing this issue. While recognizing that approximately two-thirds of the unit’s fall 2009 faculty were adjuncts, the unit and institution have gone to great lengths to ensure that this is no way compromises the quality of its programs.

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

  1. The budget for the professional education unit and its programs may not be adequate.

    Rationale: Not enough information is available in the off-site review to make a determination here.

The Onsite BOE Team will interview the Vice President Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs/Provost, Dr. William J. Fritz, who is the institution’s ranking member of the executive management team, with responsibility for all academic units and departments. The unit does, however, encourage the BOE Team to the 2008-2009 OTPS (Other than Personnel Services) budget.

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

  1. The quality of academic advisement with candidates. Are candidates aware of counseling options for personal issues? How are assessment data being shared and used with candidates during advisement? What is the system for advising candidates at both initial teacher preparation and advanced levels?
  2. Assessment data are shared with students when they consult Programs Coordinators, typically prior to registration each semester. Data on candidates’ progress across transition points provides Program Coordinators with the information they need to accurately evaluate how and how well candidates are progressing through their course work. In addition, Program Coordinators consult directly with the Assessment Coordinator, Dr. El Samuels, to mine more deeply into the candidates’ key assignments (tasks done through course work) that are stored in Tk20, the unit’s technological platform the collects key assessment data. This, too, is then shared with candidates as they work with Program Coordinators to map-out subsequent course work. Once candidates are accepted into either an initial or advanced education program, the primary adviser is their Program Coordinator. However, all full-time faculty members are assigned to a program for advisement purposes. This provides candidates with more than one advisement option.

    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.


  3. Involvement of the professional community in the unit’s conceptual framework, program development, and field experience policy.
  4. The professional community continues to be key resource for the unit as it aligns its conceptual framework with candidates’ courses, programs, and field and clinical experiences. The primary vehicle through which this is done is the unit’s Partnership Advisory Committee (PAC), chaired by the unit’s Director of Fieldwork, Dr. Deirdre Armitage, and referred to extensively throughout Standards 2 and 3 of the Institutional Report. The Onsite BOE Team will have the opportunity to meet with both Dr. Armitage and the PAC to evaluate the frequency and depth of the professional community’s involvement with its conceptual framework, program development and field experience policy.

  5. Adequacy of support for professional development among faculty.
  6. The unit’s 24 full-time faculty generally agree that the support for professional development is adequate. Evidence for this claim will best be supported by onsite interviews with full-time and adjunct faculty members.

    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.


  7. Orientation and mentoring of adjunct faculty by administration and faculty.
  8. The unit has instituted a set of procedures to orient and mentor new adjunct faculty. The unit’s Chair, who is responsible for hiring all adjunct faculty members (in consultation with the unit’s Appointments Committee), meets with those who have been hired prior to the start of the semester. During this meeting the Chair reviews the unit’s philosophy as actualized by its conceptual framework, the description of the course that is to be taught, and how assessments attached to that course are aligned with the unit’s conceptual framework. These new adjunct faculty members then meet with the Assessment Coordinator to review the unit’s Assessment System and how it is to be used to collect data on candidates’ key assignments. The mentoring of adjuncts occurs through two means. First, the Chair meets with the adjunct towards the end of the academic year or semester in order to draft an evaluation. This formal evaluation is then reviewed by the faculty member and used by the Chair and appointments committee when deciding if the adjunct should be retained. The unit’s Discipline Chairs, appointed by the Chair to oversee the quality and consistency of courses and instruction within disciplines that cut across programs (e.g., Social Foundations, Mathematics Education, etc.), play a critical role in terms of evaluating adjuncts instruction and ensuring that it is consistent with the unit’s philosophy and conceptual framework. Adjuncts are observed by the Discipline Chairs once per semester and the reports from these observations are shared with the adjuncts and considered by the Appointments Committee. The effectiveness of these procedures can be verified through meetings with the Chair, the unit’s adjunct faculty, and its Appointments Committee.

    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.


  9. Support of new faculty for engagement in scholarship.
  10. The current collectively bargained contract that governs faculty work explicitly provides support for new faculty’s engagement in scholarship. Specifically, it provides 24 hours of release time in the first seven years of pre-tenure employment for new faculty scholarship. In addition, the institution supports a number of initiatives through its Office of Grants and Research that directly support the research agendas of new faculty. In particular, this office coordinates new faculty’s participation in the PSC-CUNY Research Award Program, a program that preferences junior faculty in the allocation of funds.

    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.


  11. Continual interaction among full-time and adjunct faculty to ensure the cohesiveness and integrity of programs.
  12. Continual interaction among full-time and adjunct faculty is fostered through several mechanisms within the unit. First, as noted in response 6.5.4 above, the unit’s Discipline Chairs play a central role in ensuring that adjunct faculty are involved in all facets of course development and evaluation. Meeting at least once a semester, discipline meetings provide a valuable forum through which full-time and adjunct faculty share insights about current and future course offerings. Moreover, these meetings provide a venue through which best practices are shared and diffused across sections of the same course. In addition, the unit’s adjunct faculty members serve on the unit’s Assessment Committee (noted in Standard 2 of the IR) and Partnership Advisory Committee (Standard 3). Both committees are integral to the effectiveness of the unit’s Assessment System. Finally, adjunct faculty are encouraged develop and promote initiatives that ultimately benefit candidates. An example of this is a recent talk by Dr. Diane Ravitch, noted historian of education from New York University and former Assistant Secretary of Education at the U.S. Department of Education, on March 3, 2010. Gale Rosenberg, one the unit’s long-serving adjuncts, arranged this talk. This event is one of many examples that speak to the unit’s ability to encourage and support continual interaction among full-time and adjunct faculty. Onsite validation of this point is best done through a group interview with a sample of the unit’s 40 adjunct faculty.

  13. Adequacy of unit facilities such as classrooms, faculty offices, offices for adjuncts (especially to counsel students), and technology support.
  14. Adequacy of classrooms, offices and technology is measured through 1) a number of items on the unit’s exit survey completed by candidates; 2) surveys of faculty administered by the institution as well as the University Faculty Senate and; 3) surveys administered by the institution’s Office of Information Technology (OIT).

    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.


  15. Adequacy of library resources from the perspectives of faculty and candidates.
  16. The BOE Team will have the opportunity to interview both faculty and candidates and ask that they discuss the adequacy of library resources. The institution’s library does, however, regularly collect these data in an effort to continually monitor and enhance the quality of its offerings. These data are compiled in the Library’s Annual Report. The most recent report suggests that both faculty and candidates are generally satisfied with the Library’s resources. The Onsite BOE Team is also encouraged to meet with Wilma Jones, the institution’s Chief Librarian who can discuss the ways in which the Library works with the unit to ensure that the needs of candidates are met.

  17. Adequacy of unit budget, to which the Offsite Team did not have access.
  18. Information about the unit’s budget was presented in Exhibits 6b.1-2. However, Exhibit 6b.1 is only accessible on-campus and the Onsite BOE Team is encouraged to review the information available at that site in order facilitate its evaluation of the unit’s budget. Exhibit 6b.2 provides a comparison of the unit’s budget to other departments in the same division (Humanities and Social Sciences). However, simply reviewing this document does not provide one with the context needed to fully appreciate its complexity. Therefore, the unit encourages the Onsite BOE Team to interview both the Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dr. Christine Flynn Saulnier and the Vice President of Academic Affairs and Provost, Dr. William Fritz. Both individuals, as a result of their roles in the budgeting process, will be able to speak directly to issues regarding the allocation of funds to the unit. Interviewing these individuals will help the Onsite BOE Team determine whether the unit’s budget is adequate to support candidate learning.

  19. Ratio of full-time and adjunct faculty teaching courses (New York requirement).
  20. The unit, along with the Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dr. Christine Flynn Saulnier, recognize that the unit’s ratio of full-time and adjunct faculty is imbalanced. This is due, in part, to the unit’s reliance on full-time faculty to perform a number of administrative tasks that are typically done by non-faculty members in formal administrative positions (e.g., NCATE Coordinator, SPA Coordinator, etc.). Recognizing how these roles remove faculty from teaching and scholarship, the unit and its Dean have begun exploring the creation of a Dean specifically assigned to Education. It is assumed that this office would alleviate some of the administrative responsibilities that are currently performed by full-time faculty. In doing so, the unit and institution hope to reduce its reliance on adjunct faculty and better balance its ratio of full-time and adjunct faculty.

    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.


  21. Faculty loads for undergraduate (12 hours), graduate (9 hours), and combination (21 hours/year) (New York requirement).
  22. Information about the New York State Education Department’s guidelines for faculty workloads in teacher education programs is available here (section §52.21:b.2.i.h). This document confirms that:
    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.


Sources of Evidence

College of Staten Island’s Institutional Report
Annual Reports and Program Reports in NCATE’s Accreditation Information Management System (AIMS)
Website and Electronic Exhibits for the College of Staten Island
SPA Reports