EPSB - University of the Cumberlands

BOARD OF EXAMINERSReportBoard of Examiners Team:Lori HendersonLesia LennexBrenda McGown, ChairRebecca PowellManish SharmaPaul WirtzState Consultants:Allison BellTony CampbellKEA Representative:Pam GeisselhardtAccreditation Visit to:UNIVERSITY OF THECUMBERLANDSWilliamsburg, KentuckyOctober 23-27, 2010Type of Visit:Continuing

TABLE OF CONTENTSPageSummary for Professional Education Unit……………………………………………………...... 3I. Introduction…………………………………………………………...……………………4-5II.Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………………5III. StandardsStandard 1…………………………………………………………………..…………….6-12Standard 2……………………………………………………………………………….12-15Standard 3…………………………………………………………………………….…15-19Standard 4……………………………………………………………………………….19-23Standard 5……………………………………………………………………………….23-27Standard 6……………………………………………………………………………….27-32IV. Sources of Evidence……………………………………………………………...…..…33-53V. Part C - EPSB Annual Report – January 2012………………………………………...54-57

SUMMARY FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNITEducation Professional Standards BoardInstitution: University of the Cumberlands1StandardsCandidate Knowledge, Skills, and ProfessionalDispositionsTeam FindingsInitial AdvancedMM2 Assessment System and Unit Evaluation M M3 Field Experiences and Clinical Practice M M4 Diversity M M5Faculty Qualifications, Performance, andDevelopmentMM6 Unit Governance and Resources M MM = Standard MetNM = Standard Not MetNA = Not Applicable (Programs not offered at this level)3

I. INTRODUCTIONThe University of the Cumberlands (UC), rising along the banks of the Cumberland River inWilliamsburg, Kentucky, is a private university affiliated with the Southern Baptist Church.Beginning in 1889 as the Williamsburg Institute, morphing into Cumberland College and then onJuly 1, 2005, becoming the University of the Cumberlands, UC enjoys a long history ofeducating and preparing leaders for service. Residents of southeastern KY have been theprimary focus of the university; however, its reach is now extending into other states and nations.SACS accreditation has been continuous since 1964.The Department of Education is responsible for designing, then implementing all programsoffered for initial and advanced preparation of teachers and other school personnel. The unitconsists of 17 full-time faculty, 17 faculty full-time at the institution but part-time in the unit, and37 faculty part-time to the institution. Leadership is provided by a department chair, an associatechair, program director of undergraduate education, and program director of graduate initialeducation. The Teacher Education Admissions Committee (TEAC) and the Graduate EducationCommittee (GEC) actively participate in all decision making in the unit. These committeesinclude collaborators from the P-12 school community.All courses for the undergraduate initial programs are provided on the UC campus. Tables in theIR accurately summarize specific information regarding enrollment, program admissions, andprogram approval.All courses for the graduate programs, whether they result in initial or advanced certification, areoffered online. There are no face-to-face advanced course offerings. Tables accuratelysummarize specific information regarding enrollment, program admissions, and programapproval.As a result of changes made to 16 KAR 5:010 Section 12, areas for improvement will not becited for the Master of Arts in Education programs (MAED) although the context of the narrativewill identify program limitations.One month prior to this state accreditation team visit, the BOE chair who had participated in thepre-visit resigned from the team due to health issues. This had little or no impact on the conductof the visit.II.CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKThe mission of the University of the Cumberlands is to offer promising students of allbackgrounds a broad-based liberal arts program enriched with Christian values. The Universitystrives for excellence in all of its endeavors and expects from students a similar dedication to thispursuit. Its commitment to a strong academic program is joined with a commitment to a strongwork ethic. UC encourages students to think critically and creatively so that they may betterprepare themselves for lives of responsible service and leadership. Programs nurture critical andcreative thinking in pursuit of a “life-more-abundant” for both the individual and society. At4

UC, graduate study prepares professionals to be servant leaders in their disciplines andcommunities, linking research with practice and knowledge with ethical decision making.Seeking consistency with the institution’s mission and realizing the desire for professionaloutcomes that include a well-developed philosophy and understanding of education as well aspositive dispositions that help all children learn, the unit has developed the following missionstatement:The unit will provide strong initial and advanced academic programs to teachercandidates and other school personnel that instill in them a commitment to a strong workethic and prepare them for lives committed to excellence, professional integrity, andleadership that will impact student learning. By being Reflective Constructors of QualityLearning Experiences through Critical Thinking, graduates will possess the knowledge,skills, dispositions, and spiritual values that will serve the needs of a diverse learningcommunity.The unit has identified four different types of knowledge that serve as the foundational themes ofthe conceptual framework: Conceptual Knowledge, Strategic Knowledge, EvaluativeKnowledge, and Communicative Knowledge. The unit embraces a constructivist theory oflearning through reflection, believing that learners build upon prior knowledge, experience,attitudes, and social interactions to construct understanding of new knowledge.Candidates in all programs are expected to demonstrate the professional behaviors found in theKentucky Teacher Standards (KTS), the appropriate specialized professional associationstandards (SPAs), and the dispositions defined by the unit. The unit has incorporated these asStandard 11 - Strong Work Ethic, Caring, and Critical and Creative Thinking and Standard 12 -Excellence and Professional Integrity. Standard 11 and Standard 12 are incorporated into itsassessment system.The conceptual framework theme and the four dispositions are embedded in the initial andadvanced programs. The unit’s continuous assessment is structured around six pillars thatprovide checkpoints for the assessment of candidates.5

III. STANDARDSStandard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional DispositionsCandidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and demonstratethe content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and professionalknowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessmentsindicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.Information reported in the Institutional Report for Standard 1 was validated in the exhibits andinterviews. (If not, provide an explanation.)X Yes□ No1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher CandidatesContent Knowledge for Teacher Candidates – Initial TeacherPreparationContent Knowledge for Teacher Candidates – AdvancedTeacher PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:Data from PRAXIS II content exams indicate that undergraduate, MAT, and Option 6 candidateshave sufficient general education and content knowledge. The pass rates for all programs ininitial preparation reflect an average pass rate of 99.78%. One undergraduate student did notachieve the Chemistry cut score in 2009-10.Reviews of student work and e-portfolios support the belief that candidates have sufficientcontent knowledge. Data collected during clinical and field experiences include summativeevaluations, KTIP-IPRs (intern performance records), and external evaluations completed by P-12 partners. These as well as interviews with supervising teachers and local administratorsconfirm the findings. Candidates display a high degree of confidence in their knowledge.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation:Review of survey data and interviews with area educators confirm that advanced programcandidates demonstrate a high degree of content knowledge. Advanced program completers usethe UC Graduation Survey to assess their preparation program. The three year mean for thequestion, “The Graduate Program at UC provided me with the content knowledge necessary formy job” is 2.58 out of 3.00. Thus, candidates display a high degree of confidence in theirknowledge. A similar question is used on the Employer Survey to assess the content knowledgeof advanced program completers. The three year mean for this question is 2.92 out of 3.00,indicating that employers show a high degree of confidence in the content knowledge of theiremployees. Co-workers and supervisors confirm this rating.6

1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills for Teacher CandidatesPedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills for TeacherCandidates – Initial Teacher PreparationPedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills for TeacherCandidates – Advanced Teacher PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:During the initial undergraduate program, various methods are used to assess candidatepedagogical content knowledge. The e-portfolio is the repository of artifacts which shows thecandidate’s continued progress toward meeting the Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS) and theUC standards. The candidate uploads required work, such as lesson plans and reflections, intoLiveText. Faculty then uses an established rubric to score the work and responds withconstructive feedback. The portfolio is scored in totality three times. Candidates must score atleast 2.00 out of 3.00 at the conclusion of Pillar I, 2.50 at Pillar 2, and 2.75 at Pillar III. Datashow a three year average of 2.60 for Pillar I, 3.00 for Pillar 2, and 3.00 at Pillar III inpedagogical content knowledge and skills.KTIP-IPR is used during clinical and field experiences to assess the candidate’s knowledge as itrelates to Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS) 2, 3, 4, and 6. For the past three years, candidateshave averaged 2.96 out of 3.00, 2.99, and 2.99. P-12 Faculty complete Summative Evaluationson candidates to assess the same KTS. The mean average during this same period is 2.95. Thisinformation is found in Table 1b.1.1.External evaluation occurs during the clinical semester. Each candidate constructs a standardsbasedunit reflecting his/her ability to incorporate instructional strategies appropriate for contentdelivery. P-12 evaluators review the unit and then interview the candidate. This results in anassessment of the candidate’s knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Over the past three years, thecandidates have produced a mean average of 2.90 out of a possible 3.00.Candidates in the MAT and the Option 6 programs participate in similar assessments similar tothose of the initial undergraduate candidates. However, they now complete a Capstone Project inlieu of the portfolio. For the past three years, MAT and Option 6 candidates have scored at least2.85 out of 3.00 on KTS 2, 3, 4, and 6, measured in clinical and field experiences via KTIP-IPR.P-12 faculty use summative evaluations to measure the same KTS. The findings are highlyconsistent, as no program averaged below 2.80 on the summative evaluations.In fall 2009, the unit replaced the portfolio with the Capstone Project. The Capstone Projectincludes selected artifacts from supervised student teaching or the practicum which show howthe provided instruction has impacted student learning. Tasks C, E, F, G, H, I, and J from theKTIP Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) Tasks are among the artifacts. The candidatesupplies rationale describing how these artifacts show he/she has mastered KTS 2, 3, 4, 6 andUC standards. The Capstone Projects created this semester will be in LiveText. Prior to fall7

2009, a portfolio process was in place to allow a candidate to show mastery of the abovestandards. Table 1b.1.1 shows candidates scored at least 2.80 out of 3.00 on these assessments.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation:A writing sample must be submitted for admission to the advanced program; however, it is onlyused as a diagnostic measure indicating the possible need for assistance. Course grades,comprehensive exams, and GPA are used to assess graduate program candidates. Table 1a.3.8shows candidates scored better than 2.53 out of 3.00 on each of the 10 KTS. Table 1a.3.5summarizes three years of assessment data into average performance for each assessed area. Thewriting sample averaged 2.24 out of 3.00, course grades 3.41 out of 4.00,Portfolio/Comprehensive Exams 2.75 out of 3.00, and GPA 3.54 out of 4.00. Prior to fall 2010,advanced program candidates compiled a portfolio to showcase their pedagogical content andskills. The unit now assesses Kentucky Teacher and UC standards via a comprehensive exam.Survey data support advanced program candidates’ internalization of KTS 2, 3, 4, and 6. TheUC Graduate Survey shows an average rating of 2.55 out of 3.00 for mastery of these standards.The Employer Survey reflects a rating of 2.79 out of 3.00, and the Graduate Satisfaction Surveyshows a rating of 2.82 out of 3.00. It is interesting to note that program completers scorethemselves lower than do their employers.1c. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher CandidatesProfessional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for TeacherCandidates – Initial Teacher PreparationProfessional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for TeacherCandidates – Advanced Teacher PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:Table 1c.1.1 summarizes Praxis II PLT scores for initial undergraduate program candidates from2004-05 through 2009-10, showing a pass rate of 100%. Elementary candidates scored anaverage of at least 13 points above the cut score. Middle school candidates averaged at least 7points above the cut score, and high school candidates averaged at least 11 points above the cutscore. Table 1c.1.2 provides assessment results for KTS 7, 8, 9, and 10 for years 2007-8 through2009-10. Initial undergraduate program candidates achieved the following averages out of 3.00:IPR-2.93, summative evaluation-2.94, external evaluation-2.95, and portfolio-2.97.Table 1c.1.1 summarizes Praxis II PLT scores for initial MA program candidates from 2006-07through 2009-2010, showing a pass rate of 100%. Elementary candidates scored an average of atleast 13 points above the cut score. Middle school candidates scored an average of at least 6points above the cut score, and high school candidates averaged at least 10 points above the cutscore. Table 1c.1.2 provides assessment results for KTS 7, 8, 9, and 10 for years 2007-8 through2009-10. Initial graduate program candidates achieved the following averages out of 3.00: IPR-2.90, summative evaluation-2.87, external evaluation-2.92, and portfolio-2.96.8

Table 1c.1.2 provides assessment results for KTS 7, 8, 9, and 10 for 2009-10. Option 6candidates achieved the following averages out of 3.00: IPR-2.67, summative evaluation-2.84,external evaluation-2.75, and portfolio-2.95.The combining of these data points substantiates that candidates possess the pedagogicalknowledge necessary to develop meaningful learning experiences.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation:KTS 5, 7, and 9 address awareness, analysis, and implication of education research. Mastery ofKTS 2, 3, 4, 6 requires a thorough understanding of school, family, and community context. Therequirement for professional activities is contained in KTS 9. Table 1a.3.4 summarizes thefollowing performance on KTS by advanced candidates from 2007-8 through 2009-10: KTS 1 -2.73, KTS 2,3,4,6 - 2.53, KTS 5 – 2.92, and KTS – 7, 8, 9, 10 – 2.56. All are based on a 3.00scale. The data collected via portfolios and then comprehensive exams support the capabilitiesof advanced program candidates.1d. Student Learning for Teacher CandidatesStudent Learning for Teacher Candidates – Initial TeacherPreparationStudent Learning for Teacher Candidates – Advanced TeacherPreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:KTS 5 relates closely to a candidate’s ability to develop and implement meaningful learningexperiences. The following data (from Table 1d.2.1) summarize candidate performance onmultiple assessments of KTS 5.From 2007-08 through 2009, initial undergraduate program candidates achieved the followingaverages out of 3.00: IPR-2.94, summative evaluation-2.95 external evaluation-2.83, andportfolio-2.91.During the same time period, initial graduate program candidates achieved IPR-2.88, summativeevaluation-2.84, external evaluation-2.55, and portfolio-2.93.Scores for Option 6 candidates, only available for 2009-10, follow: IPR-2.68, summativeevaluation-2.86, external evaluation 2.75, and portfolio-2.90.The unit strives to produce educators who are reflective, critical thinkers. Area P-12 educatorsreport that candidates are well prepared and handle all situations adeptly.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation:Tables in the IR provide evidence that advanced preparation candidates understand majorconcepts and theories relating to assessing student learning and regularly apply these in their9

practice. This belief was confirmed through interviews with P-12 practitioners. Principalsshared that they were very pleased with the quality of the program completers. Onesuperintendent summed up the practitioners’ remarks by stating that he had high expectations ofquality and UC graduates continue to meet his expectations.1e. Knowledge and Skills for Other School ProfessionalsKnowledge and Skills for Other School ProfessionalsAcceptableSummary of Findings:There are seven programs in the category of other school professionals: Superintendent, Directorof Special Education, Supervisor of Instruction, Director of Pupil Personnel and Principal,School Counselor, and Reading and Writing Specialist. All programs are based on theappropriate professional standards. These include but are not limited to the Kentucky TeacherStandards (KTS), the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards, theKentucky School Counselor (KSC) Standards, and the Technology Standards for SchoolAdministrators (TSSA). With the exception of the Reading and Writing Specialist program,candidates are assessed using the appropriate professional standards.Pass rate on professional licensure exams is 89.3%. Table 1e.2.1 shows entrance/exit GPAs forall 7 programs for the past 3 years. In each case except one, the GPA increases, indicating a gainin professional knowledge.Table 1e.2.5 compares data from external evaluation assessments in 2009-10 with practicumgrades from the previous years for each of the administrative licensure programs. Mean scoresranged from 2.87 to 2.96 on a 3.00 scale. The unit is moving to replace the use of course gradesas a means of assessing standards to a system based on case studies.1f. Student Learning for Other School ProfessionalsStudent Learning for Other School ProfessionalsAcceptableSummary of Findings:Review of case studies, performance tasks, and other course work indicates that candidates havethe knowledge to create positive environments for student learning. Employers report thatprogram completers are highly competent educators who foster the construction of qualitylearning experiences.1g. Professional Dispositions for All CandidatesProfessional Dispositions for All Candidates – Initial TeacherPreparationProfessional Dispositions for All Candidates – AdvancedTeacher PreparationAcceptableAcceptable10

Professional Dispositions for All Candidates – Other SchoolProfessionalsAcceptableSummary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:The unit has identified four dispositions that permeate its programs- Strong Work Ethic; Caring;Critical and Creative Thinking; and Excellence and Professional Integrity. Demonstrations ofthese can be found as candidates develop, teach, and evaluate their lessons. As candidates cometo realize that all children can learn, their movement toward disposition acquisition increases.The e-portfolio contains artifacts accumulated over the course of the candidate’s preparation.Monitoring these shows a maturation of disposition development.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation:The measure of an advanced candidate’s dispositions begins with three favorablerecommendation forms. As coursework progresses, the candidate seeks two professors tocomplete a disposition survey. Two additional surveys are required at exit. Dispositions aremeasured on the comprehensive exam. The mean score from the surveys is 3.98 out of 4.00.The mean score from the comprehensive exams is 2.98 out of 3.00.Summary of Findings for the Preparation of Other School Professionals:Administrative candidates are expected to have the same recommendation forms as the advancedcandidates do. School counselors complete an e-portfolio that measures standards, twodisposition surveys during the practicum, and they undergo two observations during theinternship that include dispositions. Provided data show that other school professionalsconsistently score very near the 3.00 range (2.98 to 3.00).Overall Assessment of Standard:The unit provides a rich educational experience for its candidates. Faculty model the desireddispositions as they work tirelessly to ensure the candidates possess and demonstrate theknowledge necessary to help all students learn. Candidates exit the various programs with thecapacity for success and the confidence to become outstanding educators.Areas for Improvement and Rationales:AFIs from last visit: Corrected - NoneAFIs from last visit: Continued - NoneNew AFIs - NoneRecommendation for Standard 1Initial Teacher PreparationMet11

Advanced PreparationMetCorrections to the Institutional ReportNoneStandard 2: Assessment System and Unit EvaluationThe unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidateand graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the performance of candidates,the unit, and its programs.Information reported in the Institutional Report for Standard 2 was validated in the exhibits andinterviews. (If not, provide an explanation.)X Yes□No2a. Assessment SystemAssessment System – Initial Teacher PreparationAssessment System – Advanced PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:The unit has developed an assessment system and plan to monitor candidate qualifications foradmission and progress through the programs, as well as the programs’ effectiveness. Thecheckpoints/pillars have multiple assessments for all initial programs and most advancedprograms to systematically record and monitor candidate progress. The assessments are alignedwith the appropriate Kentucky standards and the UC standards and conceptual framework.The Education Department is responsible for the development and monitoring of the assessmentsystem. A plan is in place to review the data for each program at least once a year. A yearlyreview of the program data for initial programs is also conducted by the TEAC and for advancedprograms by the GEC. Input from the P-12 community is obtained through their membership onthe above committees and during formal and informal discussions with professionals who scoreand rate candidates.A template and process have been developed and used to eliminate bias and to establish interraterreliability between and among all raters. These include P-12 and faculty raters from acrossthe university. This process has been explained and referenced in the IR. The ratings have beenestablished as at least 85% agreement.2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation12

Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation – Initial TeacherPreparationData Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation – AdvancedPreparationAcceptableUnacceptableSummary of Findings:The Education Unit has been working from separate data management systems to track candidateand programmatic data. An example has been the review of Praxis data by departmental facultyof all teacher preparation programs across the university. Based on these data reviews, numerouschanges in programs have been reported. However, with major technological changes made atUC recently, additional analyses are now possible.In July 2009, the transition was made from Jenzabar to SunGard PowerCAMPUS, the EnterpriseResource Planning (ERP)/Student Information System (SIS) that manages student data. MyUC, thestudent’s self-service portal, enables both candidates and faculty advisors to check or post grades andview, add, or drop courses. The immediate access to these services is an additional enhancement ofthe unit’s candidate monitoring and feedback system.The Initial Undergraduate and Initial Graduate (Fall 2010) programs use LiveText, a web-basede-portfolio management system that facilitates the assessment of a candidate’s progress towardsmeeting the KY and UC standards. Currently, Elluminate, the University’s CommunicationManagement System is used in conjunction with the Learning Management System, ANGEL.The institution has designed and developed the EDUCational Assessment Network (EDUCAN)database to address the continuous assessment needs of the unit. The system stores assessment datarequired by the unit. EDUCAN is the repository for those assessments supporting only the Kentucky,ISLLC, KCS, and university standards. To support the assessment systems, the institution has hired afull time data manager who is responsible exclusively to the unit. Assessment materials are archivedand processed by the unit’s data manager.The new systems allow for the regular reviews of candidate performance by advisors and programdirectors. These have helped to identify candidates needing support. The needs of these candidatesare addressed by the preparation of Individual Action Plans which can also be monitored throughEDUCAN and other student data systems.The Pillar transition point monitoring for each initial and advanced program has been notablyenhanced by the availability of the EDUCAN system to faculty and program directors. Mostprograms use multiple assessments tied to standards to assess candidate performance and gather datafor program improvement. Except for the Reading and Writing Endorsement program, the programsassessments are tied to standards, which allow for the disaggregation and analysis of data. Theaggregated and disaggregated data reports are drawn from the EDUCAN system and are distributedto the program directors to be presented regularly to the Education Department faculty and annuallyto the TEAC or GEC.13

2c. Use of Data for Program ImprovementUse of Data for Program Improvement – Initial TeacherPreparationUse of Data for Program Improvement – Advanced PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:The unit has an assessment system that collects and assists with the analyses of data that are usedto improve candidate performance, programs, and the unit. The unit and program have made aseries of changes based on review of data. Input is sought from candidates, P-12 partners,program faculty, external assessments, program performance measures, and other sources.Examples of changes based on data, such as a review of Praxis scores, include 1) an additionalliterature course in the English Education program and 2) revised history content in severalcourses. The sub scores of the Praxis PLT indicated lower performance on case study items.Thus more analyses of case studies were added within several education courses.A review of the New Teacher Survey reports indicated a lower ranking of UC’s student teachersand interns on addressing the needs of students with social, emotional, and learning difficulties.Thus special seminars on special education topics and targeted field experiences wereimplemented to address these identified needs.Input is sought from P-12 partners through such activities as scoring of student teaching unitportfolios and the semi–annual external evaluations. From this input has come an increase in thefocus on phonics instruction in literacy courses and changes in the requirements during specialeducation placements.Summary of Strengths: The unit has made significant progress in the creation andimplementation of a comprehensive assessment system. The development of the new EDUCANdatabase now provides the unit with the capacity to assess and monitor student progress and allprograms. Stakeholders from across the university and from the P-12 community havedemonstrated commitment to participate in the assessment process.Areas for Improvement and RationalesAFIs from last visit: Corrected - NoneAFIs from last visit: Continued - NoneNew AFIsAFI Number & Text(Advanced) The assessments being usedAFI RationaleNo evidence was found to indicate any14

in the Reading Specialist program arenot anchored in the specialtyprofessional association (IRA) and theKentucky Teacher Standards (KTS).relationship between the assessments being usedin the Reading Specialist program and the IRAand KTS.Recommendation for Standard 2Initial Teacher PreparationAdvanced PreparationMetMetCorrections to the Institutional ReportNoneStandard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical PracticeThe unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practiceso that teacher candidates and other school professionals develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills,and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn.Information reported in the Institutional Report for Standard 3 was validated in the exhibits andinterviews. (If not, provide an explanation.)X Yes□ No3a. Collaboration between Unit and School PartnersCollaboration between Unit and School Partners – InitialTeacher PreparationCollaboration between Unit and School Partners – AdvancedPreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:The unit has a good relationship within the university and with P-12 school partners. Schoolpartners include administrators and teachers who accept candidates into their classrooms. Thepartners participate in the TEAC to review and design policy, govern admission and retentionstandards, and evaluate programmatic needs. The TEAC has representation from P-12 partners,education and content area faculty. Any concerns by TEAC are communicated by email prior toregular meetings (interviews). Evidence of meeting minutes and supervising teacher surveys forimprovement reflect that members have participated to increase and more evenly distribute fieldhours to 133 in elementary, 153 in elementary with special education, 130 in middle grades, 150in middle grades with special education, and 120 in secondary education. There are 22certificates offered at the initial undergraduate level.15

The GEC oversees the graduate programs of the unit. Members of the GEC include many P-12school partners who host initial graduates in their schools. Interviews demonstrate that partnersoften call or email the MAT Director, or other Unit faculty, for assistance in improving programrequirements. The initial graduate level (Master of Arts in Teaching and Option 6) offers 18certificates. There are 120 participating Kentucky school districts and 54 independents, and morethan 63 districts in Tennessee, Alaska, Arizona, California, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, NorthCarolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Indiana, and Ohio. Through interviews and evidence ofteacher mentor, candidate, and unit feedback on performance and programs, all stakeholdershave an opportunity to provide recommendations for changes to the program.A database system (EDUCAN) is in the initial stages of implementation. It is systematicallycataloging a) the kinds of diversity experiences, b) programmatic and Kentucky standards, c)schools and teachers used in the field experiences.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation and/or the Preparation of OtherSchool Professionals:A database system (EDUCAN) for systematically cataloging the kinds of diversity experiences,programmatic and Kentucky standards, schools, and teachers, is in the initial stages ofimplementation.3b. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical PracticeDesign, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiencesand Clinical Practice – Initial Teacher PreparationDesign, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiencesand Clinical Practice – Advanced PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:The Director of Field Placement arranges field experiences for initial candidates in Pillars I andII. The Director of Undergraduate Programs/Director of Student Teaching coordinates clinicalexperiences at the undergraduate level. The Director of MAT Programs coordinates clinicalexperiences in the initial certification graduate program. Candidates and principals may requestplacements with schools and /or teachers, but these offices make final placement. Fieldexperiences are distributed among schools based on diversity, type of experience, and size ofschool. The Director of Field Placement is not identified in the staff directory but was identifiedthrough interviews.There are multiple assessments of candidate performance at the initial undergraduate andgraduate levels. At the initial level, Pillars I, II, IV, and V candidates must complete a FieldExperience Reporting/Timesheet for all field experiences. This form is delivered to the directorsof field placement and MAT. The form identifies the specific nature of the field experience andactions taken by the candidate. Candidates are evaluated by course instructors on dispositionsand standards throughout Pillar II. Supervising teachers, content area specialists, and the16

directors of student teaching or MAT also evaluate the candidates in the clinical semester. Thecandidates self-reflect throughout the field and clinical experiences.The MAT director receives requests for clinical placement. The form includes minimumrequirements for student teacher placement. Placement is determined based on availability ofsupervising teacher and district mentor. Option 6 candidates are employed in Kentucky schools.They also complete a school request, and placement is dependent on availability of a qualifiedsupervising teacher. The staff directory does not identify the name of the MAT director andOption 6 Director. Through interviews, the directors were identified.A database system (EDUCAN) for systematically cataloging the kinds of diversity experiences,programmatic and Kentucky standards, schools, and teachers, is in the initial stages ofimplementation.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation and/or the Preparation of OtherSchool Professionals:Field experiences are coordinated through individual course professors. Those field experiencesare recorded and delivered to the course professor. The instructor delivers to the DatabaseManager the completed field experience hours, rubric, and instructor evaluation. For certificateprograms, the certification officer also maintains files and reviews cases for regulationscompliance. The program director (through the Course Managers), except in the case of MAED,evaluates the syllabus, field experiences, key assessments, and any exceptions or changes to aMaster Syllabus.A database system (EDUCAN) for regularly cataloging the kinds of diversity experiences,programmatic and Kentucky standards, schools, and teachers, is in the initial stages ofimplementation.3c. Candidates' Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and ProfessionalDispositions to Help All Students LearnCandidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge,Skills, and Professional Dispositions to Help All Students Learn– Initial Teacher PreparationCandidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge,Skills, and Professional Dispositions to Help All Students Learn– Advanced PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:Field experiences prior to the clinical semester are evaluated using the Field ExperienceReporting/Timesheet and the KTIP/IPR. At the initial level in clinical settings, bothundergraduate and graduate candidates are evaluated for demonstration of the Kentucky TeacherStandards, Unit Standards, Professional Content Knowledge, and Dispositions. There is regularand systematic contact between candidates and the Directors of Student Teaching, MAT (or17

field-based mentor), and Option 6. Candidates not performing adequately are required tocomplete an Individual Action Plan. Successful completion of the plan must occur within onecycle or the candidate is asked to leave the clinical placement for the semester. Undergraduatecandidates are required to complete a teacher education program entrance portfolio for Pillars I-III. The portfolio follows through their careers and demonstrates Kentucky standards, unitstandards, and dispositions. A culminating e-portfolio using LiveText is required for exit from theprogram. Candidates must defend their portfolio in an interview with two unit faculty.The MAT and Option 6 programs have required conferencing and regular supervision by the onsitesupervisor. MAT candidates have, until recently, completed an e-portfolio similar to that ofthe undergraduate portfolio. The exit criteria have changed to a capstone in which candidatesmust demonstrate Kentucky and unit standards and dispositions. An employer survey confirmscandidate strengths and areas for improvement. Candidates not performing at an acceptable levelare required to complete an Individual Action Plan. Successful completion of the plan mustoccur within one cycle or the candidate is asked to leave the clinical placement for the semester.Evidence in e-portfolios, some course assignments, and the capstone project indicates arudimentary understanding of diversity and appropriate teaching for diverse learners.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation and/or the Preparation of OtherSchool Professionals:Advanced programs are using appropriate professional standards (e.g. TSSA, ISLCC) to assesscandidate progress. Program standards are being assessed by the overall grade in a course.Assignments within courses are assessed by the overall grade on the assignment rather than“met” or “not met” for indicators on each standard. It appears programs are nascent and as yetnot being wholly evaluated according to disaggregated standards. EDUCAN is in place to assessindicators and standards. Field experience is being assessed for diversity and type of placementwith both course assignment rubrics and the Field Experience Reporting/Timesheet.Candidate satisfaction surveys, mentor evaluations, and employer surveys demonstrate thestrengths and areas of need for the programs.Overall Assessment of StandardThe standard has been met. At both the Initial and Advanced levels, the unit has activecollaborative partnerships with its P-12 faculty and administrators. At both the Initial andAdvanced levels, the unit conducts design, implementation, and evaluation of field experiences.At both the Initial and Advanced levels, the unit develops and demonstrates knowledge, skills,and dispositions. Through multiple pieces of evidence and corroborating interviews, all areas ofthe standard are verified.Areas for Improvement and Rationales:AFIs from last visit: Corrected - None18

AFIs from last visit: Continued - NoneNew AFIs - NoneRecommendation for Standard 3Initial Teacher PreparationAdvanced PreparationMetMetCorrections to the Institutional Report:NoneStandard 4: DiversityThe unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and provides experiences for candidates toacquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help allstudents learn. Assessments indicate that candidates can demonstrate and apply proficiencies related todiversity. Experiences provided for candidates include working with diverse populations, includinghigher education and P–12 school faculty, candidates, and students in P–12 schools.Information reported in the Institutional Report for Standard 4 was validated in the exhibits andinterviews. (If not, provide an explanation.)X Yes□ No4a. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and ExperiencesDesign, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum andExperiences – Initial Teacher PreparationDesign, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum andExperiences – Advanced PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:The unit has made a good effort to embed diversity activities at different levels of candidateexperiences in a variety of coursework. Candidates are required to reflect upon their experienceswith diversity in special education and special topics courses. The course requirements,documentation, and interviews also indicate their interaction with ELL and racially/culturallydiverse students in different courses. The candidates are required to create lesson plans thataddress the needs of diverse learners. Required experiences for student teachers ensure thatcandidates are exposed to diverse student populations. Curriculum maps of courses indicate that19

there is an effort to intentionally focus on diversity in courses by requiring candidates toparticipate in field experience and lesson/unit planning activities.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation and/or the Preparation of OtherSchool Professionals:Reflections are emphasized for candidates in the advanced teacher preparation and thepreparation of other school professionals in a variety of coursework. Candidates in theseprograms also discuss their diversity experiences through course assignments. The focus ofthese artifacts relates to research and reflections on diversity-related topics.4b. Experiences Working with Diverse FacultyExperiences Working with Diverse Faculty – Initial TeacherPreparationExperiences Working with Diverse Faculty – AdvancedPreparationUnacceptableUnacceptableSummary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:The unit made efforts to increase diversity among the faculty for all the programs. Table 4b.2.3on page 74 of the IR reflects the courses taught by diverse faculty. The candidate interviews alsoconfirmed interactions with diverse faculty members during the courses. Candidates hadexposure to guest speakers with diverse backgrounds in their teacher preparation courses.Candidates have the opportunity to interact with racially and ethnically diverse faculty. Whilethere are diverse faculty who teach in the program, there is no system in place to ensure that suchexposure occurs for all candidates.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation and/or the Preparation of OtherSchool Professionals:Tables referenced on page 74 of the IR indicate that racially and ethnically diverse faculty areavailable to teach courses in programs for advanced teacher preparation and/or the preparation ofother school professionals. Racially diverse faculty members teach a number of courses in theseprograms. However, there is no systematic approach to ensure that all candidates interact withdiverse faculty members. There are no data to suggest that such an experience occurs for allcandidates.4c. Experiences Working with Diverse CandidatesExperiences Working with Diverse Candidates – InitialTeacher PreparationExperiences Working with Diverse Candidates – AdvancedPreparationAcceptableAcceptable20

Summary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:Table 4c.2.1 referenced on page 76 of the IR indicates the demographics of the candidates in theinitial programs and the area served by the institution. The diversity of candidates is indicativeof the diversity in the region. The unit works with the admissions office to recruit diversecandidates by visiting targeted high schools and coordinating campus visits for urban and diversepopulations. Interviews with the admission and education unit professionals also indicate aconcerted effort to improve diversity among candidates. The annual reports submitted to EPSBindicate a rise in the number of foreign students as a result of these efforts. International tripstaken by some of the faculty members may have also contributed to more foreign studentsenrolling.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation and/or the Preparation of OtherSchool Professionals:Table 4c.2.1 referenced on page 76 of the IR indicates the demographics of the candidates in thegraduate programs in the area served by the institution. The percentages of candidates in theseprograms are close to the ones for the initial teacher preparation programs.4d. Experiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 SchoolsExperiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools –Initial Teacher PreparationExperiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools –Advanced PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings for Initial Teacher Preparation:Field and clinical experiences required for all the initial teacher preparation candidates ensurethat they are exposed to diverse students in P-12 schools. Candidates visit Laurel Day Centerand participate in activities with students who are at risk due to behavioral and/or legal issues.Candidates plan activities for the students in this location. The interviews with faculty,candidates, and the facility director reveal collaboration among and appreciation of all involvedin the process. School visits also indicated a good coordination among faculty and one of theESL instructors in P-12 partner schools.Candidates’ participation with diverse students in P-12 schools was also highlighted in thereports generated by the database that showed data from the “Field ExperienceReporting/Timesheet.” These reports allow the unit to track candidate placements, therebyassuring that they work with diverse populations.Summary of Findings for Advanced Teacher Preparation and/or the Preparation of OtherSchool Professionals:Experiences for this group of professionals range from working with ELL to other special needsstudents. Tables on page 77 of the IR highlight school district demographics as well as means of21

KTIP-IPR scores. Screen shots as well as discussion board notes indicate online students arealso engaged in discussions related to diversity issues in a variety of courses. Data from thejournals and capstone projects show their work related to the diverse students in P-12 schools.Overall Assessment of Standard:A key focus of the conceptual framework is to provide candidates with the experiences necessaryfor addressing the needs of a diverse student population. The unit has moved forward to increasediversity in its candidate population. The increased association with different foreign countriesvia faculty and student service learning projects has assisted in this process. Collaboration withthe admissions area of the institution has also helped in focusing on diversity recruitment efforts.The unit diversity plan addresses some of the recent developments in recruiting faculty,providing diverse experiences to candidates, and initiating program changes.The institutional report, data tables, artifacts, and interviews with faculty, candidates, and variousP-12 collaborators reveal that the diversity standard is met by the unit. The unit has tried toincrease the number of diverse faculty in the on-site and online courses. While the unit has madeefforts to provide candidates with the opportunity to interact with diverse faculty, there is nosystematic process to ensure that all candidates have that opportunity. There is no clear evidencethat suggests the systematic nature of this approach in the online courses.The unit and individual faculty members in collaboration with P-12 partners are increasing thenumber of opportunities for the candidates to have diverse experiences. The collaboration withthe regional P-12 partners was evident through the documentation provided and face-to-faceinterviews during the visit.Areas for Improvement and Rationales:AFIs from last visit: CorrectedAFI Number & Text(Initial) Racial/ethnic diversity is notpresent in the undergraduate teachereducation student body.AFI RationaleCandidates in the initial certification programsrepresent at least two racial and ethnicpopulations.AFIs from last visit: Continued - NoneNew AFIsAFI Number & Text(Initial and Advanced) Evidence doesnot indicate that all candidates interactwith diverse faculty members.AFI RationaleThere is no systematic assurance that eachcandidate has the opportunity to interact withdiverse faculty members.22

Recommendation for Standard 4Initial Teacher PreparationAdvanced PreparationMetMetCorrections to the Institutional Report:Table 4c.2.1 (first column/row 11 the percentage should be 33%)Some of the notes from the editor are still visible in the IR document p. 76 (see 4.c.2).Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and DevelopmentFaculty 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 alsocollaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates facultyperformance and facilitates professional development.Information reported in the Institutional Report for Standard 5 was validated in the exhibits andinterviews. (If not, provide an explanation.)X Yes□ No5a. Qualified FacultyQualified Faculty – Initial Teacher PreparationQualified Faculty – Advanced PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:There are 17 full-time Education Department faculty members, 17 full-time university facultywho are part-time to the unit, and 37 part-time faculty members in the unit. Of the full-timefaculty, 14 hold terminal degrees. The remaining three full-time faculty members have a Rank Iand substantial experience in P-12 classrooms, and all three have received awards for excellencein teaching. A review of faculty vitae and transcripts indicates that all have expertise in thecourses in which they teach. All full and part-time faculty teaching at the advanced level hold aterminal degree.Out of a total of 429 school-based faculty who supervise clinical experiences in initial programs,427 are licensed in the fields in which they teach. On-site interviews verify that these two facultyhave substantial expertise that qualify them for their clinical assignments. Of the school-basedfaculty who are serving during the current academic year, over half have received training in the23

Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP), and over half have completed a course insupervision.Full-time and part-time faculty in supervisory roles have relevant and contemporary experiencesin P-12 schools. These experiences include serving as practitioners, administrators, supervisors,and counselors in a variety of P-12 settings, and working collaboratively with P-12 partners on avariety of initiatives (e.g., workshops and collaborative grant projects).5b. Modeling Best Professional Practices in TeachingModeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching – InitialTeacher PreparationModeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching – AdvancedPreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:Course syllabi, exhibits, and interviews with faculty and candidates in initial and advancedprograms indicate that unit faculty model best pedagogical practices. These practices areconsistent with the conceptual framework in that candidates are required to reflect continuouslyon their teaching and to engage in collaborative inquiry and active learning throughout theirprogram. Candidates report that faculty use a variety of assessment practices, including lessonplans, portfolios, case studies, and a number of formative assessments (“quick writes,” “bellringers,” etc.) to determine candidate learning. These data support information in Table 5b.1.a,which shows that unit faculty uses a variety of instructional methods that reflect the conceptualframework.Technology is incorporated into professional courses in a variety of ways, e.g., electronicportfolios, media, You-Tube videos, electronic communication, web-based forums, electronicdatabases, and Smart boards. All graduate programs are on-line; therefore, faculty and studentsuse a variety of communication formats, such as chats, discussion boards, teams, breakoutrooms, and interactive conferencing.On-site evidence confirms that many unit faculty provide candidates with intentional diversityexperiences through the use of videos, discussions, guest speakers, and field trips to variousclinical sites. Candidates in all programs are required to document and reflect on theirexperiences working with diverse student populations. They are also required to considerstudents’ cultural backgrounds and unique learning needs in lesson planning and delivery.Faculty self-evaluation is part of the annual faculty review process. Recently, faculty in the unithave begun to implement a system of peer review using the ten Kentucky Teacher Standards asan evaluative framework. Faculty use information from this peer review process in developingplans for enhancing their pedagogical practices.24

5c. Modeling Best Professional Practices in ScholarshipModeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship – InitialTeacher PreparationModeling Best Professional Practices in Scholarship – AdvancedPreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:The university and unit definition of scholarship is consistent with the primary commitment ofthe institution, which is quality teaching. The university Policies and Procedures Handbookdescribes the scholarly work expected of faculty as “publications, presentations, attendance atconferences, professional memberships, etc.” (Policies and Procedures, Addendum for Faculty,p. 15). Scholarship is one of five areas that is reviewed for tenure and promotion of faculty.Unit faculty demonstrate a diverse array of scholarly activities, as documented through facultyvitae, on-site exhibits, faculty self-evaluations, and annual institutional reports (e.g., Serving AsExamples booklets, which highlight faculty and staff professional activities each year). Themajority of full-time and part-time faculty has engaged in scholarship. Examples of scholarlyactivities include publishing in refereed journals; presenting papers at state, regional, national,and international conferences related to their areas of expertise; serving as keynote or guestspeakers at various state and national events; serving as reviewers for forthcoming publications;and attending conferences and participating in other professional growth activities. A few unitfaculty members have published books or have assisted in editing published volumes. Datasources that were reviewed indicate that most unit faculty are actively involved in professionalorganizations related to their fields of expertise.5d. Modeling Best Professional Practices in ServiceModeling Best Professional Practices in Service – Initial TeacherPreparationModeling Best Professional Practices in Service – AdvancedPreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:All faculty at the institution are required to provide both institutional and community service. Asnoted in the institutional report (p. 86), “The mission of the professional education unitincorporates the institutional mission by emphasizing the importance of leadership andcommunity service as a moral and ethical duty.” Table 5d.2.1 documents the vast array ofservices provided by unit faculty. These include membership on various unit and campuscommittees, serving in a variety of administrative roles within the unit, and voluntary service in anumber of civic, professional, and religious organizations. As documented through faculty vitaeand the annual Serving as Examples publication, faculty service includes (but is not limited to)KEA-SP advisor; KTIP teacher educator; various state task forces and advisory committees;local councils; invited guest presentations; school consultant; school volunteer; church volunteer.25

Faculty also serve on the Teacher Education Admissions Committee (TEAC), the GraduateEducation Committee (GEC), and on various other committees at the institution.5e. Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty PerformanceUnit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance –Initial Teacher PreparationUnit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance –Advanced PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:There is a systematic process in place for the evaluation of part-time and full-time unit faculty.Part-time faculty teaching is assessed through student evaluations, which are completed at theconclusion of every course. Course evaluations for on-line courses include additional items thatspecifically address criteria related to on-line teaching. The department chair then provides asummary statement to each faculty member based upon his or her course evaluations, along withadditional comments and recommendations.A similar form, which includes a summary statement based on course evaluations, faculty selfevaluations,and observations, is used for providing feedback to full-time unit faculty. ThePolicies and Procedures manual states that “Each department chair will select the courses to beevaluated for each member of his/her department. . . Faculty members who have been at theUniversity of the Cumberlands for two years or less are to be evaluated in every course taught inthe evaluation semester” (Policies and Procedures Addendum, p. 15). Full-time faculty membersare required to submit an annual self-evaluation that includes a discussion of their teaching,scholarship, and service, with accompanying objectives and an action plan for continuedprofessional growth. Page 88 of the institutional report documents a number of changes that havebeen made as a result of the faculty assessment and review process.5f. Unit Facilitation of Professional DevelopmentUnit Facilitation of Professional Development – Initial TeacherPreparationUnit Facilitation of Professional Development – AdvancedPreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:Faculty vitae and other exhibit room documents indicate that faculty routinely attendprofessional meetings and conferences in order to enhance their professional knowledge andskills and to meet the objectives outlined in their annual growth plans. The institution providesfull-time faculty with $800 annually to support their professional development goals. Thesefunds can be used for memberships in professional organizations, for professional travel, and forother scholarly activities such as the development of publications. A limited number ofImmersion Grants are available to support “more intensive and extensive research and26

professional development experiences during the summer” (Policies and Procedures Addendum,p. 12), such as expenses associated with research or course development, attending classes atanother institution, or international travel.Additionally, faculty have been provided with training to assist them with on-line instruction andstudent advising. For example, faculty have received extensive instruction in the use of ANGELand Elluminate software embedded in the iLearn portal, as well as training in the use of theSunGard data management system and the university’s My UC portal. A portion of eachdepartment meeting is devoted to professional development such as sharing an article or sharinginformation acquired at conferences.Overall Assessment of Standard:A systematic review and evaluation process is in place to assure that unit faculty meet highstandards in teaching, scholarship, and service. Full-time and part-time faculty members in theEducation unit are qualified for their professional roles and have expertise in their specificteaching assignments. Unit faculty model best pedagogical practice, encourage candidatereflection and critical thinking, and assess candidates using a variety of assessment measures.Professional education faculty model professional practices in scholarship as it is defined by theinstitution. Service to the institution and the broader community is expected, and evidencesuggests that unit faculty provide a variety of services to the institution and to various civic,professional, and religious organizations. The unit implements a comprehensive facultyevaluation system and provides opportunities for faculty to grow professionally so that theymight achieve their professional goals.Areas for Improvement and Rationales:AFIs from last visit: Corrected - NoneAFIs from last visit: Continued - NoneNew AFIs - NoneRecommendation for Standard 5Initial Teacher PreparationAdvanced PreparationMetMetCorrections to the Institutional Report:None27

Standard 6: Unit Governance and ResourcesThe unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources, including informationtechnology resources, for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state, and institutionalstandards.Information reported in the Institutional Report for Standard 6 was validated in the exhibits andinterviews.X Yes □ No6a. Unit Leadership and AuthorityUnit Leadership and Authority – Initial Teacher PreparationUnit Leadership and Authority – Advanced PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:The Professional Education Unit of the University of the Cumberlands consists of the initialundergraduate, initial graduate, advanced and school professionals programs. It is composed ofall programs which prepare teachers or certified school personnel in the colleges of Education.These include: Elementary P-5, Middle School 5-9, Secondary 8-12, P-12 Art, Music, PE,Health, Business and Marketing 5-12, Special Education- LBD, Reading and Writing, SchoolCounseling, Instructional Leadership Principal and Other School Administration/Leadership.Review of the documentation verifies the organizational structure of the unit. The organizationis led by the chair of the department who oversees all the education programs. The programdirectors, (3 individuals directing the initial undergraduate, initial graduate, advanced and otherschool professionals programs) who are appointed by the chair, oversee the education programsat all three levels. The program coordinators (10 individuals) supervise the various fields ofstudy within the unit. The next level of the organizational chart is the course managers whoensure that the syllabi have common objectives, key assessments, and outcomes.There are two governance bodies that oversee the policies and procedures. The TeacherEducation and Admission Committee (TEAC) is responsible for the traditional initialundergraduate programs. The Graduate Education Committee (GEC) is responsible for theinitial graduate, advanced, and other school professionals programs. These committees areresponsible for curricular areas such as curricular changes, new programs, assessment datareviews, admission and retention of candidates into the education programs, adoption,development, and review of the unit’s policies. The Graduate Education committee consists of14 members. There are representatives from the graduate education program, the vice presidentfor academic affairs, the vice president for student services, the registrar, the teacher certificationofficer, and a library representative. The education department chair serves as the director ofgraduate studies and is the chair of the committee. There is also a graduate assistantrepresentative. The composition of the TEAC is composed of 30 members including chair of theeducation department (committee chair), the registrar (assistant committee chair), and the fulltimefaculty members of the education department, the teacher certification officer, and the chairof the academic department. The committee selects its own student representative. The review28

of the minutes and other documentation recognizes that there is P-12 representation at themeetings. This is also verified through interviews with school level administrators andsuperintendents, as discussed in the IR on page 91.The unit ensures that candidates have access to student support services such as advising andcounseling. There is an advising process in place in all unit programs. Based on interviews withcandidates and faculty, there is a key faculty member identified to assign faculty advisors foreach initial undergraduate candidate. At the initial graduate, advanced, and other schoolprofessionals level, candidates are assigned faculty advisors by the Graduate Advising Center(GAC). The role of the GAC is to register candidates for their initial classes, teach candidateshow to manage their own online registration, and provide assistance and support to advisors. Asper the documentation, the GAC also sends an orientation packet to students upon admission tothe university.The unit publishes its recruiting polices and its admission, retention and exit policies in theUniversity of the Cumberlands catalog. Admissions and recruiting polices are described clearlyand consistently in publications and catalogues. Academic calendars, catalogues, publications,grading policies, and advertising are accurate and current.6b. Unit BudgetUnit Budget – Initial Teacher PreparationUnit Budget – Advanced PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:The Education Department’s base budget in 2009-2010 was $4,895,657.00 compared to theuniversity’s $33,408,615.00. In all unit programs this represents 11.7% of the university’s totalannual budget. The unit also received $406,600.00 in private gifts, grants, and contracts in 2008-2009. This is a 6.2% increase since 2006-2007. The funding for the unit at all levels appearsadequate and comparable to that of other units.Financial reports indicate that the unit receives a budget for non-personnel costs which isallocated for items such as printing and equipment. The unit receives professional developmentmonies from an endowment fund which is separate from the unit budget. Each full-time facultymember receives $800.00 and part-time faculty receive $400.00 in all unit programs forconferences, workshops, and travel expenses. There is a separate budget allocated for unitpersonnel. The library provides the unit with two separate library allocations for theundergraduate and graduate levels. Faculty have input in how those monies are spent.Information was obtained through documentation and interviews.The recent changes to the budget clearly indicate an increase in the funding allocated foracademic expenses in the unit based on documentation and interviews. The unit added threefaculty positions in the summer of 2010 due to an increase in enrollment in the unit’s graduateand advanced programs. The budget allows all faculty to engage in professional development.29

6c. PersonnelPersonnel – Initial Teacher PreparationPersonnel – Advanced PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:The unit maintains an acceptable policy on the teaching load for undergraduate and graduatefaculty. A standard course load for initial undergraduate level faculty is twelve to fifteen hoursas indicated in the Policies and Procedures Addendum for Faculty. Most faculty with a terminaldegree teach only graduate (Advanced) courses and maintain nine hours each semester or nomore than eighteen for the fall and spring semester. Terminal degree faculty teaching acombination of both graduate (Advanced) and initial undergraduate typically teach nine hoursone semester and twelve hours the second semester. The majority of non-terminal degree facultyteaching at the initial undergraduate level teaches twelve hours each term. Summer teaching iscompensated by course and is not included in the faculty contract. Faculty course loads arereduced for serving in administrative positions and when supervising clinical practices.Supervisors of clinical practice normally do not exceed eighteen students for each full-timefaculty member per semester. This is based on a .67 faculty load ratio. P-12 educators assistfull-time faculty with the clinical supervision of candidates. Any overloads and reduction incourse load must be approved by the vice president of academic affairs. Faculty members, inaddition to their course loads, are required to have other responsibilities which include attendingdivision meetings, supervising advisees, and serving on advisory committees in the universityand the unit as demonstrated in the minutes and interviews. Faculty interviewed were preparedand were familiar with the conceptual framework and continuous assessment plan at each levelof the unit.The unit ensures that the use of adjunct faculty contributes to the integrity, coherence, andquality of the unit. They are hired based on qualifications including P-12 experience,scholarship, and potential service to the college. The adjunct faculty and graduate teachingassistants interviewed were enthusiastic regarding the support they received from the unit. Ininterviews adjunct faculty who teach in the initial graduate/advanced and other schoolprofessionals programs indicated that they communicate on a regular basis with the unit viaemail, phone calls, Skype, and face-to-face contacts. All full-time and adjunct faculty arerequired to participate in training on the Angel and Elluminate software prior to teaching online.This was verified in interviews with full-time and adjunct faculty and the information technologydirector.In 2002, the unit was cited with an area of improvement for Standard 6, indicating that the unitlacked adequate staff to support its data management needs at the initial and advanced levels. Inresponse to the area of improvement, since 2002 the unit hired a certification officer, a datamanagement administrative assistant, and an office manager. In 2005, the unit started theimplementation of LiveText, an electronic portfolio which provides additional assistance withdata management. In the 2006-2007 academic year, two full-time secretaries were employed,and two graduate assistants were hired part-time to provide clerical assistance. One graduateassistant position was upgraded to a full-time position. In 2007, a graduate online coordinator30

was hired. This position maintains communication with distance learners. In 2008, the supportstaff consisted of a certification officer, an office manager, a graduate online coordinator, adirector of admissions, three admissions counselors, and a public information officer. In 2009, aGraduate Advising Center was staffed by two individuals; a Graduate Admissions Center wasadded to recruit students into the graduate program; a data entry person was added to organizeand maintain all data; a mentor coordinator office staffed by two individuals with P-12administrative experience was created to observe candidates employed by school systems andtwo non-teaching graduate assistants were employed by the university. Documentation reflectedin the unit’s annual report from 2002-2009 indicated additional support staff was hired, andLiveText, an electronic portfolio, was implemented to assist the unit with data management.Reports also indicated additional financial resources were allocated to the unit and informationtechnology to support the growth of online programs as reflected in the IR on page 94. Thesupport personnel are adequate to meet the needs of the unit, thus meeting the area ofimprovement.6d. Unit FacilitiesUnit Facilities – Initial Teacher PreparationUnit Facilities – Advanced PreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:The IR on page 97 accurately describes the unit’s facilities as verified through documentation,interviews, and observations. These facilities -- classrooms, faculty offices, library/media center,and school facilities -- are adequate to support teaching and learning. Classrooms used by theunit are well equipped with projectors, laptops, smart technology, and DVD/VCR combos. Fulltimefaculty are provided their own offices and laptops. The needs for office space and computerusage for adjunct faculty are met as requested.6e. Unit Resources including TechnologyUnit Resources including Technology – Initial TeacherPreparationUnit Resources including Technology – AdvancedPreparationAcceptableAcceptableSummary of Findings:The unit provides state of the art technology for faculty and candidate use. The unit has madefinancial allocations for instructional support by adding a curriculum resource room withcomputers and a computer lab in the summer of 2010 for candidates. The lab houses 15 newcomputers and a copier. The unit also has access to two round tables which will enhance thecommunication between full-time and part-time faculty.The unit has access to numerous library resources, including scholarly databases with full textresources and electronic books as well as hard copies in the library. Students from all programs31

in the unit can request interlibrary loans. The director of the library allocates two separate fundsto the unit for faculty to purchase resources for student use. Candidates in the unit have access toLive Text, an electronic portfolio that gathers data for assessment. The university has developeda custom application known as EDUCAN that collects information from various forms. Thissystem is interfaced with SunGard, the university administrative system.Sufficient library and curricular resources are available and accessible for candidates and facultyat the institution. They are easily accessible to both faculty and candidates on campus and offcampus. The description of the library and media resources described in the IR on pages 98 and99 are accurate. This information was verified through interviews, technology demonstrations,observations, and documentation.Overall Assessment of Standard:The unit’s documents indicate that it has met Standard 6 at the acceptable level. The unit hasdemonstrated through observations, interviews, demonstrations, and documentation that it hasthe leadership, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources to prepare candidates to meetprofessional, state, and institutional standards.Areas for Improvement and Rationales:AFIs from last visit: CorrectedAFI Number & Text(Initial and Advanced) The unit lacksadequate staff to support its datamanagement needs.AFI RationaleAdditional staff has been hired to support theneeds of the unit.AFIs from last visit: Continued - NoneNew AFIs - NoneRecommendation for Standard 6Initial Teacher PreparationAdvanced PreparationMetMetCorrections to the Institutional Report:None32

IV.SOURCES OF EVIDENCEDocuments reviewedMissionUC websiteTable A.3.1. Student DemographicsTable 1. Professional Education FacultyTable 2. Initial Teacher Preparation Programs and Their Review StatusTable 3. Advanced Preparation Programs and Their Review StatusConceptual FrameworkTable C.3.1. Standards for Department of Education Programs,Table 2a.1.1. Alignment of Initial Undergraduate Professional Education Courses with State and UniversityStandards, and Departmental Knowledge StrandsTable 2a.1.2. Alignment of Initial Graduate Professional Education Courses with State and University Standards,and Departmental Knowledge StrandsTable 2a.1.3. Alignment of Advanced Courses with Professional, State and University Standards, andDepartmental Knowledge StrandsTable 2a.1.4. Assessment Alignment and Processing at Transition Points – Initial Undergraduate ProgramsTable 2a.1.5. Key Assessments Alignment for Initial Graduate Programs (MAT Alternative, Option 6) ,Table 2a.1.6. Key Assessments Alignment for Advanced ProgramsTable 2a.l.7. Key Assessments Alignment for Other School Professionals Programs1a.1. Table 4. Pass Rates on Content Licensure Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation1a.1. Table 1a.1.1. PRAXIS II Mean Scores for Initial Undergraduate Program Completers1a.1. Table 1a.1.2. PRAXIS II Mean Scores for Initial at the Graduate Level (MAT, Alternative Route Option 6)1a.1. Table 1a.1.3. 2009-2010 PRAXIS II Scores for All Initial Program Completers (F09-Sp10)1a.2. Table 1a.2.1 – Unit Content Knowledge Key Assessments by Program by Pillar1a.2. Rubrics for Initial Undergraduate e-Portfolio1a.2. Summative Evaluation1a.2. KTIP-IPR1a.2.. External evaluation student teacher’s standards-based unit1a.2. Table 1a.2.2. – KTS 1 measured by GPA, Undergraduate1a.2. Table 1a.1.1. PRAXIS II Mean Scores for Initial Undergraduate Program Completers1a.2. Table 1a.2.2. – KTS 1 measured by GPA, Undergraduate1a.2. Table 1a.2.3 – Mean GPA by Pillar, Undergraduate1a.2. Table 1a.2.4. Mean Scores for KTS 1 from Key Assessments, Initial Programs1a.2. Table 1a.2.4 disaggregated by certification1a.2. Table 1a.2.1 – Unit Content Knowledge Key Assessments by Program by Pillar1a.2. Graduate Education Admissions Writing Sample Rubric1a.2. KTIP-IPR1a.2. Summative Evaluation1a.2. Rubric for Graduate Portfolio Assessment1a.2. Capstone Rubric1a.2. Mentoring Handbook1a.2. Table 1a.2.5. Mean GPA by Pillar for Initial Graduates (MAT, Option 6)1a.2. Syllabus, EDOL 698 Supervised Student Teaching1a.2. Syllabus, EDOL/EDUC 699 Practicum1a.2. Table 1a.2.6. KTS 1 measured by Writing Sample, Initial Graduate (MAT, Option 6)1a.2. Graduate Education Admissions Writing Sample Rubric1a.2. Table 1a.2.7. KTS 1 Measured by IPR, Initial Graduate (MAT, Option 6)1a.2. KTIP-IPR1a.2. Table 1a.2.4. Mean Scores for KTS 1 from Key Assessments, Initial Programs1a.2. Summative Evaluation for A.S., Sp10 (MAT)1a.2. Table 1a.2.8. KTS 1 Measured by Summative Evaluations - Initial Graduates (MAT, Option 6)1a.2. Table 1a.2.9. KTS 1 by Targeted Course Grades, Initial Graduate (MAT, Option 6)33

1a.2. Table 1a.2.4. Mean Scores for KTS 1 from Key Assessments, Initial Programs1a.2. Table 1a.2.10 Summary Key Assessment Mean Scores for KTS 1, Initial Graduate1a.3. Table 1a.2.1 – Unit Content Knowledge Key Assessments by Program by Pillar1a.3. Table 1a.3.1. Mean GPA by Pillar - Advanced1a.3. Graduate Education Admissions Writing Sample Rubric1a.3. Conceptual Framework1a.3. Quality Enhancement Plan, 20061a.3. Individual Action Plan1a.3. Table 1a.3.2 - KTS 1 measured by Writing Sample, Advanced Level, Pillar IV1a.3. Table 1a.3.3. KTS measured by Targeted Course Grades, Advanced1a.3. Table 1a.3.1. Mean GPA by Pillar - AdvancedTable 1a.3.4. KTS measured by Portfolio (2007-09) and Comprehensive Exam (2009-10), Advanced1a.3. Education Department Faculty Meeting Minutes, January 8-9, 2009, p. 41a.3. Table 1a.3.5. Summary Key Assessment Mean Scores for KTS, Advanced1a.3. Table 1a.3.6. Rank I Special Education PRAXIS II Exam Scores1a.3. Table 1a.3.7. Compilation of 2010 Sample Comprehensive Exam responses, KTS 11a.4. University of the Cumberlands Employer Survey1a.4. Table 1a.4.1. Alignment of Follow-up Studies Questions to Kentucky Teacher Standards1a.4. Table 1a.4.2. Mean Score by KTS and UC Standards, New Teacher Survey1a.4. Table 1a.4.3. Disaggregated Mean Scores for New Teacher Survey by Question1a.4. Table 1a.4.4. Undergraduate All Follow-up Surveys by KTS1a.4. Stop-start-continue survey1a.4. Student Teacher Feedback Spring 20101a.4. Table 1a.4.1. Alignment of Follow-up Studies Questions to Kentucky Teacher Standards1a.4. Table 1a.4.2. Mean Score by KTS and UC Standards, New Teacher Survey1a.4. Advanced Program Graduate Survey Spring 20101a.4. Employer Survey (Graduate Program for Teacher Educators)1a.4. Table 1a.4.5. Initial Graduate and Advanced Follow-up Surveys by KTS1b.1. KTIP-IPR1b.1. Summative Evaluation1b.1. Rubrics for Initial Undergraduate e-Portfolio1b.1. External evaluation student teacher’s standards-based unit1b.1. Table 1b.1.1. Mean Scores for KTS 2, 3, 4, and 6 from Key Assessments1b.1. Table 1b.1.2. KTS 2, 3, 4, and 6 Measured by e-portfolio, Initial Undergraduate1b.1. Table 1b.1.1. Mean Scores for KTS 2, 3, 4, and 6 from Key Assessments1b.1. Summative Evaluation1b.1. Table 1a.2.10 Summary Key Assessment Mean Scores for KTS 1, Initial Graduate1b.1. Task C - Lesson Analysis and Reflection, LPS, F091b.1. Task E – modified for University of 1b.1. Task E, MAT - Assesses and Manages Professional Growth, CM,F091b.1. Task F modified for University of the Cumberlands MAT Leadership, TC, Sp091b.1. Modified Tasks G through J - Designing the Instructional Unit, JLP, Sp101b.1. Table 1b.1.1. Mean Scores for KTS 2, 3, 4, and 6 from Key Assessments1b.2. My Teaching Philosophy, EB, F081b.2. Rationale, EDOL 539, AL, Sp091b.2. Observation Journal, EDOL 549, KB, Sp091b.2. Table 1a.3.8. Compilation of 2010 Sample Comprehensive Exam responses, KTS 21b.2. Table 1a.3.9. Compilation of 2010 Sample Comprehensive Exam responses, KTS 31b.2. Table 1a.3.10. Compilation of 2010 Sample Comprehensive Exam responses, KTS 41b.2. Table 1a.3.12. Compilation of 2010 Sample Comprehensive Exam responses, KTS 61b.2. Table 1a.3.3. KTS measured by Targeted Course Grades, Advanced1b.2. Rubric for Graduate Portfolio Assessment1b.2. Table 1a.3.4. KTS measured by Portfolio (2007-09) and Comprehensive Exam (2009-10), Advanced1b.2. Table 1a.3.5. Summary Key Assessment Mean Scores for KTS, Advanced1b.3. Education Graduating Student Survey1b.3. Advanced Program Graduate Survey Spring 201034

1b.3. Employer Survey1b.3. Table 1a.4.4. Undergraduate All Follow-up Surveys by KTS1b.3. Table 1a.4.5. Initial Graduate and Advanced Follow-up Surveys by KTS1b.3. Table 1b.3.6. Aggregated Follow-up Studies Mean for KTS 2, 3, 4, and 6, 2007-20101c.1. EDAD/ADOL 634 Business Management in Public Schools - ISLLC Standard III Case Study1c.1. Lesson Plan Format “KTIP PLUS”1c.1. Tasks G, H, I, J – designing a unit plan1c.1. Field Experience Reflection Rubric – Pillar V1c.1. Incorrect reference in IR to Table 1c.1.1 – link should go with “Other than PRAXIS II PLT scores,Table 1c.1.1. PLT Data for Initial Programs”1c.1. Table 1c.1.2. Mean Scores for KTS 7, 8, 9, and 10 from Key Assessments should be the one referenced to thesentence, “aligns with KTS 7, 8, 9, and 10 that are measured using e-Portfolio scores at all three Pillars”1c.1. KTIP-IPR1c.1. Summative Evaluation1c.1. Rubrics for Initial Undergraduate e-Portfolio1c.1. External evaluation student teacher’s standards-based unit1c.1. Table 1c.1.2. Mean Scores for KTS 7, 8, 9, and 10 from Key Assessments1c.1. Task E - Professional Growth Plan, Undergraduate1c.1. TASK F (From the KTIP TPA) Leadership Plan, Undergraduate1c.1. Table 1c.1.2. Mean Scores for KTS 7, 8, 9, and 10 from Key Assessments1c.1. Table 1c.1.3. KTS 7, 8, 9, and 10 Measured by Summative Evaluations, Undergraduate1c.1. Table 1c.1.2. Mean Scores for KTS 7, 8, 9, and 10 from Key Assessments1c.1. Table 1c.1.1. PLT Data for Initial Programs1c.1. MAT reflection, “What I have learned this semester that might not necessarily be overtly graded”1c.1. Task D - Collaborate to Address Special Learning Needs, LC, Sp091c.1. Task E – modified for University of Cumberlands Option 6 - Assesses and Manages Professional Growth,AM, Sp091c.1. MAT Leadership Plan, “Everyday Math 101”, JW, F081c.1. Task E – modified for University of Cumberlands MAT - Assesses and Manages Professional Growth, EB,F081c.1. Task F modified for University of the Cumberlands Option 6 -Leadership, TC, Sp091c.1. Table 1c.1.2. Mean Scores for KTS 7, 8, 9, and 10 from Key Assessments1c.2. Table 1a.2.21c.2. Task A-1. Teaching and Learning Context1c.2. Task C – Lesson Analysis and Reflection1c.2. Task J-1 - Organizing and Analyzing the Results (Whole Class)1c.2. Professional Code of Ethics for Kentucky School Personnel 704 KAR 20:6801c.2. Table 1c2.1. Mean Scores for KTS 2 from Key Assessments1c.2. Table 1c.2.2. Mean Scores for KTS 8 from Key Assessments1c.2. Table 1d.2.1. Mean Scores for KTS 5 from Key Assessments1c.2. Table 1c.1.1. PLT Data for Initial Programs1c.2. Task C (Option 6)- Lesson Analysis and Reflection, CL, F081c.2. Student Teaching Blog (BT, Sp09)1c.2. Task I – Pre-assessment analysis – Option 6 – SH, F081c.2. Task J-1 - Organizing and Analyzing the Results (Whole Class) MAT, TA, Sp101c.2. MAT Capstone Rationale Template & Rubric, SH, Spring 20101c.2. Critique, EDUC 533, Sp061c.2. Incorrect link to Table 1c.1.2 for data from mean scores of the key assessments used throughout the programfor KTS 2.1c.2. Table 1c.2.2. Mean Scores for KTS 8 from Key Assessments1c.2. Table 1d.2.1. – Mean Scores for KTS 5 from Key Assessments1c.2. Table 1d.2.2. – Mean Scores for KTS 7 from Key Assessments1c.2. My Teaching Philosophy, EB, F081c.2. Reflective Journal MAT1c.2. Capstone Rationale, MAT, JM, F091c.3. Rationale, EDOL 539, SA, Sp0935

1c.3. Exit Portfolio Rationale, Leadership, KD, Sp091d.1. Task C1d.1. Task H1d.1. Task J1d.1. Table 1d.2.1. – Mean Scores for KTS 5 from Key Assessments1d.1. Table 1d.2.2. – Mean Scores for KTS 7 from Key Assessments1d.1. Task C, MAT, SP, F081d.1. Task C, MAT, LPS, F091d.1. Task H, MAT, ET, Sp091d.1. Task I, MAT, ET, Sp091d.1. Task J, MAT, KT, F081d.1. Student Teaching Blog, JA, Sp101d.1. Leadership Plan, MAT, SJ, F091d.1. Professional Growth Plan, Option 6, CM, F091d.2. Exit Portfolio Rationale, KD, S091d.2. REOL 632 assessment1d.2. Effective Planning and Teaching, MAOL 5321d.2. Special Education Evaluation, SPOL 6311d.3. Table 1d.2.3. KTS Indicators Related to Helping All Children Learn, Undergraduate1d.3. Table 1d.2.4. KTS Indicators Related to Helping All Children Learn, Initial Graduate and Advanced1e.1. Table 1e.1.1. Other School Professionals State Licensure Exam Scores and Pass Rate1e.2. Table 1e.2.1. GPA at Entrance and Exit for Other School Professionals1e.2. Rubric for School Counselor Portfolio Assessment (Pillar V)1e.2. Table 1e.2.2. Targeted Course Grades by Program, Other School Professionals1e.2. Table 1e.2.3. Targeted Course Grades by Program, 2007-20101e.2. Table 1e.2.4. Portfolio/Comprehensive Exam Mean Scores, 2007-20101e.2. Mentor Evaluation1e.2. Table 1e.2.5. External Evaluation by Program, 2007-20101e.2. Rubric for School Counselor Exit Portfolio (Pillar VI)1f.1. Table 1e.2.6. External Evaluation by Program, 2009-20101g.1. Dispositions Survey1g.2. Table 1g.1.1. Mean Score, Key Assessments for Dispositions, Initial Undergraduate1g.2. Table 1g.1.2. Aggregate Means from Key Assessments for Diversity Indicators1g.2. Table 1g.1.3. Mean Score from Key Assessments for Dispositions, Initial Graduate Program1g.2. Table 1g.1.4. Mean Score from Key Assessments for Dispositions, Advanced Program1g.2. Table 1g.1.5. Mean Score from Key Assessments for Dispositions, Other School Professionals1g.2. KTIP-IPR1g.2. Unit reflection1g.2. Portfolio Reflection, Undergraduate1g.2. Summative Evaluation1g.2. Dispositions Reporting Form1g.2. Recommendation for Graduate Program1g.2. KTIP-IPR1g.2. Summative Evaluation1g.2. Dispositions Survey1g.2. Old Portfolio Rubric1g.2. Capstone Rubric1g.2. Graduate Recommendation Form1g.3. KTIP-IPR1g.3. Graduate Satisfaction Survey1g.3. Employer Survey2a.1. Conceptual Framework2a.1. Continuous Assessment Plan2a.1. Table 2a.1.4. Assessment Alignment and Processing at Transition Points – Initial Undergraduate Programs2a.1. Table 2a.1.5. Key Assessments Alignment for Initial Graduate Programs (MAT Alternative, Option 6)2a.1. Table 2a.1.6. Key Assessments Alignment for Advanced Programs36

2a.1. Table 2a.1.7. Key Assessments Alignment for Other School Professionals Programs2a.1. Table 2a.1.1. Alignment of Initial Undergraduate Professional Education Courses with State and UniversityStandards, and Departmental Knowledge Strands2a.1. Table 2a.1.2. Alignment of Initial Graduate Professional Education Courses with State and UniversityStandards, and Departmental Knowledge Strands2a.1. Table 2a.1.3. Alignment of Advanced Courses with Professional, State and University Standards, andDepartmental Knowledge Strands2a.1. Table 6.1. System for Initial Undergraduate Programs: Transition Point Requirements and Key Assessments2a.1. Table 6.2. Unit Assessment System for Initial Graduate Programs: Transition Point Requirements and KeyAssessments2a.1. Table 6.3. Unit Assessment System for Advanced Programs: Transition Point Requirements and KeyAssessments2a.1. Comprehensive Exam Sample 12a.1. Comprehensive Exam Sample 22a.1. ISLLC Standard 2 Case Study2a.1. Option 6 Summative Evaluation2a.1. Option 6 KTIP-IPR2a.1. Standards-based course artifact (Case Study)2a.2. Individual Action Plan Policy2a.2. Individual Action Plan Template2a.2. KTIP-IPR2a.2. Summative Evaluation2a.2. Graduate Satisfaction Survey2a.2. EPSB New Teacher Survey Results (09-10)2a.2. Employer Survey2a.2. Continuous Assessment Plan2a.2. Individual Action Plan Template2a.2. Tables, 6.1; 6.2; 6.32a.3. 2006-07 Annual Assessment Report2a.3. 2007-08 Annual Assessment Report2a.3. 2008-09 Annual Assessment Report2a.3. Conceptual Framework2a.3. Continuous Assessment Plan2a.3. Table 2c.1.1. Selected Summary of Graduate Education Committee Assessment Actions2a.3. Unit Action Plan, May 2010 Assessment Retreat (Incorrect Link – correct document in folder)2a.3. Figure 2b.1.1. Flow of Assessment Data through the Unit2a.4. Fairness Table for Reliable Instrumentation - Department Forms and Rubrics - Initial Graduate2a.4. Undergraduate E-portfolio handbook2a.4. Graduate Handbook2a.4. Undergraduate Teacher Education handbook2a.4. Undergraduate Student Teaching Handbook2a.4. Graduate Student Teaching/Practicum Handbook2a.4. Mentor Handbook2a.4. School Counseling Practicum/Internship Handbook2a.4. School Counseling Site Supervisor Handbook2a.4. Undergraduate Supervising Teacher Handbook, and Graduate Supervising Teacher Handbook2a.4. External Evaluation Rubric2a.4. Table 2a.4.1. Inter-Rater Reliability Scores for External Evaluation P-12 Faculty and University Faculty2a.4. Table 2a.4.2. Triangulation of Assessments – Initial Undergraduate Programs2a.4. Table 2a.4.3. Inter-Rater Reliability for Capstone Evaluation: External P-12 Faculty and University Faculty2a.4. Table 2a.4.4. Triangulation of Assessments – Initial Graduate2a.4. Graduate Admissions Writing Sample Rubric2a.4. Summative Evaluations2a.4. KTIP-IPR2a.4. Comprehensive Exam Sample 12a.4. Comprehensive Exam Sample 237

2a.4. Writing Sample2a.4. Case Study Rubric2a.4. Summative Evaluation2a.4. Administrative Mentor Evaluation2a.4. Table 2a.4.5. Triangulation of Assessments – Advanced Programs2a.4. Portfolio Rubric (2007-2009)2a.4. Capstone Rubric2a.4. Field Experience Reporting Timesheet2a.5. Student Course Evaluation Instrument2a.5. Faculty Self- Assessment Example2a.5. Table 2a.5.1. Aggregated Faculty/Course Evaluations, Fall 2009 (4-point scale)2a.5. Student Teaching Program - Exit Interview Questions2a.5. Supervising Teacher Evaluation2a.5. Stop-Start-Continue Feedback Form2a.5. Stop-Start-Continue Summary Fall 20092a.5. EPSB New Teacher Surveys (web link)2a.5. KTIP-IPR (Undergraduate)2a.5. KTIP-IPR (Graduate)2a.5. Capstone Rubric2a.5. Graduate Satisfaction Survey2a.5. Employer Survey2a.5. Graduate Survey Data2a.5. Memorandum: Advisory Council Members of MA Ed Teacher Leader Redesign Program2a.5. Minutes, GEC Assessment Retreat, 3/3/102b.1. Table 2b.1.1. Reports Compiled and Presented in the Annual Assessment Retreat2b.1. Table 2b.1.1. Reports Compiled and Presented in the Annual Assessment Retreat2b.1. Figure 1, Candidate Preparation Model from the Conceptual Framework2b.1. Table 2b.1.2 Unit Assessment Personnel2b.2. Table 1a.1.3. 2009-2010 PRAXIS II Scores for All Initial Program Completers (F09-Sp10)2b.2. Table 1c.1.1. PLT Data for Initial Programs2b.2. University Student Handbook2b.2. Undergraduate Teacher Education Handbook, the Counselor Practicum Internship Handbook, the CounselorSite Supervisor Handbook, Graduate Catalog, the Graduate Education Handbook, the Graduate StudentTeaching/Practicum Handbook, the Graduate Supervising Teacher Handbook, and the Mentoring Handbook.2c.1. Figure 2b.1.1. Flow of Assessment Data through the Unit2c.1. Unit Organization Chart2c.1. TEAC Minutes, 2/18/102c.1. TEAC Minutes, 12/2/082c.1. Table 2c.1.1. Selected Summary of Graduate Education Committee Assessment Actions2c.1. GEC Minutes, 11/12/082c.1. TEAC Minutes, 12/12/072c.1. TEAC Minutes, 2/18/102c.1. TEAC Minutes 1/17/082c.1. Education Department Meeting Minutes 12/16/092c.1. Assessment Retreat Minutes, 5/13-14/102c.2. Stop-Start-Continue Survey2c.2. Student Teacher Feedback Spring 102c.2. GEC Minutes, 1/19/102c.2. Department Meeting Minutes, 2/10/102c.2. GEC Minutes, 3/3/102c.2. Department Minutes, 1/13/102c.2. Attachment to Minutes, 1/13/102c.2. GEC Minutes, 9/21/092c.2. Graduate Handbook2c.2. Department Minutes, 11/12/082c.2. Department Minutes, 2/10/1038

2c.2. Department Minutes, 10/29/082c.2. Department Minutes, 1/8/092c.2. KTIP Plus Lesson Plan Template2c.2. Department Minutes, 3/3/102c.2. Midpoint Administrative Case Study Example2c.2. Comprehensive Exam Example 12c.2. Comprehensive Exam Example 22c.2. Midpoint Assessment Example2c.2. Graduate Admissions Writing Sample Rubric2c.4. Table 2c.4.1. Routine Distribution of Initial Undergraduate Assessment Information2c.4. Table 2c.4.2. Routine Distribution of Initial Graduate Assessment Information2c.4. Table 2c.4.3. Routine Distribution of Advanced Programs Assessment Information2c.4. Professional Growth Plan – Modified Task E, Undergraduate2c.4. Registrar GPA letter2c.4. Individual Action Plan2c.4. Action Plan Example (Option 6)2c.4. Action Plan Example (Option 6)2c.4. Table 2c.4.3. Routine Distribution of Advanced Programs Assessment Information3a.1. TEAC Committee List3a.1. List of KY School Districts3a.1. Table 3b.2.1. Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program - Initial Undergraduate3a.1. Coordinator’s Meeting January 12, 2009 (Minutes)3a.1. Student Teacher Seminars3a.1. Stop-Start-Continue Survey - Student Teacher Feedback Spring 20103a.1. Student Teacher Seminars3a.1. GEC Committee List3a.1. Table 3b.2.2. Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program - Initial Graduate3a.1. Table 3b.2.3. Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program Advanced3a.1. SPOL 637 Syllabus - Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorders3a.1. Summer 2010 Course Schedule (web link)3a.2. Graduate Satisfaction Survey3a.2. Employer Survey3a.2. TEAC Reallocation of field hours - TEAC Meeting Minutes, 1/17/083a.2. Introduction to Effective Teaching Student Evaluation3a.2. Formative Evaluation (Undergraduate)3a.2. Summative Evaluation (Undergraduate)3a.2. Student Teacher Self-Evaluation (Undergraduate)3a.2. EXTERNAL EVALUATION STUDENT TEACHER’S STANDARDS-BASED UNIT3a.2. Coordinator’s Meeting, May 14, 20093a.2. Employer Surveys – collected every two years3a.2. Field experience example #1: Minutes, Education Department, 12/12/073a.2. Field experience example #2: TEAC Minutes, 1/17/083a.2. Guest Lecturer notes, Reading Recovery – Example #13a.2. P-12 Teacher: Reading & Language Arts Guest Lecturer – Example #23a.2. Student Evaluation P-12 Teacher: Guest Lecturer – Example #33a.2. Code of Ethics Discussion – Student Teacher Seminar Schedule3a.2. Table 3b.2.2. Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program Initial Graduate3a.2. Field Experience Evaluation Rubric3a.2. Recommendation Form for Graduate Program3a.2. Option 6 Formative Evaluation3a.2. Option 6 Summative Evaluation3a.2. Candidate Evaluation of District Based Mentor (Option 6)3a.2. Individual Action Plan3a.2. Employer Survey3a.2. Graduate Satisfaction Survey3a.2. Graduate Education Handbook, the Graduate Student Teaching Handbook, the Graduate Supervising Teacher39

Handbook, Mentoring Handbook3a.2. Supervising Teacher Self-Evaluation Checklist (Graduate Program)3a.2. Formative Evaluation, Option 63a.2. Summative Evaluation, Option 63a.2. Experience Log: Field Experience Reporting/Timesheet3a.2. Field Experience Evaluation Rubric3a.2. Recommendation for Graduate Program form3a.2. Field Experience Reporting/Timesheets3a.2. Feedback: Table 1a.3.7 - Compilation of 2010 Sample Comprehensive Exam responses, KTS 13a.2. Feedback: Table 1a.3.8 - Compilation of 2010 Sample Comprehensive Exam responses, KTS 23a.2. Feedback: Table 1a.3.9 - Compilation of 2010 Sample Comprehensive Exam responses, KTS 33a.2. Special Education Curriculum Request: Autism – SPOL 6373a.2. Implementation of Special Education Curriculum Request – Summer 2010 Schedule3a.2. Letters of Recommendation – Recommendation for Graduate Program form3a.2. Counselor Candidate’s Evaluation of Site supervisor - form3a.2. EVALUATION OF PRACTICUM/INTERN CANDIDATE3a.2. School Counseling Practicum and Internship Handbook3a.2. Graduate Education Handbook.3a.2. Example: Guest Speaker Online Chat3a.3. Supervising Teacher Agreement3a.3. Permission Form for Field Placement3a.3. District-based Mentor Form3a.3. KTIP-IPR3a.3. Advanced Candidate Field Experience3a.3. Mentor Agreement Form3a.4. Table 3a.4.1. Shared Expertise and Integration of Resources3a.4. Candidates Evaluate Supervising Teachers (Evaluation of P-12 Supervisors)3a.4. KTIP-IPR (Undergraduate)3a.4. Facilitate Clinical Experience Seminars: Sample Seminar list3a.4. Candidates Evaluate and Reflect: Student Teacher Feedback Spring 20103a.4. Candidates Evaluate Supervising Teachers3a.4. Supervising Teacher Evaluation and Reflection3a.4. KTIP-IPR3a.4. Professional Growth Plan: Option 63a.4. Formative Evaluation: Option 63a.4. Summative Evaluation: Option 63a.4. Self-reflection and evaluation: Option 63a.4. Evaluation of District Mentor: Option 63a.4. Graduate Survey: Option 63a.4. Individual Action Plan: MAT3a.4. Professional Growth Plan, Task E3a.4. Leadership Plan, Task F3a.4. Formative Evaluations3a.4. Summative Evaluations3a.4. Tables 5a.1.a, 5a.1.b, 5a.1.3. Instructors to Facilitate and Guide Candidates:3a.4. Practicum Internship Rubric: Rubric for School Counselor Portfolio Assessment (Pillar V)3a.4. P-12 Partner Schools3a.4. January 10, 2010: WGTK Radio-Public Counselor3a.4. Professional Development: P-12 Partners and Professionals3b.1. Folder 3b.1. CAP Tables 1, 2, 3, 4. CAP Tables 1 and 23b.1. Folder 3b.1. CAP Tables 1, 2, 3, 4. Initial Graduate Programs: CAP Tables 1 and 23b.1. Folder 3b.1. CAP Tables 1, 2, 3, 4. Advanced Programs: CAP Tables 3 and 43b.1. Folder 3b.1. CAP Tables 1, 2, 3, 4. Standards Based e-Portfolio: CAP Table 1 and 23b.1. Folder 3b.1. CAP Tables 1, 2, 3, 4. Graduation Application and TC-1 form: CAP Table 13b.1. Folder 3b.1. CAP Tables 1, 2, 3, 4. Graduate Program Aligned with Undergraduate Program: CAP Table 23b.1. Folder 3b.1. CAP Tables 1, 2, 3, 4. Pillar VI Practicum and Internship: CAP Table 440

3b.2. Table 3b.2.1 Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program: Initial Undergraduate3b.2. Table 3b.2.2 Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program: Initial Graduate3b.2. Table 3b.2.3 Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program: Advanced3b.2. Table 3b.2.4 Field Experiences and Clinical Practice by Program: Other School Professionals3b.3. Understanding of Student Learning, Content and Pedagogy: CAP Tables 1 & 23b.3. Understanding of Student Learning, Content and Pedagogy: CAP Tables 3 & 43b.3. Professional Standards KTIP: Performance Record3b.3. KTIP-IPR Lesson Plan Template and Rubric3b.3. ET Project C: Effective Teaching Lesson Plan3b.3. Lesson Rubric: Lesson Evaluation for Capstone Course3b.3. KTIP IPR Observation Instrument3b.3. Supervising Teacher Evaluations3b.3. e-Portfolio Rubric3b.3. Table 3b.3.1: Initial Undergraduate Program – Assessment of Conceptual Framework Strands by Coursesand Outcomes that Impact P-123b.3. Projects: Student Example3b.3. CAP Table 12: Initial Graduate and Advanced Program3b.3. Field Experience Rubric3b.3. KTS, ISLLC and/or KSC Standards Alignment: CAP Table 123b.3. Pillars V and VI: CAP Tables 3 and 43b.3. School Professionals Programs 3b.3. Connection: CAP Table 123b.3. Summative Rubric Form: Administrative Practicum Summative Assessment3b.4. e-Portfolio Rubrics3b.4. KTIP-IPR3b.4. External Evaluations3b.4. Supervising Teacher Evaluation3b.4. Reflect: Field Experience Reflections3b.4. KTIP-IPR, MAT (8-12 English)3b.4. Course Management Software: Online Course Technology (web link)3b.4. Application Software and Internet (web link)3b.4. Task I: Pre-assessment Analysis3b.4. Task J: Organizing and Analyzing the Results3b.4. KTIP- IPR3b.4. Summative Evaluations3b.4. Field Experience Rubrics3b.4. Field and Clinical Experiences: Example 13b.4. Field and Clinical Experiences: Example 23b.4. Counselor Portfolio Pillar V3b.4. Counselor Portfolio Pillar VI3b.4. Template: Field Experience Reporting3b.5. Contract: Supervising Teacher Agreement3b.5. Contract; Supervising Teacher Agreement3b.5. Table 3b.5.1 Expertise of P-12 Supervisors3b.5. Table 3b.5.2 Expertise of Option 6 District/School Based Mentors3b.5. Recommendations by the School Principal3b.5. Mentor Agreement Forms: Option 63b.5. Table 3b.5.3: Initial Graduate Clinical Semester P-12 Faculty 2008-20103b.5. Graduate Handbook3b.6. Student Teacher Handbook3b.6. Supervisor’s Handbook3b.6. Minutes from TEAC Meeting 12/2/083b.6. Mentoring Handbook3b.6. Graduate Supervising Teacher Handbook3b.6. Graduate Clinical Experience/Practicum Handbook (Correct title is Graduate Student Teaching/PracticumHandbook)3b.6. Video Training41

3b.6. KTIP-IPR: Modified for EDOL 698 and EDOL 6993b.6. Capstone Rubric Fall 20103b.6. EDOL 698: Supervised Student Teaching for MAT3b.6. EDOL 699: Practicum for Option 63b.6. Graduate Handbook3b.6. Agreement: Clinical Supervisor – Administrative Practicum Agreement3b.6. Supervising Counselor Handbook3b.6. Agreement: School Counselor Site Supervisor Agreement3b.7. Formative Evaluation3b.7. Standards Based Unit: Preplanning Document3b.7. Standards Based Unit: Evaluation3b.7. Supervising Teacher Handbook3b.7. Summative Evaluation3b.7. KTIP-IPR3b.7. Four Formative Evaluations: Option 63b.7. Course Website: Graduate Director3b.7. Blog: Graduate Director3b.7. Results: Option 6 Alternative Certification Program3b.8. Table 3b.8.1: Counseling Assessment Assignments3b.8. Evidence of Diverse Population3c.1. Table 3c.1.1 Completion Rate of Candidates Eligible for Clinical Practice3c.1. Task E: Professional Growth Plan3c.1. Self and Peer Evaluations: Video Guide Sheet3c.1. Formative Evaluations3c.1. Summative Evaluations3c.1. Evaluation of the Standard-based Unit3c.1. Seminars: Student Teaching Seminar Schedule3c.1. KTIP-IPR3c.1. Formative Assessment: Option 6 P-12 Faculty3c.1. Summative Assessment: Option 6 P-12 Faculty3c.1. 15 Hours: School-based Faculty Document3c.1. Task E: Professional Growth Plan3c.1. Self-evaluation: Video Guide Sheet3c.1. Formative Evaluation3c.1. Summative Evaluation3c.1. Evaluates: Administrative Practicum – Mentor’s Evaluation of Student Form3c.1. Rubric: Field Experience Reflection Rubric – Pillar V3c.1. Practicum Conference: ADOL 665, 667, 668, 669 Tentative Practicum Conference Agenda3c.3. Table 3c.3.1: Table of Reflection Experiences3c.3. Field Evaluation Form 1: Reflective Teaching Field Lesson Individual Evaluation3c.3. Field Evaluation Form 2: Project C Lesson Plan3c.3. Video Taped Lessons: Video Guide Sheet3c.3. Interaction Map: Student Teacher’s Interaction with Students3c.3. Professional Growth Plan: MODIFIED TPA TASK E3c.3. KTIP-IPR3c.3. Table 1b.1.1. Mean Score for KTS 2, 3, 4, and 6 from Key Assessments3c.3. Capstone Project: MAT Capstone Rationale Template & Rubric3c.3. Table 3c.3.2 Reflection and Component Analysis in Field and Clinical Courses in Advanced Programs3c.3. Table 3b.3.1 Initial Undergraduate Program – Assessment of Conceptual Framework3c.3. Table 3b.8.1 Counseling Assessment Assignments3c.4. Initial Undergrad Table 6.1: System for Initial Undergraduate Programs3c.4. Initial Grad Table 6.2: Unit Assessment System for Initial Graduate Programs3c.4. Advanced/Other Table 6.3: Unit Assessment System for Advanced Program3c.4. Table 6.1 System for Initial Undergraduate Programs3c.4. Table 6.2 Unit Assessment System for Initial Graduate Programs3c.4. Table 6.3 Unit Assessment System for Advanced Program42

3c.4. Table 6.3 Unit Assessment System for Advanced Program3c.5. Task C: Lesson Analysis and Reflection3c.5. Pillar III Rubric and Artifacts: Exit from Student Teaching3c.5. Counselor Portfolio Rubric Pillar V3c.5. Counselor Portfolio Rubric Pillar VI3c.5. ADOL 669: Lesson Plan - School Practicum: Administrative – Superintendent3c.5. ADOL 664: Practicum Experiences: Lesson plan from Syllabus3c.5. Practicum Experiences: ADOL 6643c.6. Table 3c.6.1 Required Field and Clinical Experiences3c.6. Table 3c.6.1 Required Field and Clinical Experiences3c.6. Table 3c.6.1 Field Hours3c.6. Timesheet: Field Experience3c.6. Table 3c.6.1 - Documented Experiences in Each Category (racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, linguistic,exceptionalities)3c.6. Table 4a.0.1 Overview of Systematic Approach to Diversity3c.6. Table 4a.2.4 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Advanced Programs3c.6. Courses that Require Field Hours – Table 4a.2.43c.6. Field Experience Time Sheet: Counseling4a. Table 4a.0.1 Overview of Systematic Approach to Diversity4a.1. Table 4a.2.2 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Initial Graduate Programs Supporting KnowledgeStrands4a.1. Table 4a.2.3 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Advanced Programs for Enhanced TeachingCredentials4a.1. Table 4a.1.0 Candidate Mastery of Diversity Proficiencies4a.1. Table 4a.1.1 Crosswalk for Kentucky Teacher, ISLLC/TSSA, and KCS Targeting Diversity CompetenciesAligned with the Conceptual Framework4a.1. Table 4a.1.2 Alignment of Initial Undergraduate Professionals Education Courses with DiversityProficiencies4a.1. Table 4a.1.3 Alignment of Initial Graduate and Advanced Courses with Unit’s Diversity Proficiencies4a.2. Table 4a.1.2 Alignment of Initial Undergraduate Professionals Education Courses with DiversityProficiencies Associated with KTS and UC Standards4a.2. Table 4a.1.3 Alignment of Initial Graduate and Advanced Courses* with Unit’s Diversity Proficiencies*Programs: IG = Initial Graduate, A = Advanced, OPS = Other School Professionals4a.2. Table 4a.2.1 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Initial Undergraduate Programs SupportingKnowledge4a.2. Table 4a.2.2 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Initial Graduate Programs Supporting KnowledgeStrands4a.2. Table 4a.2.3 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Advanced Programs for Enhanced TeachingCredentials4a.2. Table 4a.2.4 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Advanced Programs for Administrators and OtherSchool Professionals Supporting Knowledge Strands4a.2. Table 4a.3.1 Key Assessment Alignment with Diversity Proficiencies – Initial Undergraduate Programs4a.2. Table 4a.3.2 Key Assessment Alignment with Diversity Proficiencies – Initial Graduate Programs4a.2. Table 4a.3.3 Key Assessment Alignment with Diversity Proficiencies – Advanced Programs4a.2. Table 4a.3.4 Key Assessment Alignment with Diversity Proficiencies – Other School Professionals4a.2. Unit Diversity Plan4a.2. Table 4a.2.1 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Initial Undergraduate Programs SupportingKnowledge Strands – CP-Conceptual, S-Strategic, E-Evaluative, CM-Communicative4a.2. Table 4a.2.2 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Initial Graduate Programs Supporting KnowledgeStrands4a.2. Table 4a.2.1 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Initial Undergraduate Programs SupportingKnowledge Strands – CP-Conceptual, S-Strategic, E-Evaluative, CM-Communicative4a.2. Table 4a.2.2 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Initial Graduate Programs Supporting KnowledgeStrands4a.2. Table 4a.2.3 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Advanced Programs for Enhanced TeachingCredentials43

4a.2. Table 4a.2.4 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Advanced Programs for Administrators and OtherSchool Professionals Supporting Knowledge Strands4a.3. Table 4a.2.1 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Initial Undergraduate Programs SupportingKnowledge Strands – CP-Conceptual, S-Strategic, E-Evaluative, CM-Communicative4a.3. Table 4a.2.2 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Initial Graduate Programs Supporting KnowledgeStrands4a.3. Table 4a.2.3 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Advanced Programs for Enhanced TeachingCredentials4a.3. Table 4a.2.4 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Advanced Programs for Administrators and OtherSchool Professionals Supporting Knowledge Strands4a.3. Table 4a.1.1 Crosswalk for Kentucky Teacher, ISLLC/TSSA, and KCS Targeting Diversity CompetenciesAligned with the Conceptual Framework (CP-Conceptual S-Strategic E-Evaluative CM-Communicative)4a.3. Table 4a.2.1 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Initial Undergraduate Programs SupportingKnowledge Strands – CP-Conceptual, S-Strategic, E-Evaluative, CM-Communicative4a.3. Table 4a.3.1 Key Assessment Alignment with Diversity Proficiencies – Initial Undergraduate Programs4a.3. Table 4a.3.2 Key Assessment Alignment with Diversity Proficiencies – Initial Graduate Programs4a.3. Table 4a.2.1 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Initial Undergraduate Programs SupportingKnowledge Strands – CP-Conceptual, S-Strategic, E-Evaluative, CM-Communicative4a.3. Table 4a.3.1 Key Assessment Alignment with Diversity Proficiencies – Initial Undergraduate Programs4a.3. Table 2a.1.4. Assessment Alignment and Processing at Transition Points – Initial Undergraduate Programs4a.3. Table 1a.4.5. Initial Graduate and Advanced Follow-up Surveys by KTS4a.3. Table 1d.2.3. KTS Indicators Related to Helping All Children Learn, Undergraduate4a.3. Table 4a.3.2 Key Assessment Alignment with Diversity Proficiencies – Initial Graduate Programs4a.3. Table 2a.1.5. Key Assessments Alignment for Initial Graduate Programs (MAT Alternative, Option 6)4a.3. Table 1a.4.5. Initial Graduate and Advanced Follow-up Surveys by KTS4a.3. Table 1d.2.4. KTS Indicators Related to Helping All Children Learn, Initial Graduate,Advanced4a.3. Table 4a.3.3 Key Assessment 4a.3. 4a.3. Alignment with Diversity Proficiencies – Advanced Programs4a.3. Table 4a.3.4 Key Assessment Alignment with Diversity Proficiencies – Other School Professionals4a.3. Table 1a.4.5. Initial Graduate and Advanced Follow-up Surveys by KTS4a.3. Table 1d.2.4. KTS Indicators Related to Helping All Children Learn, Initial Graduate and Advanced4a.3. Table 4a.3.4 Key Assessment Alignment with Diversity Proficiencies – Other School Professionals4a.3. Table 1a.4.5. Initial Graduate and Advanced Follow-up Surveys by KTS4a.3. Table 4a.2.1 Diversity Components in Core Courses in Initial Undergraduate Programs SupportingKnowledge Strands – CP-Conceptual, S-Strategic, E-Evaluative, CM-Communicative4b. Faculty Handbook4b. 4b.2.3 Course Hours Taught by Ethnic Minority Faculty4b.1. Table 4b.2.1 Unit Full-Time Faculty4b.1. Table 4b.2.2 Unit Part-time Faculty Diversity4b.1. 4b.2.3 Course Hours Taught by Ethnic Minority Faculty4b.1. Table 4b.3.1 Faculty Demographics 2009-20104b.1. Table 4b.2.1 Unit Full-Time Faculty4b.1. Table 4b.3.1 Faculty Demographics 2009-20104b.1. Table 4b.2.1 Unit Full-Time Faculty4b.1. Table 4b.2.2 Unit Part-time Faculty Diversity4b.1. 4b.2.3 Course Hours Taught by Ethnic Minority Faculty4b.1. Table 4b.3.1 Faculty Demographics 2009-20104b.1. Table 4b.2.1 Unit Full-Time Faculty4b.1. Table 4b.2.2 Unit Part-time Faculty Diversity4b.1. 4b.2.3 Course Hours Taught by Ethnic Minority Faculty4b.1. Table 4b.3.1 Faculty Demographics 2009-20104b.1. Table 4b.2.1 Unit Full-Time Faculty4b.1. Table 4b.2.2 Unit Part-time Faculty Diversity4b.1. 4b.2.3 Course Hours Taught by Ethnic Minority Faculty4b.2. Table 4b.2.1 Unit Full-Time Faculty4b.2. Table 4b.2.2 Unit Part-time Faculty Diversity44

4b.2. Table 4b.3.1 Faculty Demographics 2009-20104b.2. 4b.2.3 Course Hours Taught by Ethnic Minority Faculty4b.3. Table 4b.3.1 Faculty Demographics 2009-20104b.3. Table 4.b.3.2 Diversity Research Interests and Experiences of Faculty4b.3. 4b.2.3 Course Hours Taught by Ethnic Minority Faculty4c.1. Table 4c.2.1 Candidate Demographics4c.2. Table 4c.2.1 Candidate Demographics4c.3. E-mails showing recruiting & retention of diverse candidates4c.1. Table 5a.1.a Full-Time Faculty Qualification Summary4c.1. Individual Action Plan4d.1. Table 4d.2.1 Demographics on Sites for Clinical Practice in Initial and Advanced Programs4d.1. Laurel Day Center Pictures4d.1. Table 1d.2.3. KTS Indicators Related to Helping All Children Learn, Undergraduate4d.1. Table 4d.2.1 Demographics on Sites for Clinical Practice in Initial and Advanced Programs4d.1. Table 1d.2.4. KTS Indicators Related to Helping All Children Learn, Initial Graduate and Advanced4d.1. Table 4d.2.1 Demographics on Sites for Clinical Practice in Initial and Advanced Programs4d.2. Table 4d.2.1 Demographics on Sites for Clinical Practice in Initial and Advanced Programs4d.2. Table 1b.1.1. Mean Scores for KTS 2, 3, 4, and 6 from Key Assessments4d.2. Table 4b.2.1 Unit Full-Time Faculty5a.1. Table 5a.1.a Full-Time Faculty Qualification Summary5a.1. Table 5a.1.a. Full-Time Faculty Qualification Summary5a.1. 5a. 1.b. Faculty Full-time to University—Part-time to Unit5a.1. 5a. 1.b. Faculty Full-time to University—Part-time to Unit5a.1. Table 5a.1.3. Faculty part-time to Unit5a.1. Faculty part-time to Unit5a.2. Table 5a.1.a Full-Time Faculty Qualification Summary5a.2. Table 5a.1.a Full-Time Faculty Qualification Summary5a.2. Table 5a.1.3 Faculty part-time to Unit5a.3. Table 3b.5.1. Expertise of P-12 Supervisors Initial Undergraduate5a.3. Table 3b.5.2. Expertise of Option 6 District/School Based Mentors5a.3. Table 3b.5.3. Initial Graduate Clinical Semester P-12 Faculty 2008-20105a.4. Table 5a.1.a Full-Time Faculty Qualification Summary5b.1. Conceptual Framework5b.1. Table 2a.1.1. Alignment of Initial Undergraduate Education Courses with Standards, Knowledge Strands5b.1. Table 2a.1.2. Alignment of Initial Graduate Education Courses with Standards, Knowledge Strands5b.1. Table 2a.1.3. Alignment of Advanced Courses with Standards, Knowledge Strands5b.1. . Table 5b.1.a. Summary of how faculty instruction reflects the conceptual framework5b.2. Applied research project5b.2. Quality Enhancement Plan5b.3. Table 5b.1.a. Summary of how faculty instruction reflects the conceptual framework5b.4. University’s Course Portal – ILearn (web link)5b.4. ILearn Technical Support (web link)5b.4. Trainings and Tutorials (web link)5b.4. Unit Website (Graduate) (web link)5b.4. Unit Website (Undergraduate) (web link)5b.4. University of the Cumberlands (web link)5b.4. The OWL at Purdue (web link)5b.4. Record Mini-Lessons or Entire Classes Jennifer’s class recording (web link)5b.5. Heffern Memo July 95c.1. Handbook: Policies and Procedures Addendum for Faculty – Located on the Reference Table5c.2. Table 5a.1.a Full-Time Faculty Qualification Summary5c.2. Table 5c.2.1. Aggregated Scholarship Activities Engaged in by Full-Time Faculty 2008-20105d.1. Handbook: Policies and Procedures Addendum for Faculty5d.1. STANDING COMMITTEES OF UNIVERSITY OF THE CUMBERLANDS Committee Assignments5d.1. Faculty Self-Evaluation Report5d.1. Table 5d.2.1. Community, Institutional and Unit Service45

5d.2. Table 5a.1.a Full-Time Faculty Qualification Summary5d.2. Table 5d.2.1 Community, Institutional and Unit Service5d.2. Table 5d.2.1 Community, Institutional and Unit Service5e.1. Faculty Evaluation Instrument5e.1. Course Evaluation Instrument5e.1. Self-assessment: Peer and Self Evaluation Modeling Best Practices5e.1. Individual Action plan5e.2. Table 2a.5.1. Aggregated Faculty/Course Evaluations, Fall 20095e.3. Plan for growth and improvement5e.3. Table 5a.1.a Full-Time Faculty Qualification Summary5e.3. Table 5c.2.1. Aggregated Scholarship Activities Engaged in by Full-Time Faculty 2008-20105e.3. Table 5a.1.a. Full-Time Faculty Qualification Summary5e.3. Table 5d.2.1. Community, Institutional and Unit Service5f.2. Table 4b.2.1. Unit Full-Time Faculty5f.3. Table 5a.1.a. Full-Time Faculty Qualification Summary5f.3. Faculty Full-time to University—Part-time to Unit5f.3. Table 5a.1.3. Faculty part-time to UnitOpt. Table 1a.3.8. Compilation of 2010 Sample Comprehensive Exam responses, KTS 2Opt. Table 1a.3.9. Compilation of 2010 Sample Comprehensive Exam responses, KTS 2Opt. Table 1a.3.10. Compilation of 2010 Sample Comprehensive Exam responses, KTS 4Opt. Table 3.11. Compilation of 2010 Sample Comprehensive Exam responses, KTS 56a.1. Unit Organization Chart6a.1. Table 6a.1.1. Undergraduate and Graduate Coordinators and Courses6a.1. Table 6a.3.1. Publication Responsibilities6a.2. Policies and Procedures Addendum for Faculty6a.2. Table 6.1. System for Initial Undergraduate Programs: Transition Point Requirements and KeyAssessments6a.2. Table 6.2. Unit Assessment System for Initial Graduate Programs: Transition Point Requirements and KeyAssessments6a.2. Table 6.3. Unit Assessment System for Advanced Programs: Transition Point Requirements and KeyAssessments6a.3. Table 6a.3.1. Publication Responsibilities6a.5. Committee List, GEC, TEAC6a.5. Employer Survey6a.5. GEC Minutes – 1/19/20106a.5. Policies and Procedures Addendum for Faculty6a.5. Teacher Education/Admissions Committee6a.5. Teacher Leader Redesign Memo6a.6. Core Standards for Math email6b.1. Table 6b.1.1. IPEDS Related Survey Summaries6b.1. Table 6b.1.2. Budget to Actual Education Compared to Clinical Department Comparatives6b.1. Table 6b.1.1. IPEDS Related Survey Summaries6b.2. Table 6b.2. Monthly Budget Report - Departmental Expenses6b.2. Table 6b.2.1. Unrestricted Detail by Division: Budget to Actual By Department Summary6c.1. Policies and Procedures Addendum for Faculty – Faculty Evaluation6c.1. Committee List6c.1. Table 6c.1.1. Faculty Teaching Load6c.1. Policies and Procedures Addendum for Faculty6c.2. Table 6c.2.1. Qualifications of University Coordinators, Initial Graduate6c.2. Policies and Procedures Addendum for Faculty, 20096c.3. Table 6c.1.1. Faculty Teaching Load6c.3. Table 6c.2.1. Qualifications of University Coordinators, Initial Graduate6c.4. Course Manager Report6c.5. Unit Support Staff6c.5. Job Descriptions46

6c.6. Faculty Development Funds6d.1. 6e.2. Graduate Education Orientation Packet6d.1. Hagan Library Bookmarks - Bookmark 16d.1. Hagan Library Bookmarks - Bookmark 26d.1. Hagan Library Bookmarks - Bookmark 36d.1. Hagan Library Bookmarks - Bookmark 46d.1. Hagan Library website6e.1. Table 6e.1.1. Departmental Allocation Budgets (2004-2010) – Education Program Levels6e.1. Hagan Library and Technology Information6e.1. Bookmark 56e.2. Graduate Education Orientation Packet6e.2. Table 6e.1.1. Departmental Allocation Budgets (2004-2010) – Education Program Levels6e.4. Hagan Library and Technology Information6e.4. Library Resources Bookmark 66e.4. Table 6e.1.1. Departmental Allocation Budgets (2004-2010) – Education Program Levels6e.4. Andersen Bldg Curriculum Center Bookmark 76e.5. UC Website6e.5. Graduate application6e.5. Undergraduate Financial Aid6e.5. Graduate Financial Aid6e.5. University Bookstore6e.5. Instructional TechnologyGeneral:Institutional ReportContinuous Assessment PlanConceptual FrameworkUndergraduate Teacher Education HandbookUndergraduate Supervising Teacher HandbookUndergraduate Student Teaching HandbookUndergraduate E-portfolio handbookUndergraduate CatalogGraduate Education CatalogGraduate Education HandbookGraduate Supervising Teacher HandbookGraduate Student Teaching/Practicum HandbookSchool Counseling Practicum/Internship HandbookSchool Counseling Site Supervisor HandbookMentoring HandbookQuality Enhancement Plan (QEP)Faculty Policies and Procedures ManualEPSB 2002 Report for Continuing Accreditation47

Persons interviewedAdministrationDr. James H. Taylor, PresidentDr. Larry Cockrum, Vice President, Academic AffairsDr. Mike Colegrove, Vice President for Student ServicesSteve Morris, Vice President, Business ServicesDr. Tom Fish, Associate Academic DeanEmily Meadows, RegistrarErica Harris, Director of AdmissionsDonna Stanfill, Director of Graduate AdmissionsEducation DepartmentConnie BrookinsKim BrownTyrone BynoeMelanie CardellGarnet ChrismanMichael ColegroveRobert GlassMelissa GibsonKaren GoldmanRobert Heffern, ChairKeith LakesTracy McAbeeDarlene McBurneyMack McCaryDavid MontgomerySusan RoseGary PateIona PatrickNorma PatrickFred SagesterJennifer WoodruffLynn WoolseyArts and Science FacultyOline Carmical, Jr.Bob DunstonKathy FishGary GibsonJoan HembreeBruce HicksConnie HowardJohn HymoDiane Jamison48

Christopher LeskiwJames ManningJennifer MarshVonda MooreLawrence NewquistCindi NortonAl PilantJolly SharpAlvin SharpeJeff SmoakJulie TanDennis TrickettHaley TurnerSusan WeaverJane WhitakerKTIP FacultyKimberly BrownGarnet ChrismanIona PatrickNorma PatrickJennifer WoodruffOption 6 and University SupervisorsSharon AppleKimberly BrownMisty BuchananGarnet ChrismanSue CodyMelissa GibsonNorma PatrickTeacher Education Admissions CommitteeKimberly BrownTyrone BynoeMelanie CardellChad ChrismanGarnet ChrismanMargaret CombsMichael EskayTom FrazierKaren GoldmanJohn HymoElizabeth LasleyEmily MeadorsCindi Norton49

Gary PateAngela PrindleSusan RoseKeith SemmelJeff SmoakJulie TanDennis TrickettEric WakeJennifer WoodruffLynn WoolseyTodd YetterGraduate Education CommitteeAnita BowmanKimberly BrownTyrone BynoeKaren GoldmanJohn HymoSherryll JonesJames KeyEmily MeadorsCindi NortonGary PateSusan RoseJeff SmoakDennis TrickettMallory TurnerJennifer WoodruffLynn WoolseyJan WrenDepartment ChairsGina Bowlin, Human Services and Criminal JusticeMargaret Combs, BusinessBob Dunston, ReligionRobert Heffern, EducationJohn Hymo, Math and PhysicsTom Frazier, Modern Foreign LanguagesCindi Norton, Health, Exercise & Sport ScienceEd Perkins, Physician Assistant ProgramFred Sagester, EducationKeith Semmel, Communication and Theatre ArtsJeff Smoak, MusicDennis Trickett, PsychologyJulie Tan, ChemistryEric Wake, History and Political Science50

Russell Weedman, ArtAdjunct FacultyRobert BanksStan BippusMelanie CardellRussell GrayNancy KolodziejCrystal VailKathleen VettorelloSupport StaffKathy Bailey, Office AssistantWilliam Bush, Graduate AdvisingMarius Cozmanciuc, Data Entry ManagerDonnie Grimes, Director of Information TechnologySherryll Jones, Certification OfficerKarla Lager, Director of Graduate Advising CenterTerri Lowe, Graduate AdvisingKim White, Office ManagerP-12 PartnersSharon Apple, Resource TeacherDavid AtwoodDiana Baker, ESL TeacherJeannie Broyles, Cooperating TeacherJennifer Bryant, Cooperating TeacherSuAnne Bryant, Cooperating TeacherLeAnne BurnsDennis Byrd, SuperintendentMelissa Conlin, Cooperating TeacherLoren Connell, Director of InstructionAmon Couch, Assistant SuperintendentFonda Crawford, PrincipalMichelle Creekmore, Cooperating TeacherAngie Douglas, Cooperating TeacherJennifer Faulkner, Cooperating TeacherDana Hale, University CoordinatorRoddy Harrison, Supervising TeacherDeborah Hauser, PrincipalSummer Lewis, PsychologistDerrick Lowrie, Resource TeacherJoy Mack, Cooperating TeacherStacy Manning, Cooperating TeacherDiana Maxey, Supervising TeacherEd McNeel, Superintendent51

Debbie Owens, CounselorRegina Paul, PrincipalScott Paul, SuperintendentGary Peters, PrincipalRachele Price, Resource TeacherCatharine Renfro, Resource TeacherMelissa Ricket, Cooperating TeacherKen Siler, Cooperating TeacherJohn Silva, PrincipalCharlotte Smith, Cooperating TeacherAlan Sweet, PrincipalEd Travney, Supervising TeacherPaula Trickett, PrincipalJoy WilliamsArthur WrightStudent Organization RepresentativesMadison BranstetterHae In ChaMollie CreechMorgan PrestonAmy RobertsJessica WimmersUndergraduate CandidatesKeisha BassDebra IlesMarisa LobaczAndrew PetreyMorgan PrestonCalep SargenerStacy StanettTiffany VanoverErin WhiteGraduate CandidatesJulia AkinJohn CrisologiSandra FreshourBarry LeeAngela PrindleSherry ReedBrian SchaadMallory TurnerVirginia WestLauren York52

Recent GraduatesDana HaleSteven MosesJosh PatrickLisa Potter-SmithSchools VisitedLaurel County Day Treatment CenterOak Grove ElementaryHopkins ElementaryWhitley County Intermediate SchoolWhitley County High SchoolWilliamsburg Independent53

Part CEPSB Annual Report (for state-only accredited institutions)University of the Cumberlands – January 2012D. Areas for Improvement: NewOne area for improvement was cited in Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation:(Advanced) The assessments being used in the Reading Specialist program are notanchored in the specialty professional association (IRA) and the Kentucky Teacher Standards(KTS).The Reading & Writing Program at University of the Cumberlands has undergone a completereview. All syllabi have been revised to meet the ARI identified by EPSB. The NCTE/IRA, IRA2012 special professional association standards have been added to all syllabi, including the IRA2010 standards. The upcoming revision of the NCTE standards will be added after they arereleased later in 2012. Further, the KTS, NCTE/IRA, IRA 2012 standards and the EPSB themeshave been identified for each assignment in each course in a table titles: Alignment of CourseObjectives, Tasks and Outcomes as related to Standards, Themes and Initiatives [Sample tablebelow]. These standards are reviewed by the professors as part of their introductory presentationof the course content and the assignments of the course. Chat content throughout the termfocuses on the standards that undergird the course content and the overall program.Standard 6 of the 2010 IRA standards will have additional requirements for candidates beginningin 2012. Specifically, Standard 6.4 will be addressed by requiring candidates to join local or stateprofessional organizations during their program at UC.ENOL 532 Course ObjectivesAt the conclusion of this class,each candidate who earns apassing grade must havedemonstrated:Standards : Ky. TeacherStandards, NCTE/IRA, andUC Standards/EPSBThemes (Diversity, Literacy,Assessment, Closing theAchievement Gap, SchoolSafety)IRA Standards(Please see the nextpage for the fullstandards)Learning Tasks /ProgramOutcomes (SignatureAssessments*)1.1 the ability to construct dailyand unit plans for the variouscomponents of the English/ LanguageArts curriculum in relation to theKentucky Core Academic Standards(K-CAS): writing, grammar, andliteratureKTS 1, 2, 6, 10NCTE 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12Diversity, Literacy, Assessment1.1,2.1, 2.2, 2.3,3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4,4.1, 4.2, 4.3* 6-day unit lesson planassignmentWeekly writing scheduleassignment30-minute lesson plan in the54

5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 field experienceKTS 1* 6-day unit assignment1.2 knowledge of resourcematerials concerning instructionaltechniques for English fromelectronic sources such as ERIC andthe NCTE website.NCTE 1, 3, 7Diversity, Literacy, Assessment1.1, 2.3,4.2,5.1, 5.430-minute lesson plan in thefield experienceField experience reflectionDiscussion postingsChatsKTS 1, 2, 51.3 ability to demonstratewriting across the curriculumthrough in-class, teaching situationsand mock grading sessionsNCTE 4, 5, 6, 7, 12Diversity, Literacy, Assessment1.1,2.2,5.1, 5.2, 5.3,Weekly writing scheduleactivity & Mock gradingsession activity content in chat* 6-day unit: writing 4required activitiesKTS 1, 21.1, 1.31.4 knowledge of learning andteaching styles in the creation ofcurricular componentsNCTE 1, 3, 4, 5, 7Diversity, Literacy, Assessment2.1, 2.2,3.1, 3.2,4.1, 4.2,Learning and teaching stylesactivity ~ personal analysisdocument and philosophicalunderstanding posting5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4KTS 1, 21.1, 1.2,1.5 knowledge of basic writingstrategies and techniquesNCTE 1, 3, 4, 5, 7Diversity, Literacy, Assessment2.1, 2.2, 2.3,4.1, 4.2, 4.35.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4* 6-day unit: writing 4required activities Weeklywriting schedule activity &Mock grading session activitycontent in chat1.6 knowledge of grammartheory for the teaching situationKTS 1, 2, 3NCTE 1, 3, 4, 5, 6Diversity, Literacy, Assessment1.1, 1.2,2.1, 2.2, 2.3,4.1, 4.2, 4.3* 6-day unit: Grammar: 2required mini-lessons ingrammar activities5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.41.7 knowledge of how writingcomponents can enhance thestudent’s portfolioKTS 1, 2, 3NCTE 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12Diversity, Literacy, Assessment1.1, 1.2,2.1, 2.2,Weekly writing scheduleactivityMock grading session activitycontent in chat55

1.8 Demonstrates professional,courteous behaviors in all aspects ofthe course, including developingoriginal products, eschewingplagiarism, adhering to copyrightguidelines, maintaining student &colleague confidentiality, and usingappropriate language use in oral andwritten communications.KTS 1, 6, 7, 11, 12,IRA/NCTE 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,11, 126.1, 6.2, 6.3Cooperative Chats, Chatpresentations, Discussionpostings, written reflections,6-day unit*, field experienceobservations & interviewsThe second area for improvement was cited in Standard 4: Diversity:(Initial and Advanced) Evidence does not indicate that all candidates interact withdiverse faculty members.The unit is committed to ensuring that at least one course in each program is taught or co-taughtsolely by diverse faculty. While we have not yet achieved that goal, we are gradually focusingthe work of diverse faculty members toward it. The following chart shows the courses whichhave at least 50% of their sections taught by diverse faculty.Course Taught by DiverseFaculty member(s) 2011-2012ADOL 634Programs in Which the Course is LocatedInstructional Leadership, Superintendent, Directorof Special EducationELMS 335 Initial Licensure Undergraduate Middle School 100%EDOL 639 All MAT Programs, Rank I Teacher 75%ADOL 637 Director of Special Education, Superintendent 50%EDOL 643 MAED Teacher Leader, Rank I Teacher 100%EDOL 562 MAED Teacher Leader 100%ADOL 632Instructional Leadership, Director of PupilPersonnel, Director of Special Education, Supervisorof InstructionEDOL 537 MAED Middle School, MAT Middle School 100%EDOL 547 Rank I Teacher 100%EDOL 542 MAED Teacher Leader, Rank I Teacher 100%Percentage of Sections ofthe Course Taught ByDiverse Faculty 2011-201267%75%From the above, it can be seen that current candidates in some programs cannot complete theprogram without interactions with one or more diverse faculty members. These include theMAED Teacher Leader program, Rank I Teacher programs, MAED and MAT Middle Schoolprograms, and the Undergraduate Middle School program. In several other programs 50% ormore of the sections of at least one required course are currently taught by diverse faculty. Theseinclude all MAT programs, the Instructional Leadership – Principal programs (MAED and56

certification), and Rank I, Ed.S. and certification programs for Superintendent, Director ofSpecial Education, Director of Pupil Personnel, and Supervisor of Instruction.We have yet to make as much headway in ensuring that candidates in the following programshave interactions with diverse faculty: Undergraduate elementary and secondary programs, theschool counseling program, Rank I Special Education program, and the Reading and WritingMAED program. In addition to seeking additional qualified faculty applicants with diversebackgrounds, we are identifying professionals in P-12 schools and districts with diversitycharacteristics who might serve as “co-teachers” in some of the classes of these programs inorder to ensure that all candidates enjoy positive interactions with diverse faculty.57