UK College of Education

Institutional Report Addendum

This Institutional Report Addendum is prepared in response to questions and concerns identified in the Offsite Review Report. The Addendum is structured around the six NCATE standards and has three sections within each standard: (1) clarifications or corrections of content in the Offsite Review Report, (2) responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, and (3) if appropriate, updated information for fall 2015 as related to each standard.

Exhibits are noted throughout the IR Addendum narrative. The legend for exhibits in the IR Addendum indicates that the exhibit is an Addendum exhibit (ADD) followed by the number of the standard, the number of the question, and the number for the exhibit within the question. For example, the notation ADD 1.1.1 indicates the exhibit is an Addendum exhibit for Standard 1, Question 1, Exhibit 1. ADD 1.1.2 indicates the exhibit is an Addendum exhibit for Standard 1, Question 1, Exhibit 2.

As indicated in the Institutional Report and IR exhibits, this accreditation is an NCATE legacy visit and, thus, terminology related to NCATE standards and processes is used throughout the IR Addendum and documentation.

NOTE FOR FIREFOX USERS (click to expand)

Internet Explorer (Windows), Chrome (Windows & Macintosh) and Safari (Macintosh) can access all features of this site without issue.

Site visitors using Firefox might encounter the following issue:
Clicking on a PDF in the folder structure (right side of page) launches the built-in Firefox PDF previewer. If the PDF contains links to external webpages, in the Firefox PDF previewer these links will not work. The solution for this issue is to download the PDF and open with Adobe Acrobat viewer or Adobe Acrobat.

For visual instruction on the solution to this issue, float your mouse Firefox Exhibit Workaround2



Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

Clarification from the Offsite Review Report, section 1.1, p. 3 (click to expand)

1. The Offsite Review Report indicates the unit has 22 advanced programs. Advanced programs in the unit include three teacher leader master’s programs (educational leadership studies, interdisciplinary early childhood education, special education), six other school professional programs (school media librarian, school principal, school psychology, school social worker, school superintendent, supervisor of instruction), one endorsement (literacy specialist), and a graduate additional certification program in visual impairment, for a total of 11 advanced programs. The program listing in AIMS has been updated to reflect these programs that are undergoing state program approval during this accreditation cycle. Advanced Rank I programs and the Instructional Computing Endorsement Program have been closed for revision and resubmission to the Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB) after the new CAEP advanced standards and the state advanced program submission guidelines are approved.

2. The unit has four programs that are accredited by other accrediting agencies: art education (NASAD), music education (NASM), school media librarian (ALA), and school social work (CSWE), as noted in the program listing in AIMS. Letters from these national accrediting agencies are included as IR exhibits I.5.d.1-I.5.d.4. The school psychology program is nationally recognized with conditions by NASP and has submitted its conditions report which is posted in AIMS.

3. The Offsite Review Report indicates many program links were not working (p. 4) at the time of the offsite review. Links on the program page have been checked and all are working.

 
Name 
 
 

Responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, section 1.5, p. 6 (click to expand)

1. What aggregated evidence of candidate work by program area and related to Kentucky Teacher Standards 2-5 can the unit present?
In the fall of 2012, the unit began to examine migration of the evaluation of field and clinical experiences into the OTIS portfolio platform. This process began with truncating and unifying the student teaching evaluation. To this point, there were different instruments for each program, often with different scales, making unit level analysis extremely time consuming. The tables presented in this exhibit (ADD 1.1.1) show the summative performance evaluation data from our early pilots to the present full implementation.

In addition to the Kentucky Teacher Standards scores on the student teaching evaluation, exhibit ADD 1.1.2 illustrates the aggregate scores by program for all artifacts in candidate portfolios over the 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015 academic years. The number in parentheses is the number of artifacts that are in the aggregate score. Aside from the school media librarian program, all programs shown use a five-point scoring scale. School library media uses a four-point scale to better align with ALA/AASL criteria rubrics.

2. What assessment evidence does the unit have related to how advanced candidate and other school professionals impact P-12 student learning?
Programs are required to submit examples of artifacts that demonstrate how candidates impact P-12 student learning. The team will have access to the OTIS system during the site visit and will have access to this report, which includes links to required standards and scores. A sample screenshot is shown in exhibit ADD 1.2.1.

3. Can the unit provide samples of complete initial and advanced candidate individual records and aggregated data based on exhibits 2.4.a.4 and 2.4.a.5?
The unit data systems provide a “running view” of candidates for continuous assessment data that program faculty and supervisors can access. The intent is to provide a data environment that faculty and candidates live in rather than reports that are handed out at given points. The two systems that candidates and faculty interact with are CEPIS and OTIS. CEPIS provides the formal program management for the unit while OTIS provides a working environment for data. Exhibit ADD 1.3.1 shows a sample profile for an initial candidate. Exhibit ADD 1.3.2 illustrates a sample profile for an advanced candidate.

4. What data does the unit possess related to candidate proficiency for other school professionals?
Work samples for other school professionals are collected and scored in the OTIS portfolio system. An example from the school library media program is provided in exhibit ADD 1.4.1. The team will have access to the digital exhibit room where they can access examples of candidate proficiency for all programs during the site visit.

5. What evidence of professional disposition data for advanced candidates and other school professionals can the unit provide?
The unit has used the unit Functional Skills and Dispositions (FSD) standards as a general framework for addressing dispositions. As the unit began the migration to an electronic platform for managing the data collection of evaluations for the student teaching experience, it became necessary to prune the instruments that had evolved over the years. While similar in that they addressed the standards, each program had different structures to the form. Some had grown extremely long and tedious for field partners to complete. To begin this effort, we created a streamlined report that assessed candidates at the standard level and asked evaluators to take into consideration a body of indicators for each standard. In addition to the basic indicators of the Kentucky Teacher Standards, specific dispositional indicators were included to cover the unit Functional Skills and Dispositions. Exhibit ADD 1.5.1 shows the linkages between the student teaching evaluation and the indicators for the Functional Skills and Dispositions.

As we began migrating the portfolio process from a paper one to the OTIS portfolio, we continued to look at this alignment to control the number of standards that need to be tagged on artifacts. Exhibit ADD 1.5.2 illustrates the alignment of the FSDs with the Kentucky Teacher Standards. As all portfolio items for initial certification programs (and several advanced programs) are linked with the KTS, we wanted to further demonstrate the coverage of disposition aspects with program data collection. There are several programs who are experimenting with also tagging the FSDs and College of Education Technology Standards (COETs), but it is not a unit requirement. As these programs revisit the use of these additional tags, a decision will be made within program faculty chairs whether to make this a unit practice. With an increased emphasis on the tagging of SPA standards, tags to track EPSB designated assessments, and additional tags to track artifacts that demonstrate student learning impact, the need to look carefully at crosswalks to keep the work meaningful and manageable is crucial. At the advanced level, most SPA standards include dispositional aspects. In addition to the KTS crosswalk provided by the unit, advanced programs may also cross walk their SPA standards and use the assessment data collected for those to demonstrate assessment of the FSDs. Exhibit ADD 1.5.3 displays an example of this alignment for the School Library Media program. Exhibit ADD 1.4.1 shows an example of the SLM exhibit room as an example of what the site team will be able to access for programs during the visit.

6. Can the unit clarify what relationship the school counseling program has with the unit, and if part of the unit, provide assessment evidence related to this program?
The University of Kentucky does not have a school counseling program.

 
Name 
 
 

Updated Evidence from the Institutional Report Related to Standard 1 (click to expand)

1. Doctoral programs in the unit are not included in the NCATE/ESPB accreditation review, per email correspondence from CAEP (ADD 1.7.1).

2. Due to space considerations in AIMS, disaggregated data reports for the New Teacher Survey were not included in the IR exhibits for all programs. Rather, a sample using the Elementary Education Program was included as exhibit IR 1.4.j.7. The disaggregated data reports for other programs are included as exhibits ADD 1.7.2-15.

3. The program listing in AIMS has been updated to reflect programs that are undergoing state program approval during this accreditation cycle. Advanced Rank I programs and the Instructional Computing Endorsement Program have been closed for revision and resubmission to the Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB) after the new CAEP advanced standards and the state advanced program submission guidelines are approved.

 
Name 
 
 


Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation

The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications, the candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.

Clarification from the Offsite Review Report, section 2.1: NONE

Responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, section 2.5, p. 10 (click to expand)

1. How is the unit using disaggregated data to inform decision-making and program development?
The unit assessment system is designed to support access to a wide variety of data for individual candidate support and program level development. Recognizing that data is complex and multi-faceted, the unit assessment system is comprised of several technology components which are illustrated in exhibit ADD 2.1.1. These technologies are developed to support the policies and procedures that govern educator preparation at UK (ADD 2.1.2)  Each of the systems (CEPIS Student Information System, OTIS Online Portfolio Management System, and CEPIS Reporting System) (ADD 2.1.3) relies on robust data entry, review, and maintenance to ensure the usability of reports based on the data. With “good” data, the three technologies have the ability to generate assessment information that is available to and usable by program faculties. Ways to report data and support the use of assessment information are always under development in each of the unit technology systems.

Accessing and utilizing data is carried out at the program level. The unit approach is to both prompt and support better quality data entry, data review and maintenance, and data use by programs. All three of the technologies provide mechanisms for better data oversight and data quality auditing by faculty, staff, and the candidates themselves. The UK Program Submission and Accounting Folder System provide the structure and expectations for program faculty to carry out their responsibilities for data review and analysis (ADD 2.1.4; ADD 2.1.5). All program faculties annually update their analyses of data for program improvement. 
The unit assessment system as a whole provides data to program faculties as they ask some of the following questions:

  • Who are our candidate cohorts? What is their demographic makeup? What is their academic ability? Does our cohort demographic makeup reflect our cohort demographic goals? (ADD 2.1.6)
  • How well do our cohort groups perform on standardized tests? What is the relationship of standardized test results to the knowledge expected for our graduates?  (ADD 2.1.7)
  • What are the clinical practice profiles for our candidate cohorts? Are they placed where we want them to be placed? Are they in prescribed activities, and how do supervisors rate their work?  (ADD 1.1.1, ADD 2.1.11)
  • What are the standards attainment profiles for our candidate cohorts? With which standards do they seem most confident? (ADD 1.1.2)

The unit assessment system technologies contain a wealth of data. When program faculties access the systems, they focus their queries on varying levels of disaggregation based on the task of answering questions and engaging in decision-making and program development. All program faculties annually update their analyses of data for program improvement. 

The unit recognizes the need for the regular sharing of data and information. The Program Faculty Chairs Group provides an ongoing, sustained forum to share information across programs (ADD 2.1.10). The Program Faculty Chairs meet monthly for an hour and a half. Agendas are set before the meeting (ADD 2.1.8), and the group provides an opportunity to update all program faculties on issues associated with educator preparation in Kentucky and nationally. A record of participation is maintained so that those program faculty chairs who are not able to attend can be updated (ADD 2.1.9).

2. How is the unit collaborating with the professional community?
Across its program faculties, the unit engages with the professional community in four consistent ways: 

  • Collaboration in program faculty meetings while carrying out the routine activities of the program faculty
    Program faculties meet regularly during the year. Program faculties include representation from P-12 partners (ADD 6.9.1, pp. 8-9; IR 6.4.b.2). Routine activities include admitting candidates and reviewing candidate progress through continuous assessment (See ADD 2.2.1 Elementary Education Interview Form with Rubrics); reviewing the program clinical model and field experience activities in P-12 schools; and discussing possible changes in course offerings, assessments, and program expectations.
  • Use of the OTIS Online Portfolio System to manage the work of candidates in their preparation programs
    The OTIS system encourages unit faculty and P-12 partners to assess candidate work, record observations of candidate performance, review artifacts submitted by candidates as evidence of meeting standards, and holistically consider the progress of candidates towards attaining all required standards (ADD 2.2.2). Over time, the OTIS system has gained importance in supporting the work of candidates and program faculties.
  • On-site collaboration in clinical context schools between the UK faculty and their P-12 partners
    Unit program faculty members regularly meet with P-12 partners in their schools and classrooms to collaborate on planning, implementing and assessing field experience activities and assignments for program candidates. These on-site interactions provide a rich source of data for use by the program faculties as they meet together to carry out the work of the program faculty committees (See example in ADD 2.2.3, pp. 1-2, English Education Clinical Model). These interactions also provide the basis for program faculty and P-12 partners to agree on placements for field experience activities and student teaching placements.
  • Collaboration between the unit-wide faculty and P-12 partners through retreats, summits, and participation on councils and committees, such as the College of Education Board of Advocates
    The College of Education conducts regular meetings to explore and promote reform and innovation in education and educator preparation, which include P-12 partners and faculty from other colleges (ADD 3.12.1).

3. How is the unit ensuring credibility of key assessments?
Program submissions, including assessments, are documented in the Program Submission and Accounting System. Promotion of uniform documentation across programs is supported with the Program Submission Documentation Manual (IR 1.4.o). One section of the documentation manual focuses on Assessment Instrument Documentation concepts (IR 1.4.o, pp. 14-15), including a template for Assessment Instrument Documentation and the following documentation concepts:

  • Each key assessment must be supported by documentation.
  • Evidence is required for all key assessments.
  • The instrumentation used to acquire evidence in each area is the prerogative of the program.
  • Key assessment instruments will be used regularly so that a stable flow of data can be recorded from year to year.
  • When instrumentation changes, the program’s Assessment Alignment Tables and supporting documentation will be updated. This should be done at least annually.
  • Effective and valid assessments require that each assessment instrument be substantial and yield evidence that is consequential.
  • Each instrument should be adequately documented by the program faculty. 
  • The document should include the rubric(s) that will be used to interpret the results of the instrument’s use.

The template for Assessment Instrument Documentation includes the following components:

  • Assessment area (e.g., ability to assess, ability to teach content)
  • Title of assessment instrument
  • Overview and description of the assessment instrument
  • Rubric demonstrating use of the assessment instrument 
  • Discussion of how and why the assessment is intended to produce substantive data that represents the assessment area
  • Evidence that the assessment instrument meets the following requirements as defined in the NCATE Glossary of Terms:
    • a. Assessment is fair
    • b. Assessment is accurate
    • c. Assessment is consistent
    • d. Assessment avoids bias

All programs include required key assessments. Examples of the documentation of the instruments used for assessment in each key assessment area are included as ADD 2.3.1.

4. How are faculty engaging in data collection and analysis activities?
The unit encourages systematic data use by providing better technology infrastructure. For example, the OTIS portfolio allows programs to have better access to their own data. The OTIS portfolio development project was originally an attempt to see if program faculties could move from a file cabinet-based data infrastructure to a digital one. The OTIS system is designed to collect “high-resolution” artifacts that result from candidate experiences both in and out of the classroom.
OTIS data collection is generally program and course-based, that is, associated with specific courses within a program. As candidates complete course-based assignments, they upload products into their OTIS accounts. These products (or artifacts) are associated by candidates (tagged) with required standards. Products can also be associated (tagged) with key assessments.  Program faculties and other P-12 partners review the candidate’s work which consists of the artifacts, observation of candidate work, and/or direct input into assessment forms. The OTIS system supports a variety of ways of tagging or associating each artifact. These tags, or associations, allow a wide variety of ways to group data. These data groupings provide program faculties with snapshots of a candidate’s progress over time. The OTIS system also can repackage data into “complex” snapshots that look at multiple candidates at a specific point in time or across time. 
Program faculty members, including P-12 partners, are central in setting the expectations for candidate’s submission of evidence. Within the UK Program Submission and Accounting System, the following components are critical for assessment:

  • The syllabi (Program Submission Folder 1: Program Description) (IR 1.4.o, pp. 13-14, identifies the NCATE syllabus template and the eight additional items associated with the assessment system.)
  • The key assessments (Program Submission Folder 4: Assessment) (IR 1.4.o, pp. 14-19)
  • The clinical model (Program Submission Folder 6: Program Clinical Model and Experiences) (IR 1.4.o, pp. 21-23)
  • The pre-student teaching field experience activities (Program Submission Folder 8: Field and Clinical Practice) (IR 1.4.o, pp. 21-23)
  • The student teaching experience activities (Program Submission Folder 7: Responsibility of University Personnel for Student Teaching) (IR 1.4.o, pp. 21-23)

The expectations for candidates established within these components form the perspectives on performance that guide the use of data. The flow of planned activities in a program, evolving from the critical components, result in the ongoing generation of data and the review of data, using the unit’s technology tools, including the OTIS Online Portfolio Management System.

The centralized structure of the OTIS platform has enough flexibility to encourage and enable programs to explore novel applications which can then be disseminated through the unit Program Faculty structure to other programs. For example, in art education the Program Faculty has begun engaging P-12 partners in the scoring of candidates’ artistic work. The unit has made providing P-12 partners with direct access to the unit assessment system a priority to facilitate this type of collaborative effort. 

Exhibits ADD 2.4.1, ADD 2.4.2, ADD 2.4.3, and ADD 2.4.4 illustrate several reports faculty can use in their analysis activities. These reports were developed by the OTIS development team working collaboratively with program faculty leaders and continue to be refined as the assessment system evolves.

 
Name 
 
 

Updated Evidence from the Institutional Report Related to Standard 2: NONE

Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practice so that teacher candidates and other school professionals develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn.

Clarification from the Offsite Review Report, section 3.1: NONE

Responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, section 3.5, p. 13 (click to expand)

1. Do all programs have field experiences that fulfill the requirements of Standard 3?
The Program Faculties carefully and integrally embed field experiences in professional preparation courses at the initial and advanced levels across the program curriculum in ways that fulfill the requirements of Standard 3. Exhibit IR 3.4 b.2 contains a chart listing field experiences required by course for initial and advanced programs. In compliance with the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB) regulation 16 KAR 5:040, all candidates in initial programs are required to complete a minimum of 200 field hours in a diverse array of settings. Specific field experience requirements are outlined in the regulation, which can be found in exhibit IR 3.4.b.1. Field experience requirements are outlined in program document folders (see example for KHP in ADD 3.1.1). Details of field experiences for individual candidates in initial programs are recorded in the OTIS assessment system.

Field experiences at the advanced level also include an array of diverse experiences to address program requirements and candidates’ needs. As illustrated in program documents, field experiences are carried out in schools as well as in community agencies (IR 3.4.a.1; IR 3.4.a.2). These include conducting interviews, classroom observations, peer observations of tutoring sessions with reflective feedback as well as tutoring students in P-12 schools and completing action research projects. For example, in two courses required in the advanced literacy program (EDC 619 and EDC 620), field experiences are carried out in a community-based literacy center. As part of the field experience requirement, each candidate is paired with a struggling reader for tutoring who is at a different grade level than students with whom they work in their professional jobs. When possible, candidates in these courses work with more than one student to provide more varied experiences. In EDC 620, candidates are required to observe their classmates’ tutoring session and provide feedback. This assignment, called Peer Coaching, provides opportunities to observe various struggling readers and the impact of different instructional interventions as well as play a leadership role through coaching. In the Education Leadership Studies program (ELS), candidates conduct focused observations. They also complete action research projects in schools under the direction of a school administrator. Projects culminate with presentations to peers. Examples of guidelines and assessment measures for field experiences in the ELS program as well as other EDL programs are provided (ADD 3.1.2); examples of field experiences in other advanced programs are also provided (ADD 3.1.3).

2. Do candidates, course instructors, and school personnel consider field experiences an integral component of all programs?
As indicated in response to question 1, all field experiences are integrally woven into courses. As explained in program documents available in program document folders, the nature and duration of field experiences for initial programs are documented in OTIS. Field experience requirements are outlined in course syllabi, which can be found in program documents (see example in ADD 3.2.1). Syllabi are created by course instructors based on decisions made by Program Faculties to ensure that field experiences within courses address larger program goals and satisfy state regulations. Course instructors work closely with program chairs to identify appropriate placements. School-based supervisors complete field experience evaluations for candidates, which are reviewed by course instructors and considered by Program Faculty as a way to inform decisions about future placements (ADD 3.2.2).

3. Do school-based partners consider themselves to be integrally involved in field experiences components of courses within all programs?
Program Faculties within the unit, which serve as the governing bodies for programs, include education faculty, content faculty from related campus units across the university, and school-based partners (ADD 3.3.1). As members of the Program Faculty, school partners contribute to decisions about admission, retention, and program completion and inform decisions about changes to the curriculum. They serve on interview teams and participate in continuous assessment meetings each semester to discuss candidate progress and consider program changes based on indicators such as candidate progress assessment reports including those from field experiences. These partners also contribute to decisions about field experiences that are made during Program Faculty meetings.

4. What evidence does the unit have showing continuous P-12 involvement in the design, implementation, and evaluation of field and clinical placements at the initial level?
As part of the Program Faculty work described in response to other questions, programs hold retreats with school partners to discuss program design and evaluate relevance of assignments associated with field and clinical experiences. For example, this past year the MIC and Elementary Education Program Faculties held retreats, which included school-based field supervisors (ADD 3.4.1; ADD 3.4.2). The Elementary Education Program Faculty partnered with members of the Chamber of Commerce who provided the retreat site and other amenities. These retreats, and other similar partner meetings, inform decisions regarding program revisions.

5. Is ELS 600 a required course for all advanced program candidates? If so, what types of data are collected and how is it used for candidate and program improvement?
ELS 600 Leadership for Learning-Centered Schools is requiredfor candidates in the EDL Teacher Leadership Program only. Candidates include those seeking a Master of Education (MEd) degree, Specialist in Education (EdS) degree, or simply the addition of the Teacher Leader Endorsement to their Kentucky teaching certificate. Candidates in ELS 600 and two other core courses (ELS 604 and ELS 624) complete a pre-course assessment and a post-course learning assessment. All data collected from these assessments are anonymous (i.e., candidates do not provide their names). Findings from the pre-course assessment are shared with candidates during the first class meeting and used to inform modifications to course content, if needed.Data collected from the post-course assessments inform revisions to enhance the curriculum for future candidates who take these courses. The EDL Teacher Leadership Studies program chair will provide additional information about course assessments for ELS 600 as needed during the onsite visit.

 6. What is the process for training unit and P-12 faculty who are supervising initial program candidates in field and clinical placements?
Before working with student teachers, all P-12 and university student teacher supervisors must successfully complete a state and university mandated training that focuses on supervisory responsibilities including roles, responsibilities, strategies for guiding growth including but not limited to co-teaching and use of performance assessment tools (ADD 3.6.1). This training is augmented by meetings between university and school-based partners throughout the placement period regarding student teaching requirements, which are outlined in course syllabi and the performance assessments that are maintained on the OTIS system (ADD 3.4.1; ADD 3.4.2). In addition, university and school-based supervisors must complete training in core content standards, an example of which can be found in the IR 3.4.d.3 exhibit. University-based supervisors attend orientation meetings at the beginning of each semester and monthly meetings throughout the academic year to provide on-going professional development. Program Faculty Chairs participate in monthly professional development meetings, which include field experience topics and other focus areas based on state policies and regulations as well as those selected based on the needs and interests of the group (ADD 3.6.2). At the beginning of each semester, university and school-based supervisors in collaboration with other partners (e.g., members of state policymaking groups) receive a newsletter written by and for partners which serves as a communication and collaboration vehicle to enhance partnership relationships. In order to continue working with program graduates and to be sure that state assessments are woven into our teacher education program, many university and school-based supervisors participate in the training for participants in the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP), Kentucky’s program to guide and assess the progress of first-year teachers (ADD 3.6.2).

7. What is the unit’s process for ensuring that all initial and advanced program candidates have diverse field experiences?
Using the state-mandated regulation described in response to question 1 as a guide for decision-making as well as other standards (e.g., SPAs), each Program Faculty structures field experiences for the program to comply with the regulation and address program goals. Field experiences are deeply embedded within courses to ensure that they are comprehensive, diverse, graduated, and relevant. Initial programs include activities such as conducting observations, providing assistance to students, teaching small and large groups in classrooms, time in schools at all levels and in family resource centers, and attendance at school board meetings as described in program documents and illustrated in ADD 3.1.1 above. Details regarding field experiences for candidates are recorded in the OTIS system. Field experiences in advanced level programs include an array of diverse experiences such as conducting observations and interviews, assessing various aspects of schools, and carrying out case studies and action research projects which are conducted under the direction of school administrators. Field experiences for advanced programs are outlined in course syllabi and guidelines (see ADD 3.1.2; ADD 3.1.3 above).

8. Can the unit provide examples of initial program candidate Professional Growth Plans and how the data from said plans have been used for improvement?
Professional Growth Plans (PGPs) represent one of several tools used in each initial program to assess and guide candidate progress (IR 3.4.f.3). The PGP is initiated during the semester prior to student teaching, known generally as the practicum semester. Each candidate creates a PGP during the practicum semester focusing on areas to address during that semester and during student teaching. Those plans are referred to throughout the student teaching experience. University-based supervisors meet with candidates at the end of practicum to review their plan and discuss next steps. This process provides a way to highlight areas of strength and areas of growth as the basis for developing and executing an action plan. The PGPs are shared with the Program Faculty during continuous assessment meetings to determine candidate progress and inform program decisions (ADD 3.8.1). As part of this process, assessment data are reviewed by school and university supervisors using assessment instruments maintained in OTIS.

9. Can the unit provide a detailed summary of its pilot programs as they relate to initial and advanced program field and clinical placements (what, how, assessments used, who was involved in the design, etc.)?
The unit actively and continuously seeks expansions to current field and clinical placements for initial and advanced programs, especially those in unique settings which may be regarded as pilot programs. As part of the unit’s P20 Innovation Lab, the Next Generation Leadership Academy (ADD 3.9.1) was established at the start of the 2011 academic year with 60 district leadership teams (comprised of superintendents, principals, and central office personnel) across the state. Since that time, a total of 363 leaders across 53 districts have participated in the Academy from 2011-2015 with a fifth cohort group that began with the current (2015-2016) academic year (ADD 3.9.2). These participating districts select an innovative practice aligned to one of six design principles (ADD 3.9.3) to implement in their district. The P20 Lab identifies these districts as “Districts of Innovation”. Since the start of the Next Generation Leadership Academy, the unit has increased field placements in these Districts of Innovation, which include expansions to clinical experiences in districts not previously utilized for field placements (e.g., Eminence Independent and Danville Independent schools) (IR 3.4.h.8; IR 3.4.h.9). Since 2011, 395 candidates have been placed in Districts of Innovation (IR 3.4.b.5).

Additionally, the unit engaged in the first Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) field placement in spring 2015 at Scott Middle School located on the Fort Knox army installation. This opportunity provided the candidate with knowledge about working on a military installation (e.g., policies, procedures, security) as well as the opportunity to engage in non-traditional curriculum and assessments beyond what is common in Kentucky. For instance, the curriculum of DoDEA schools is shifting focus to a 21st Century Schools initiative (ADD 3.9.4) with an increased emphasis on the STEM areas. DoDEA schools do not participate in state mandated testing; instead, all DoDEA schools administer the national TerraNova assessment system (ADD 3.9.5). Thus, the candidate in this pilot gained a unique experience through this clinical placement.

The unit has also piloted clinical placements in new international settings. During spring 2012 and 2013, some candidates completed approximately eight weeks of student teaching in Xi’an, China (ADD 3.9.6). These clinical placements included elementary, middle, and high school classrooms. Participating candidates were enrolled in undergraduate elementary and middle level with initial certification, the Masters Initial Certification (MIC), and Teaching World Languages (Spanish) programs. Additionally, one candidate enrolled in a dual elementary and deaf education initial certification program at Eastern Kentucky University participated as a way to pilot cross-institutional clinical placements. A faculty supervisor accompanied the candidates to China and completed unit-established assessment and evaluation measures associated with traditional student teaching.

Finally, the STEAM Academy high school program located in Fayette County Public Schools is a rich partnership between the FCPS district and the university (ADD 3.9.7). The unit has utilized this school site to enrich several different components of clinical experiences for candidates and graduate students. Field placements at STEAM have included practicum students, a student teacher in middle level English Language Arts, as well as a doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction co-teaching with a STEAM mathematics teacher, and a doctoral student in STEM Education providing chemistry instruction. The goal of this partnership is to leverage this site as a Research and Development (R&D) Lab that engages candidates across initial and advanced programs to develop a multi-tiered instructional mentoring model.

All of the unit’s pilot programs and expanded field and clinical placements were designed through a collaborative process between the Office of Clinical Practices and School Partnerships and associated Program Faculty groups. These pilots utilized the assessment and evaluation tools that were already in place for the associated programs. Additionally, informal focus group or individual interviews with participants were conducted to determine successes and/or challenges associated with the pilot sites.

10. Does the unit provide evidence that each initial program is designed to assess candidate success and/or needs in field and clinical placements?
The unit assesses candidate success and needs in multiple ways throughout the course of the program. As described in response to previous questions, each Program Faculty engages in a continuous assessment process that begins with program admission and extends through program completion. This process includes continuous review of assessment instruments that are maintained in the OTIS system for each candidate, the development and shaping of the PGP, and reviews that are conducted during the continuous assessment meetings that are held during the semester. Letters are sent to candidates who are not demonstrating adequate progress. The letters describe specific areas of concern and outline next steps to address those concerns. In some cases, the Program Faculty Chair meets with the candidate to discuss concerns and remediation plans face to face. Remediation plans sometimes include revisiting or adding courses, completing additional field experiences, and/or reviewing research related to areas of concern and then presenting findings to the Program Faculty. Due to the sensitive nature of the documents that serve as examples of how the Program Faculties addresses concerns about candidates’ progress, we have not included them in this Addendum. However, they will be available for review by the BOE during the visit if needed.

11. Is dispositional data available for all initial and advanced program candidates for the last three years? If so, can the unit provide evidence that this data has been used for continuous improvement?
Recording dispositional data electronically and systematically has been an evolving process for the past few years. As the unit began the migration to an electronic platform for managing the data collection of evaluations for the student teaching experience in the initial program, it became necessary to review and revise the instruments that had evolved over the years, which included collection of dispositional data. While similar in that these instruments addressed the standards, each program used different structures related to the forms. Some had grown extremely long and tedious for our school-based field supervisors to complete. To begin this effort, we created a streamlined report that assessed candidates at the standard level and asked university and school-based evaluators to take into consideration a body of indicators for each standard. In addition to the basic dispositional indicators embedded in the Kentucky Teacher Standards (KTS), other specific dispositional indicators were included to integrate the unit Functional Skills and Dispositions (FSDs). Candidate evaluations show the linkages between the student teaching evaluation and the indicators for the Functional Skills and Dispositions (COE) (ADD 3.11.1). Functional Skills and dispositions are also aligned to the KTS indicators (ADD 3.11.2; ADD 3.11.3).

Portfolio items for initial certification programs (and several advanced programs) are linked with the KTS to further demonstrate the coverage of dispositional aspects with program data collection. It is important to note that there are several programs experimenting with tagging the FSDs and the College of Education Technology Standards, but it is not a unit requirement at this time. As these programs revisit the use of these additional tags, a decision will be made among program faculty chairs whether to make this a unit-wide practice. With the addition of SPA standards, EPSB required assessment tags, and specific student learning impact tags, it will be critical to look carefully at crosswalks to keep the work meaningful and manageable. At the advanced level, most SPA standards include dispositional aspects. In addition to the KTS crosswalk provided by the unit, advanced programs may also cross walk their SPA standards and use the assessment data collected for those to demonstrate assessment of the unit FSDs (ADD 3.11.4). Other examples of ways Program Faculties assess dispositions in advanced programs are provided (ADD 3.11.5).

The importance of teachers maintaining a highly ethical and professional demeanor at all times is also addressed in multiple ways throughout the program. For example, beginning in 2014 our EDLIFE and KHP Living Learning Communities require all students (freshman and sophomores) to participate in an induction ceremony that indoctrinates candidates into the profession. As part of this ceremony, candidates enrolled in our two Living Learning Communities take a “Pledge of Professionalism” (ADD 3.11.6). The induction ceremony is held during the university’s week-long orientation to campus (known as K-Week) and is attended by college faculty and staff during the college-wide retreat. Following this ceremony, candidates are provided with a copy of the Pledge and encouraged to display it in their dorm rooms.

Additionally, faculty members distribute and review written material (e.g., course syllabi, program handbooks) with candidates frequently as they progress through the program (See IR 3.4.e.2 for an example). A focus on professional dispositions is also included in the Professional Seminar in which all teacher candidates participate during the final semester of the program (ADD 3.11.7). Generally, one of our partners highlights ethics and professionalism during the keynote address at the seminar. Presenters have included a professor from the College of Law and the Director of Legal Services for the EPSB.

In cases where university or school-based partners raise concerns regarding dispositional matters, the Program Faculty addresses these swiftly both orally and in writing. At times, Program Faculties elicit assistance from the EPSB regarding professional ethics and state-level policies (ADD 3.11.8). Depending on the nature of the difficulty, candidates may have an action plan to follow; they may be placed on probation or, in severe cases, they may be dismissed from the program. Due to the confidential nature of such documents, sample action plans are not included in the exhibits but will be available for review during the team visit.

12. Can the unit provide evidence that it has engaged in continuous improvement regarding candidate and program development during the last three years?
As described in response to previous questions, the continuous improvement process is embedded in the Program Faculty structure. Program Faculty Chairs meet monthly during the academic year to discuss topics related to continuous improvement and engage in professional development activities such as the impact of state regulations on program decisions, changes in the P-12 school curriculum, and revisions to programs resulting from continuous assessment meetings. Discussions focus on the relationship between policy changes and impact on programs. These discussions are augmented by discussions during Field Supervisors meetings, which are topical in nature (see ADD 3.6.1, ADD 3.6.2 above). Continuous improvement regarding candidates and program development are points also addressed in other meetings such as individual program faculty meetings and retreats with school partners and academic department meetings as outlined in the timeline document, which is organized by Standard 3 element (ADD 3.12.1). Exhibits ADD 3.12.1a through ADD 3.12.1z document work outlined in the timeline document. Finally, a more detailed timeline by each aspect of the elements of Standard 3 will be available for review by the team during the onsite visit.

 
Name 
 
 

Updated Evidence from the Institutional Report Related to Standard 3: NONE

Standard 4: Diversity

The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and provides experiences for candidates to acquire and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates can demonstrate and apply proficiencies related to diversity. Experiences provided for candidates include working with diverse populations, including higher education and P-12 school faculty, candidates, and students in P-12 schools.

Clarification from the Offsite Review Report, section 4.1: NONE

Responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, section 4.5, p. 16 (click to expand)

1. What is the unit doing to encourage contact among students of different backgrounds?
The unit encourages contact among students of different backgrounds through various initiatives and activities. As part of the university’s K-Week orientation for incoming first-year students, the unit sponsors an afternoon of college-specific activities to facilitate introductions and networking among new COE students and to help incoming students feel part of a smaller community at a large university (ADD 4.1.1). During this time, new students also participate in a Common Reading Experience (CRE) and continue dialogue and discourse around a selected book throughout their first year of study (ADD 4.1.2). The book selection for 2015-2016 is Picking Cotton co-authored by Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton, a memoir of sexual assault, race, false conviction and imprisonment, forgiveness, and friendship. The authors presented the 2015-2016 CRE Author Lecture, which was open to the university and local community, and met with faculty and students in the Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology during their time on campus (ADD 4.1.3; ADD 4.1.4; ADD 4.1.5).

Additionally, candidates have the opportunity to participate in residential living and learning communities, including the EDLIFE LLC for teacher candidates, which is in its second year of implementation (ADD 4.1.6; ADD 4.1.7). The unit has also established an International Educators Cohort in EDLIFE for candidates who wish to study and/or teach abroad, improve their global competency, and prepare to teach and help P-12 students become “globally ready” (ADD 4.1.8).

Further, the COE Office of Student Engagement, Equity, and Diversity facilitates interaction and contact among students through multiple student organizations (ADD 4.1.9; ADD 4.1.10), including the Council of Student Leaders which was initiated by the dean to encourage communication and networking across student organizations (ADD 4.1.11). Other initiatives over the past three years include recognition of COE veterans (ADD 4.1.12; ADD 4.1.13), the cultural diversity festival (IR 4.4.c.3), the annual OUTspoken event (IR 4.4.c.4), the Confucius Institute showcase (IR 4.4.c.5), the UK president’s reception for Muslim students (IR 4.4.c.6), art education’s homeless project (IR 4.4.c.7), diversity training (IR 4.4.c.8), and autism awareness events (IR 4.4.c.9). Initiatives and activities such as these are designed to create a welcoming campus environment in which candidates interact and network with peers from different backgrounds.

2. How are candidates in advanced programs provided opportunities to work with diverse K-12 student populations?
The unit ensures candidates in advanced programs have opportunities to work with diverse P-12 student populations. As examples, in the school psychology program, a core NASP standard (2.8, diversity in development and learning) requires that all candidates demonstrate knowledge and skills in working with diverse students. School psychology candidates are required to work with diverse student populations through their mandatory training experiences in the program’s training clinic that services low-income, rural families with children with confirmed or suspected autism spectrum disorders (ADD 4.2.1, p. 6). Candidates also complete practicum and internship experiences that all involve direct work with students with special education needs. Practicum and internship placements also include children from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, English Language Learner populations, and low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Candidates in the literacy specialist program are provided with varied opportunities to work with diverse populations. As part of their role in schools and communities, candidates work not only with P-12 students, but also students’ families and students’ teachers, and they are often called upon by administrators to provide professional development for teachers within their schools.  Therefore, candidates must have opportunities to work with diverse P-12 student populations (diversity being defined as students of varying ages, races, ability levels); students’ families; and teachers within their schools. Literacy specialists may have responsibilities for teaching students who struggle with learning to read and must also be able to support teachers in their efforts to provide effective instruction for all students. Thus, diversity also includes working with struggling readers and writers, which is the hallmark of every clinical experience in the program. The program provides a minimum of 54 hours of supervised clinical experiences that involve working with struggling literacy learners in grades P-12, working with middle grades literacy learners, and coaching/mentoring colleagues in literacy instruction. These experiences are completed in a two-semester sequence of clinical course work with struggling literacy learners. In one semester, candidates complete EDC 619 Assessment of Reading Growth and Development. The following semester candidates complete EDC 620 Design and Implementation of Reading Instruction. Throughout this two-course sequence, candidates work with school-aged students in P-12 grades in the Literacy Clinic, which is currently housed within the community at the Carnegie Center for Literacy and Learning (IR 3.4.a.2). Practicum hours (i.e., face-to-face tutoring) are one hour (required) to two hours per week throughout the two-semester sequence (EDC 619 and EDC 620). This equates to 30 hours (required) to 60 practicum hours. The professor teaching the clinical courses observes these clinical sessions. It is generally recommended that candidates enroll in this clinical sequence toward the end of the program so that they might apply the knowledge of literacy processes and instructional strategies gained through core courses. Candidates also gain clinical experience with students in the middle grades in EDC 537 Advanced Applications of Teaching Writing. The field experience component with middle school students occurs over an eight-week period (2-3 hours/week which equates to 16-24 hours) and may include working with middle level students in an afterschool tutoring program, UK’s Literacy Clinic, or community-based organization that offers educational services (e.g., The Carnegie Center). The focus of this clinical experience is specifically related to teaching writing. A new course, EDC 625 Literacy Leadership P-12, prepares literacy professionals to facilitate positive change in school and community settings through program development and evaluation, mentoring, and advocacy. This course is designed specifically to address the ILA Standards and literacy leadership and coaching in particular. A minimum of eight hours of supervised practicum hours is included in this course in which candidates provide coaching/mentoring support in literacy for colleagues. Thus, candidates in the program receive opportunities to work with diverse student populations in that supervised clinical assignments are all focused on struggling learners; however, candidates also engage in opportunities to work with learners of diverse ages for both reading and writing. As well, candidates have supervised practicum hours as they provide coaching/mentoring in literacy for colleagues.

In the school media librarian program, candidates complete two eighty-hour practica experiences in LIS 676, School Media Practicum. One of the practicum experiences takes place in an elementary environment and the second at the secondary level, both under the supervision of a certified school media librarian. The placement sites are selected to ensure candidates have opportunities to work with diverse P-12 student populations (ADD 3.1.3, p. 16-19).

Candidates in the school social worker program are required to have 600 hours of practicum during the fall/spring semesters of a school year under the supervision of a certified school social worker (ADD 3.1.3, p. 52-61). All placements include students in poverty and students of color. 

Candidates in the teacher leader program in educational leadership studies complete three observations and a five-hour practicum in classrooms with diverse student subgroups (e.g., English Language Learners, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, racially diverse students, students in gifted programs) and in a different-level school from the candidate’s own teaching assignment. These observations are embedded in ELS 604 Leadership in Professional Learning Communities and ELS 624 Leadership Practicum: Monitoring Learning, Assessment, and Accountability (ADD 3.1.2, pp. 5-10).

Candidates in the teacher leader master’s program in IECE are most often working in early care and education settings across the Commonwealth. These candidates are employed in diverse settings and interact with colleagues, families, and children from diverse groups. Many of the placements are public early care and education settings and programs that have federal and state requirements, often income-based, for the enrollment of children. Clinical experiences for these candidates are supplemented with planned and targeted field and clinical experiences to ensure the full range of diverse opportunities. For program completion, candidates are required to document their experiences across age (i.e., infant/toddler, preschool, and kindergarten) and diverse groups (racial/ethnic, cultural, economic, disabilities) (ADD 3.1.3, pp. 2-9; ADD 4.2.2).

In the teacher leader master’s program in special education, candidates are most often practicing teachers in their own classrooms. They complete coursework using the students in their classrooms. Special education in general provides opportunities for candidates to work with diverse students, because each student has unique learning challenges and diverse characteristics in order to be identified to receive special education services. Candidates who are not practicing teachers are placed in two different classrooms during their course of study. The classrooms are selected by the faculty to represent diversity of age of student and school demographics. A key assessment on consultation ensures candidates have diverse experiences (ADD 4.2.3); they are required to identify another teacher with whom to consult who represents diversity from their current student population. For example, if candidates have expertise in low incidence disabilities, they are required to work with teachers who have students with high incidence disabilities and vice versa. Candidates also may select to work with general education teachers.

3. How do data demonstrate that advanced candidates are proficient on standards and performance criteria related to diversity?
Candidates in advanced teacher leader masters programs and in other school professional programs are proficient on standards and performance criteria related to diversity.  For example, in the school psychology program, candidates are assessed on NASP standard 2.8 (diversity in development and learning) at various points in the program including supervisor practicum ratings (ADD 4.3.1) and the supervisor internship ratings (ADD 4.3.2). These data, which are available in the NASP Conditions Report in AIMS, document that school psychology candidates are proficient on the NASP standards and performance criteria related to diversity.

In the teacher leader master’s program in special education, proficiencies related to diversity are assessed through candidates demonstrating their competencies through the OTIS portfolio entries and in field observations.

In the school media program, candidates are required to conduct an information needs assessment of a diverse group in LIS 602; in LIS 644 candidates are required to evaluate a school library environment to ensure it reflects the needs and interests, including ADA compliance, of the diverse P-12 student populations it serves. In LIS 610, LIS 614, and LIS 690 (to be renumbered 612), candidates are required to read children’s and young adult literature that reflects the diverse developmental, cultural, social, and linguistic needs of P-12 students and their communities.

In the literacy specialist program, candidate proficiency related to diversity is assessed using the signature assignments in clinical courses. These assignments include assessment/instruction overviews, case reports, peer coaching project, interactive case reports, program evaluations, professional development plans, individual mentoring projects, and development of lesson plans.

Candidate artifacts in OTIS which will be available to the team during the onsite visit as well as interviews with candidates and faculty will demonstrate advanced candidates’ diversity proficiencies relative to standards and performance criteria.

4. How are these data being used by the program?
Advanced candidate data related to diversity proficiencies are used by Program Faculties to improve candidate performance and inform program improvement. For example, candidates in the teacher leader master’s program in special education receive detailed feedback on the artifacts and assessments as they are completed over the course of the program. This feedback and conferencing also occurs for a minimum of four observations. Program faculty members then evaluate these data, and based on candidate performance, modify instruction to include topical areas with which candidates have struggled related to the education of diverse learners.

Faculty members in the school psychology program evaluate candidates’ performance through direct observation and feedback in the training clinic. Faculty members collect mid-point ratings during practicum and internship and provide feedback and additional training if ratings do not meet program thresholds for competence in working with diverse children and families. Faculty members summarize cohort performance within NASP Standard 2.8 and review candidate performance data at program faculty meetings to inform candidate growth and development and program continuous improvement.

In the revised literacy specialist endorsement program (which became effective July 1, 2015), the key assignments are identified as signature assignments that all candidates must upload to OTIS so that faculty can evaluate program effectiveness based on common artifacts. These signature assignments, associated with each clinical course, also provide an opportunity to evaluate an individual candidate’s proficiency. As individual candidates upload signature assignments, literacy program faculty score the candidate selections using a five-point Literacy Program Rubric. The individual artifact data are then combined to create feedback at the individual or program level. Scores from artifacts are aggregated by any number of factors (e.g., candidate, year, or standard). Literacy program faculty members generate “real time” data displays for annual academic year reflection or for multi-year reflection. Program faculty members engage in such programmatic reflection annually to evaluate individual candidates to examine progress for candidates at the beginning, middle, and end of their programs. Program faculty members also examine candidate data to evaluate programmatic effectiveness relative to the ILA Standards, including ILA Standard 4 which requires candidates to create, and engage their students in, literacy practices that develop awareness, understanding, respect, and valuing of differences in society.

Faculty across advanced programs will be available for onsite interviews to describe the diversity proficiencies of candidates in their respective programs and how data from assessments related to diversity are used for continuous improvement of candidates and programs.

5. How does the unit ensure all candidates have experience with diverse P-12 students, faculty, and other candidates at the initial and advanced level?
Candidates have experience with diverse P-12 students, faculty, and other candidates at the initial and advanced levels. To ensure experience with diverse P-12 students, placements in initial preparation programs are monitored using the field-tracking feature in OTIS (IR 6.4.e.6, p. 5). At the advanced level, program faculties track diversity of placements through the assignments and assessments described in response 2 above. The unit also ensures candidates have experience with diverse faculty through its recruitment and hiring policies (IR 4.4.g.1; IR 4.4.g.2; IR 4.4.g.3). Further, the unit ensures candidates have experience with diverse peers in their respective preparation programs through recruitment, retention, and student success efforts throughout the unit (IR 4.4.h.1; IR 4.4.h.2). Candidates and graduates will be available to describe their experiences across diverse P-12 students, faculty, and peers during interviews at the onsite visit.     

6. How is the commitment to diversity communicated to faculty?
The unit and university commitment to diversity is communicated to faculty in various ways, including continued emphasis on diversity during creation of new strategic plans for the university and college, continued emphasis on recruiting diverse faculty, active involvement of the Inclusiveness Committee as a governance body, approval of the unit for an AACTE Holmes Scholars Program, and the naming of a new director for the Office of Student Engagement, Equity, and Diversity.

Over the past couple of years, the university and the unit have engaged in conversations around institutional and college values and commitments as new strategic plans were developed for the next five years. Diversity and inclusivity is one of five strategic objectives in the 2015-2020 UK strategic plan Transforming Tomorrow (ADD 4.6.1). Similarly, diversity and inclusion is one of five goals in the new college strategic plan (ADD 4.6.2). During development of the college plan, faculty members focused on strategic planning at fall and spring retreats resulting in adoption of the new plan in August 2015 (ADD 4.6.3). Various faculty groups are now charged with responsibility for identifying metrics that will be used to assess attainment of objectives in the plan. The Inclusiveness Committee has begun discussion of metrics associated with the objectives related to diversity and inclusion (ADD 4.6.4).

The unit commitment to diversity is also evident in faculty recruitment efforts. All search committees must have diverse representation and follow college guidelines for searches (IR 4.4.g.3). The Inclusiveness Committee has identified review and revision of the search guidelines as one of its goals for 2015-2016 (ADD 4.6.4).

Other actions that demonstrate unit commitment to diversity include the naming of a new director of the Office of Student Engagement, Equity, and Diversity in fall 2015 (ADD 4.1.9). This position had been vacant since the previous director resigned to take a position at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. The new director has met with student organizations, including the Minority Educators Association, and is working closely with the directors of recruitment and retention to attract candidates from under-represented groups and ensure their success during their academic experience at the University of Kentucky.

Further, AACTE has recognized the unit commitment to diversity through approval of the AACTE Holmes Scholar Programs within the College of Education. This program helps support students from historically underrepresented backgrounds pursuing careers in education at the undergraduate, masters and doctoral levels (ADD 4.6.5).

 
Name 
 
 

Updated Evidence from the Institutional Report Related to Standard 4 (click to expand)

1. Demographic data for unit faculty for fall 2015 are included in exhibit ADD 4.7.1.

2. Demographic data for COE faculty for fall 2015 are included as exhibit ADD 4.7.2.

3. Official enrollment data for fall 2015 are not released until late fall semester each year. The fall 2015 enrollment data and candidate demographic data will be provided onsite, if available.

 
Name 
 
 


Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance; they also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systemically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.

Clarification in the Offsite Review Report, section 5.1, p. 17 (click to expand)

1. The Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning is a university center rather than a unit center. Multiple, ongoing professional development is provided by the center to faculty with email announcements of the sessions sent to faculty on a regular basis. Additionally, opportunities are provided for faculty who receive low ratings in teaching to engage in individual consultation with center staff and utilize the resources of the center.

2. The Advisory Council for Gifted and Talented Education is a statewide council which hosts an annual symposium for teacher educators on working with gifted and talented students. Faculty members from the unit are invited and some have attended the annual event.


Responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, section 5.5, p. 20 (click to expand)

1. How do candidates and faculty members confirm evidence provided for Standard 5?
Candidates and faculty will validate the evidence provided in Standard 5 through interviews during the site visit. Further evidence, including sample faculty performance reviews and promotion and tenure dossiers, will be provided for review in the campus team room.
 
Candidates provide feedback on faculty teaching performance in each course as described in exhibits (IR 5.4.e.1a; ADD 5.1.1). These teaching and course evaluation results are available on the Institutional Research and Advanced Analytics website and in Digital Measures. These data are used by faculty to improve their teaching effectiveness as evidenced in sample promotion and tenure dossiers and through annual/biannual performance reviews.

Faculty members confirm evidence as presented in Standard 5 in various ways.  The annual/biannual performance review provides evidence that faculty reflect upon their performance/productivity in teaching, research, service, and administration, as appropriate to their respective Distribution of Effort (IR 5.4.f.1; IR 5.4.f.2; IR 5.4.f.3). A required component of the performance review is a reflective narrative in which faculty analyze their performance and productivity over the review period. Three-year trend data from the annual/biannual performance evaluations confirm faculty members are effective in instruction and are actively engaged and productive in research and service, as appropriate to their faculty title series and Distribution of Effort (ADD 5.1.2). The faculty performance review process includes an appeals procedure which permits the faculty member who disagrees with his/her performance ratings to present evidence that ratings should be increased. Faculty members are required to submit evidence of their teaching, research, and service productivity during promotion and tenure reviews (IR 5.4.f.4).  A required component of the dossier is a faculty teaching portfolio which documents faculty ability to reflect upon his/her instructional performance for the purpose of improvement (IR 5.4.e.1). All faculty members who have applied for promotion and tenure over the past three years have received promotion and tenure (ADD 5.1.3).

2. What additional evidence suggests use of best professional practices in the development of course syllabi?
Guidelines for the development of course syllabi are provided to faculty from various sources. Prior to the beginning of each semester, the university academic ombud emails faculty a reminder message regarding course preparation for the upcoming semester (ADD 5.2.1). Key points regarding expectations for class attendance, documentation of excused absences, class assignments during dead week, course evaluation procedures, and considerations for students with disabilities are highlighted in the message. Additionally, the message contains links on developing course syllabi which identifies in more detail university expectations for contents of syllabi (ADD 5.2.2). Other helpful links in the ombud’s message address the academic offense policy, accommodation of religious observances, accommodations for students with disabilities, dead week assignments, midterm and final examinations, cheating during examinations, enrollment and grades, class reports and papers, course evaluations, final grade entry, cancellation of classes, and plagiarism.

New faculty members are assigned faculty mentors during their first year of employment. Mentors are valuable resources to new faculty in course development and syllabi creation as well as promotion and tenure procedures and university systems and resources.

As proposals for new courses or course revisions are submitted for approval, course syllabi are reviewed by program faculty, departmental faculty, the COE Courses and Curricula Committee, the college faculty, and the appropriate university council (Undergraduate and/or Graduate Council).  Throughout this process, syllabi are reviewed to ensure appropriate content, assessments, and methodologies are included.      

3. What evidence suggests use of best professional practices in university classrooms?
Exhibit IR 5.4.e.1a presents student evaluation of teaching data for faculty in the College of Education and the University of Kentucky on two measures: overall value of the course and overall quality of teaching.  Means for overall value of the course and overall quality of teaching in the College of Education range from 3.5-3.7 over the past three years (on a four-point scale); university means for the same time period range from 3.3-3.5. An additional exhibit (ADD 5.1.1) identifies specific questions on the student evaluation of teaching form and provides data which suggest faculty teaching practices lead to candidate ability to analyze and evaluate information, solve problems, respect viewpoints different from their own, and candidate desire to learn more in that particular area. A review of syllabi also documents a wide variety of instructional strategies faculty use, including but not limited to, project-based learning, hands-on activities, cooperative learning, guest speakers, case studies, in-class research projects, game-based learning, literacy circles, film and video analyses, flipped classrooms, and numerous instructional technology applications including the use of assistive technology, Blackboard, Canvas, PowerPoint, Prezi, Microsoft Sway, Google Docs, class listservs, and blogs.   

4. What can be confirmed through a review of Teaching Portfolios?
A review of Teaching Portfolios documents faculty performance and productivity in terms of teaching and advising. As specified in Administrative Regulation AR II-1.0-5 (IR 5.4.e.1), required components of the portfolio include a reflective statement containing an overview of the faculty member’s teaching philosophy and objectives, a description of the individual’s teaching and advising assignments, and evidence of the faculty member’s ability to reflect upon and improve teaching and learning, a key component of the unit conceptual framework and one of the Kentucky Teacher Standards. The portfolio also includes a list of all courses taught, the number of students enrolled in the courses, representative syllabi from the courses, and quantitative and qualitative results of student evaluations. Faculty may also include examples of course assignments and assessments, samples of candidates’ graded work, accomplishments of former candidates related to teaching, evidence of teaching awards or recognition, examples of curriculum and course development and innovative teaching methods, and evidence of peer regard of faculty teaching and advising. A review of sample teaching portfolios (which will be available in the campus team room) will confirm faculty members’ performance and productivity in the areas of teaching and advising.        

5. What information will a review of Faculty Performance Reviews provide?
Faculty performance reviews provide valuable information at the individual faculty member level in terms of continuous improvement of faculty productivity and performance and at the unit level in terms of unit-wide productivity in teaching, research, and service. At the individual faculty level, department chairs and the dean review faculty performance review materials submitted by individual faculty members and provide ratings of faculty performance in teaching, research, service, and administration, as appropriate to faculty members’ title series and Distribution of Effort (DOE) (IR 5.4.f.2; IR 5.4.f.3). Copies of the individual faculty performance reviews are located in faculty personnel files in the Office of the Dean and will be available for review by the team during the onsite visit. Feedback from the individual faculty performance review provides direction for faculty members as they engage in continuous improvement in areas related to their DOE assignment.

At the unit level, aggregated faculty performance data indicate strong faculty performance in the DOE areas of instruction (teaching and advising), research, service, and administration. Aggregated data over the past three years is presented in exhibit ADD 5.1.2.  These data, which include the mean score, range, and frequency of ratings by faculty title series and rank in each DOE area, document that the vast majority of faculty receive ratings of 3, 4, or 5 on a five-point scale, with the exception of a few outliers for whom professional growth plans are established.

Unit administrators are informed of the annual performance review process early in the academic year through a memo from the Provost (ADD 5.5.1) and a follow-up message from the Dean’s Office with internal COE timelines for the annual performance review process (ADD 5.5.2).

6.  What information will a review of promotion and tenure dossiers provide?
The contents of promotion and tenure dossiers are identified in the Promotion and Tenure Dossier Checklist (ADD 5.6.1), which is available on the UK Office for Faculty Advancement and Institutional Effectiveness webpages related to promotion and tenure (ADD 5.6.2). Early in the fall semester, the Provost sends an annual memo to unit administrators related to promotion and tenure, including information regarding the dossier (ADD 5.6.3). A review of dossiers reveals, first and foremost, faculty productivity in the areas of research, teaching, service, and administration as appropriate to faculty members’ Distribution of Effort assignments. Key pieces of evidence in the dossier include copies of faculty members’ annual Distribution of Effort agreements and annual performance reviews as well as the teaching portfolio (described in greater detail in response #4), personal statements on research, personal statements on service, representative samples of publications and grant submissions/contracts, and examples of university and public service. Additionally, recommendation letters from departmental faculty; the department chair; the Committee on Appointments, Reappointments, Promotion and Tenure; and the dean, as well as outside letters from national-level reviewers, are maintained in the faculty member’s personnel file in the Office of the Dean. Sample promotion and tenure dossiers will be available in the team exhibit room during the onsite visit. Sample reviewer letters are available for review by the team in the Office of the Dean.

As noted in exhibit ADD 5.1.3, all faculty members who applied for promotion and tenure over the past three years were granted promotion and tenure. Over this time period, 22 of 22 faculty members were successful with promotion and tenure applications, including 12 applications for promotion to associate professor with tenure and 10 applications for promotion to professor. Much of this success rate can be attributed to the first-, second-, and fourth-year reviews which are conducted by the dean and department chairs with untenured faculty members and their faculty mentors. During these meetings, progress toward tenure is reviewed and discussed and feedback and suggestions are provided to assist untenured faculty members with continuous improvement of their productivity and performance and, thus, strengthen their case for promotion and tenure.

7.  What information will a review of Curriculum Vitae provide?
A review of curriculum vitae will inform reviewers of faculty productivity in the area of teaching, research, and university and public service. An individual vitae would include information regarding academic qualifications and previous experiences of unit faculty as well as information regarding their research productivity (e.g., publications, grant submissions/awards, publications), teaching and advising (e.g., number and title of undergraduate and graduate courses taught, number/names of advisees), and university and public service (e.g., university committees and task forces, professional association involvement, service as a journal or conference editor or reviewer). Curriculum vitae are submitted as evidence for annual/biannual performance reviews and promotion and tenure reviews. Vitae can be generated from data that faculty enter into Digital Measures (IR 2.4.d.4). These data can be aggregated using Digital Measures to run college-wide reports, such as faculty Distribution of Effort (IR 5.4.a.9a) and faculty research productivity including publications, presentations, and grant awards (IR 5.4.d.2).

 
Name 
 
 

Updated Evidence from the Institutional Report Related to Standard 5 (click to expand)

The table containing updated numbers for unit faculty for fall 2015 by faculty title series and rank is included as exhibit ADD 5.8.1; individual faculty information, i.e., the names and departments of new hires, retirements, promotions, is provided in exhibit ADD 5.8.2.

 
Name 
 
 


Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources

The unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources, including information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

Clarification/correction in the Offsite Review Report, section 6.1, pp. 20-21 (click to expand)

1. The professional education programs identified on pp. 20-21 of the Offsite Review Report are the seven academic departments within the College of Education, rather than programs. These departments are Curriculum and Instruction; Early Childhood, Special Education, and Rehabilitation Counseling; Educational Leadership Studies; Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation; Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology; Kinesiology and Health Promotion; and STEM Education.

2. The Offsite Review Report indicates on p. 21 that the Office of Undergraduate Advising and Student Success is overseen by the Office of Program Development, Accountability, and Compliance. The division/office that has purview over undergraduate advising and student success is the Office of the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Advising and Student Success.


Responses to questions in the Offsite Review Report, section 6.5, pp. 23-24 (click to expand)

1. How often does the Faculty as a whole meet? What do examples of agendas look like?
The faculty as a whole meets monthly per the College Rules approved March 10, 2015 (IR 6.4.a.5, p. 3). In previous years, faculty meetings were held twice each semester. Examples of agendas and minutes from these meetings are included as exhibit ADD 6.1.1. Supporting materials for these meetings will be available onsite (size of documents precludes uploading into AIMS).

2. Is there an annual document integrity review process? If so, what does the final product look like?
Documents are reviewed on a regular basis (i.e., annually or each semester) to ensure information is complete and accurate. As examples, each semester the director of the Office of Program Documentation, Accountability, and Compliance reviews and revises the Teacher Education Program application to ensure accuracy as related to any regulatory changes, such as state testing requirements. Applications for certification are also reviewed each semester to ensure any needed updates have been made to items such as the Character and Fitness Review.

Other examples of document review include annual (or more often) updating of information in the University Bulletin. The Office of the Registrar contacts the Office of Program Documentation, Accountability, and Compliance on an annual basis to review and update entries in the University Bulletin (ADD 6.2.1; ADD 6.2.2). Additionally, as changes are needed as a result of state regulations (e.g., changes in standards), the unit contacts the Registrar’s Office and these changes are made to the online Bulletin immediately. Curricular revisions go to the Registrar’s Office for inclusion in the online Bulletin as soon as these are approved by the University Senate.

Another example is the review and updating of information on the COE website. The website has been completely revamped over the past two years by the COE web design team. All content has been reviewed and revised, and the redesign is intended to be more user-friendly and attractive to candidates, prospective students, faculty, staff, and the general public.

Content in the Faculty Handbook is also reviewed on a regular basis. With approval of the College Rules in spring 2015, the Faculty Council is currently updating the Handbook to reflect recent changes to faculty membership, voting privileges, and standing committees in the College Rules document.

To ensure consistency in programs submitted for state approval, the unit created a Documentation Manual and a submission Dropbox to accommodate specific materials required for each program submission (IR 1.4.o). When changes occur, the manual is updated and program faculty chairs are notified of the changes. State regulatory changes are also reviewed and discussed at the Program Faculty Chairs Group and incorporated into all program materials (ADD 2.1.8).  

3. What is the role of COE faculty in advising relative to the university-wide advisors?
The university conducts regular professional development for advisors and communications update meetings for university-wide advising groups. The professional advisors in the unit serve on the University’s Advising Network (ADD 6.3.1; ADD 6.3.2), and the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Advising and Student Success represents the unit on the university’s Academic Associate Deans Group. If candidates enroll as an undeclared major, they are assigned an advisor in Undergraduate Studies; once they declare a major they transfer to the appropriate college and are advised by a professional advisor in that unit. Because there is an active effort of the university for advisors to meet on a regular basis, the advisors in the unit have good working relationships with their counterparts across the university. They communicate regularly with advisors in other colleges on matters related to courses, programs, and problems common to transitions of students from one college to another. Additional questions may be directed to advisors during the scheduled interview at the onsite visit.

4. What evidence is available demonstrating the process a curriculum change goes through with timelines and details?
Unit and university faculty have input on proposed course and program revisions as the proposals move through the various approval channels in the education unit and the institution. The process for curricula changes is subject to timelines and details as described in the university’s Senate Rules (ADD 6.4.1, pp. 69-80 highlighted in yellow). Program faculty members initiate course and curricula revisions for their respective programs and then forward the proposed revisions to the appropriate department chair for review and approval by the departmental faculty. Once approved at the department level, the proposal is forwarded to the college-wide Courses and Curricula Committee for review and approval. If approved by the Courses and Curricula Committee, the committee notifies the college faculty that the proposal has been approved and seeks any dissenting opinions. If there is no negative feedback, the proposal automatically receives college approval, and the committee chair reports as such to the college faculty at the next college faculty meeting. If negative feedback is obtained, the committee chair works to resolve the issue. If resolved, the proposal moves forward; if not resolved, the proposal reverts to the program faculty to address the curricular request.

Once proposals receive college approval, the proposal is forwarded to the appropriate university council for approval (100-500 level courses go to the Undergraduate Council; 500-800 level courses to the Graduate Council; 400G and 500 level courses are reviewed by both councils). Once the proposal receives approval from the appropriate university council(s), it is forwarded to the University Senate for approval.

Proposals for new educator preparation programs are also submitted to the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board for review and approval. Further, the unit is required to obtain approval from the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education for any new undergraduate or graduate degree programs. 

Course changes and revisions (major and minor) are submitted using the online eCATS system; applications for new programs or changes to existing programs have been submitted using paper copy. To make the move to all online submissions for courses and programs, the university is piloting a new electronic system, Curriculog, with a limited number of submissions during the fall 2015 system (ADD 6.4.2). This system will allow for online submission of both course and program level changes. Course and program change approvals are documented on the COE Courses and Curricula Committee website (ADD 6.4.3) and on the University Senate Curricular Proposals website (ADD 6.4.4).

5. What are the specific faculty teaching responsibilities for fall 2014 and spring 2015 for each full-time and adjunct faculty member in the COE?
Specific teaching responsibilities for fall 2014 and spring 2015 for full-time and part-time faculty members in the College of Education are presented in exhibit ADD 6.5.1. Fall 2015 teaching assignments are identified in exhibit ADD 6.5.2.  In both exhibits, the names of part-time faculty members are highlighted in yellow; names not highlighted are full-time faculty members.

6. What is the formal relationship with each of the state agencies and how does the Education unit carry this out?
The unit has a close working relationship with the three state regulatory agencies: the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB), the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE), and the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE). The unit is directly regulated by the EPSB as specified in KAR 5:010, Standards for Accreditation of Educator Preparation Units and Approval of Programs (ADD 6.6.1). The CPE has statutory authority to approve new academic programs at state colleges and universities. KRS 164.020 (ADD 6.6.2) grants CPE the authority to define and approve programs at public postsecondary education institutions and, thus, approve any new degree programs from the unit. Unit faculty members also stay abreast of KDE regulations that impact educator preparation, such as the adoption of the Kentucky Core Academic Standards and other Unbridled Learning initiatives, and collaborate with KDE consultants on issues related to their specific disciplines. During the state orientation at the onsite visit, the state consultant assigned to the team will provide an overview of the unit’s relationship with the three regulatory agencies.

7. How do faculty from the COE coordinate joint MA programs with other colleges?
There are no joint MA programs with other colleges on campus. The three state-approved Teacher Leader Master’s programs (i.e., Educational Leadership Studies, Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education, and Special Education) are located in the College of Education. The Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) in World Languages is housed in the College of Arts and Sciences. The program chair of the MAT in World Languages Program is a member of the Program Faculty Chairs Group, and candidates are officially admitted to the program and recommended for certification through the College of Education. 

8. How are on-line programs priced?
The unit has no programs that are delivered totally on-line. Some courses are delivered on-line, and there is no price differential for these courses. According to university policy, “Students enrolled in only online distance learning courses during the fall and spring semesters will be charged the Kentucky resident rate regardless of residency status. Students enrolled in undergraduate online distance learning courses during intersessions (e.g., summer and winter terms) will be charged based on their residency status.” (ADD 6.8.1, note 8).

9. What are the current memberships of all the standing committees, faculty chairs group, and various councils, including state agency, P-12 schools, and candidate members?
Representation on the standing committees is described in the College Rules document (IR 6.4.a.5). Exhibit ADD 6.9.1 identifies each of the standing committees and the positions, departments, and terms of individuals on the committees.    

10. Which committee is considered the final authority for decisions within the professional education unit?
Per UK Governing Regulation Part VII, the dean is considered the final authority on matters related to curricula, quality of faculty instruction, assignment of duties, service provided by faculty, conduct of faculty performance evaluations, budget submission and management, and efficient conduct and management of all matters not specifically charged elsewhere in the university (ADD 6.10.1, p. 8). However, shared governance is a value of the university and the college. GR Part VII also specifies the dean shall seek the advice of the college faculty: individually, as a whole, through an elected college faculty council, or through faculty advisory committees (ADD 6.10.1, p. 8). Therefore, various councils and committees in the college are established to provide input and feedback to the dean on decisions affecting the unit (ADD 6.9.1). To facilitate communication and collaboration across the various educator preparation program faculties at the university, the Program Faculty Chairs Group meets each month during the academic year to discuss and make recommendations regarding programmatic issues, including implementation of state regulations on certification, accreditation, and program approval (ADD 2.1.8-10). Program chairs in colleges outside the COE are a vital link between the COE and their respective department chair and college dean. Additionally, the deans in colleges with educator preparation programs work closely on matters related to educator preparation and meet regularly in the Deans Council which the provost convenes each month.    

11. How is the online master’s program coordinated with the other Colleges and what percent of the program is totally online?
No master’s program is delivered totally on-line. Some courses in the Teacher Leader Master’s programs in Educational Leadership Studies, Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education, and Special Education are delivered as synchronous, distance education courses. Candidates may choose to take the courses either as face-to-face or as distance education courses. These programs are located in the College of Education and, therefore, do not require coordination with other colleges on campus.

12. Are any programs held off campus?
No programs are held off campus.

13. What PD in technology do faculty receive per year? Do adjunct faculty also receive this training?
As indicated in the Institutional Report, the Information Systems team in the College of Education provides professional development in technology for full-time and part-time faculty (IR 6.4.i.6). During spring 2015, the COE Office for Online Teaching and Learning provided professional development in Quality Matters for faculty to improve the quality of their course design for hybrid and completely online courses (IR 5.4.g.8). Faculty professional development is also provided through the university’s Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching. IR exhibit 5.4.g.9a documents CELT-sponsored faculty training sessions in technology over the past three years on topics such as Rethinking Presentation Slides: Using Assertion-Evidence Structure, Principles of Multimedia Learning, Introduction to Game-Based Learning, Intermediate Game-Based Learning, Mobile App Playground, Beyond PowerPoint: Prezi and Microsoft Sway, Introduction to Digital Pedagogy, Open Up Your Published Research: Introduction to Open Access, Active Learning with Google Apps, Hybrid Course Design I, Facilitating Effective Online Discussions, Introduction to Qualtrics: A Hands-on Workshop, and Maker Monday: Digital Design, Fabrication, Arduino, Raspberry Pi’s. Additionally, as the university is transitioning from Blackboard to Canvas, training on the Canvas platform has been provided to faculty through workshops, emails, and online instruction (ADD 6.13.1; ADD 6.13.2).

It should be noted that many unit faculty are experts and leaders in the field of instructional technology. As such, they provide professional development and consultation for P-12 educators and university faculty in areas such as digital game-based learning (ADD 6.13.3), online course design (IR 5.4.g.8), and assistive technology (ADD 6.13.4).

 
Name 
 
 

Updated Evidence from the Institutional Report Related to Standard 6 (click to expand)

1. Websites for various unit support offices have been updated since the IR was submitted (ADD 6.14.1).

2. Teaching loads for fall 2014 and spring 2015 for full-time and part-time faculty members in the College of Education are presented in exhibit ADD 6.5.1. Fall 2015 teaching assignments are identified in exhibit ADD 6.5.2.

 
Name