2002 NCATE Annual Report

Table of Contents:

Section 1 - Institutional Information:

NCATE ID: 10432
AACTE SID: 1713
Institution: Kennesaw State University
Unit: Bagwell College of Education
Next Accreditation Visit: F04
Last Accreditation Visit S00
Deadline to Submit Final Version of Part C: 12/02/2002


Section 2 - Individual Contact Information
Unit Head Name: Dr. Yiping Wan
Unit Head Email: ywan@kennesaw.edu
Unit Head Phone: (770) 423-6117
Unit Head Fax: (770) 423-6527
Institution Unit Phone: (770) 423-6117
   
1st NCATE Coordinator: Dr. Beverly F.Mitchell
1st Coordinator Title: Assistant Dean
1st Coordinator Phone: (770) 423-6417
1st Coordinator Fax: (770) 423-6527
1st Coordinator Email: bmitchel@kennesaw.edu
   
2nd NCATE Coordinator: Dr. Vicki McLain
2nd Coordinator Title: Director of Field Experiences and Partnerships
2nd Coordinator Phone: (770) 423-6734
2nd Coordinator Fax: (770) 423-4331
2nd Coordinator Email: vmclain@kennesaw.edu
   
CEO: Dr. Betty L.Siegel
CEO Phone: (770) 423-6033
CEO Fax: (770) 423-6453
CEO Email: bsiegel@kennesaw.edu



Section 3 - NCATE Standards Categories & Weaknesses Section


Section A. Conceptual Framework(s)

The conceptual framework(s) establishes the shared vision for a unit's efforts in preparing educators to work effectively in P-12 schools. It provides direction for programs, courses, teaching, candidate performance, scholarship, service, and unit accountability. The conceptual framework(s) is knowledge-based, articulated, shared, coherent, consistent with the unit and/or institutional mission, and continuously evaluated.

Please indicate evaluations of and changes made to the unit's conceptual framework (if any) during this year:
In spring 2001, a new PTEU Conceptual Framework Standing Committee was charged to continue the work on the conceptual framework begun the previous semester by the Performance Based Committee. Using the revised document as a beginning point, the subcommittee expanded the sections on expertise, teacher development, teacher facilitation and collaboration with support from current and classical literature for the purpose of demonstrating viability and relevance of the model. The history of the conceptual framework and pertinent information from the revised BOR principles were woven into the material for context.

Members of the committee represented faculty who shared an interest in the project and who were recognized as good writers or were well informed of the literature pertinent to the model. For continuity purposes, members of the task force who initiated the original revisions met with the committee on a number of occasions to offer advice and direction.

Serious work began in the fall of 2001 with committee assignments for the research and writing of various sections. An initial draft with new and revised material was reported to the PTEU at their monthly meeting in December. The committee was especially interested in feedback from program coordinators who could provide the best review of the document's relevance and application to their disciplines. Ultimately, their feedback was incorporated into the material.

Still not satisfied with the document after more revision, the committee reexamined the manuscript and decided that it needed a complete reorganization in the sequencing of sections beginning with KSU's context and culminating with the conceptual framework statement and knowledge base. The result was a stronger, more informative statement with logically ordered sections and a summary chart showing the correlation of our CF with national and state standards. The knowledge base was also expanded to show congruence of the CF with the Candidate Performance Instrument (CPI), a unit assessment applied at various points to determine candidate proficiencies in undergraduate and graduate preparations. Even with these improvements, some sections still read like lists rather than narrative and differences in writing styles across the sections required editing to sound as one voice.

Again, the committee shared progress on the document for informational purposes only with the PTEU at its March 2002 meeting. After reviewing the material for completeness and continuity, the committee chair in consultation with other faculty concluded that to meet a deadline of completion by August 2002, three major areas would need further work over the summer. They were: 1. strengthening the developmental aspect of the model for both pre-service and experienced teachers; 2. re-stating the belief statements to embody the critical developmental component; and 3. modifying the teacher facilitator emphasis to focus on teaching and learning.

By late summer following an intensive search of the literature, development of the review and knowledge base portion of the document for the teaching and learning section were well underway. The review represented empirical and theoretical justification for all of the domains, outcomes and indicators of desired candidate performance at the graduate and undergraduate levels for all programs in the PTEU. The timeframe for completion of December 2002 was a factor prompting the urgent request during the PTEU retreat for volunteers from each program and/or department to commit to finalizing the document. By late August, the committee had met to critique the document, identify areas in need of improvement, and determine writing assignments. Committee representatives were from a mix of graduate, undergraduate, elementary, middle and P-12 programs.

In September, all committee members read NCATE materials and Erskine Dottin's The Development of a Conceptual Framework: The Stimulation for Coherence and Continuous Improvement in Teacher Education, 2001.The committee agreed to use Dottin's book as the guide to developing the PTEU conceptual framework. At that point, the committee members agreed to conduct a gap analysis between the existing framework and the elements of a quality framework outlined in Dottin's book. The analysis revealed the following concerns:

1. All of the elements of a conceptual framework discussed by Dr. Dottin were not incorporated into the existing framework. Therefore, those sections had to be written.
2. The framework was fragmented, repetitive and often incoherent due to the number of individuals who had worked on it over the years.
3. There was a lack of alignment between the belief statements and the framework theme.
4. The term, 'expert' seemed incongruent with the notion of 'life long learner'.
5. The framework over emphasized the undergraduate program, with little stated about the graduate programs.
6. Constructivist thinking needed greater emphasize in parts of the document. Additional references needed to be added.

Members of the committee agreed to work on various components of the document to bring it in line with Dr. Dottin's recommendations. Meanwhile, through a generous grant from the Center for Field Experiences and Partnerships or CFEP, we arranged for Dr. Dottin's visit and solicited his recommendations for improving the document. According to the committee and faculty of the PTEU participating in the workshop, our only disappointment was that we did not have the foresight for such an occasion well over a year ago when, given what we know now, we might have made different decisions resulting in an earlier implementation of essential practices. Nonetheless, as we thought about the recommendations, we agreed that it certainly was not too late to re-evaluate where we were. After all, the recommendations were pertinent, insightful, doable, and absolutely essential. And the suggestions went deeper than simply editorial. Through Dr. Dottin's careful questioning, we realized that our framework, although validated by the literature and best educational practices, was not a living framework though it had potential to be so with some additional work and re-thinking. With minor restructuring, and clearer delineation in specific sections, we believe our conceptual framework can be the powerful leader it's intended to be that brings coherence to everything we do and directs our current work toward the future we envision.

Specifically, the deficiencies which will be addressed immediately are: 1. development of a unit vision that permeates all programs and services, 2. input from our professional partners in the public schools, and 3. completion of our assessment system to include specific assessments of all proficiencies and deemed common across initial and graduate programs. As we develop the details of the following components, we are aware that the unit, through its framework, must be the driving force in the development and delivery of programs, not the converse:

1. Unit vision
2. Philosophy and beliefs
3. Greater efforts to embrace all stakeholders in our vision
4. Unit assessment system
5. Unit outcomes and candidate proficiencies
6. Clear articulation of Boyer's model of the scholarship of teaching and learning

Return to top


Section B. Candidate Performance

Standard 1. Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Candidates include persons preparing to teach, teachers who are continuing their professional development, and persons preparing for other professional roles in schools such as principals, school psychologists, and school library media specialists. Preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel. Know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students.

Please describe the unit's plans for and progress in meeting this standard. (Refer to the NCATE 2000 Unit Transition Plan for information regarding the levels at which units should address Standards 1 and 2 during the first year of NCATE 2000 implementation)

The unit's proficiencies have been aligned with the Georgia Board of Regents Principles, INTASC and NBPTS. By going a step further and aligning these proficiencies with specialty area standards this fall, faculty are selecting key assessments to show evidence that our candidates not only meet institutional but professional content standards as well. The alignment serves two purposes for us: 1. builds coherence in the curriculum by ensuring few, if any, gaps in essential content which candidates need, and 2. identifies key assessments that have commonalities with the multiple sets of standards. Combined with the current study of how the unit's classification of proficiencies and attempts to clarify the language can improve, we anticipate the emerging of a simpler but more powerful set of proficiencies with their accompanying assessments that will be easier to measure and report within meaningful structures. Discussions are underway throughout initial and advanced programs.

The Candidate Performance Instrument, or CPI, approved for use in undergraduate practicum experiences, student teaching and advanced programs' exit level one year ago in August 2001, is continually assessed by cooperating teachers, candidates and supervising faculty. For nearly three semesters it has been the primary tool used to validate candidates' performances on all proficiencies. However, its purpose and contents are being re-evaluated since it parallels the unit's proficiencies currently under study and described above. The outcome of this analysis later this fall has potential to influence decisions about the evidence we use to support all elements of this standard. Frankly, the discussions underway are critically important. As an additional comment, one aspect of the instrument modified last spring in response to feedback from users was the rubric that guides decisions about evidence presented by the candidate. We now have clearer statements describing both the nature and quality of the evidence expected and evaluated. We continue to monitor the effectiveness of the CPI and are discussing ways to train all personnel who use the CPI to improve reliability of ratings.

Program areas are improving data collection procedures for summarizing and reporting results from key assessments. Electronic directories in a common drive were created for purposes of archiving data on all aspects related to candidate competency. This arrangement serves as a pre-cursor to the data management system, or DMS, currently under development and described in standard 2, element 2 of this report. The deadline of fall 2003 for completing program reviews in response to national professional standards and/or state standards is prompting serious data collection and use of data to support the case that candidates have the necessary knowledge, skills and dispositions appropriate to their subject matter and qualifications as a professional. Once the unit's proficiencies have been re-evaluated and re-formulated in response to valuable advice from external reviewers this fall, assessment results will be clearly linked and appropriately matched to standard 1's elements.

Discussions continue around the phase which we call readiness, the preparatory phase in undergraduate education preceding the first extensive field experience where candidates work with students in supervised subject matter classes. A subcommittee met frequently in spring 2002 to review the essential concepts needed to be prepared for admission to the first intensive practicum. Representatives from each level and the sponsoring departments had dialogue over the course of the semester and finalized a recommendation to develop a separate course in lifespan human growth and development with an emphasis on adolescents and specifically created for candidates majoring in middle grades or secondary education. The proposal, prompted by the realization that the current course focuses on k-5 development, was approved by the Teacher Education Council for middle grades education and secondary education majors in the content fields of English, math, chemistry, biology and social sciences. The consequence of this change will, according to the proponents of the proposal, provide stronger preparation of candidates' knowledge and understanding of human development by focusing on adolescent development.

Dialogue continues around making the portfolio a unit-wide requirement. At a program coordinators' retreat in May 2002, plans were outlined for familiarizing undergraduate candidates with the PTEU proficiencies in EDUC 2201 Teaching and Schools in a Changing Society, one of the courses required for program admission. This fall, students will begin compiling evidence for inclusion in a portfolio that documents their progress on the unit's proficiencies in this early phase of preparation. Candidates will build upon the early evidence to support their development as teachers through the course of the teacher education program. At the same time in advanced programs, subcommittees of faculty and program coordinators are engaged in examining current guidelines for the portfolio across departments with the intent to identify types of evidence that are currently being collected. Faculty are identifying which courses and what assignments might be used as portfolio entries by our candidates to demonstrate their developing expertise as teacher leaders and, in particular, to demonstrate their impact on student learning. The next phase for both initial and advanced programs is to forward this information on to the SAT 2 Committee for their suggestions on which evidence should flow up from the programs to the unit level assessment system.

Discussions continue on the format of the portfolio with some programs opting for electronic versions while other programs continue to give the option of hard copy or electronic forms. For fall 2002, the advanced early childhood education candidates are piloting an electronic version with the template provided in house by the university's Office of Career Services while advanced candidates in adolescent education have the option to do a hard copy version or an electronic version through LiveText online services. To facilitate the process of finalizing our portfolio decisions and actions, a daylong program coordinators retreat on the portfolio is scheduled for mid-December.

Toward the end of the Spring 2002 semester, the group responsible for the initial efforts toward becoming totally compliant with a performance based model of teacher education, the Performance-Based Committee, recommended that a Steering Committee be formed with the purpose of ensuring continuous improvement in the Professional Teacher Education Unit and to oversee preparations for the next NCATE visit. As a result, the Performance-Based Committee was dissolved. A mini-task force worked during the summer to develop a structure and process for carrying the unit work through to completion of the semester's goals. The Steering Committee, chaired by the unit head, Dean of the Bagwell College of Education, was formulated and is currently functioning with constituent representation from each standard action team or SAT Committees, students, technology, field experiences and administration.

Return to top



Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
Standard 2. Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.

Please describe the unit's plans for and progress in meeting this standard. (Refer to the NCATE 2000 Unit Transition Plan for information regarding the levels at which units should address Standards 1 and 2 during the first year of NCATE 2000 implementation)

The assessment system at KSU represents a comprehensive collection of measures used to reach decisions about candidate readiness and determine the effectiveness of programs, operations and personnel that contribute jointly in the preparation of quality beginning and experienced teachers. The purpose of keeping timely and accurate records is to inform all stakeholders of the effectiveness of KSU's teacher education unit and to guide its efforts to improve. Currently, the system includes candidate admission/exit data, candidate performance data gathered and summarized from course assignments and live interactions of candidates with school age learners, and various unit level data from numerous surveys administered by the Center for Field Experiences and Partnerships. The majority of assessments relate to candidate performance evaluations on the outcomes and proficiencies described in this conceptual framework, but as the unit becomes more refined in establishing secure methods of collecting pertinent information about its entire delivery system, the assessment system will become a more trusted source of valuable information from which to base decisions for needed change.

Element 1. We gained several insights during a recent workshop on the topic of our conceptual framework about the unit's ability to assess the proficiencies as they currently exist. A recommendation under consideration is to re-organize the proficiencies under a structure of 3, not 4, outcomes and to revise the language for clearer links to knowledge, skill or dispositional proficiencies. One of the next immediate steps related to the implementation of the assessment system is to develop procedures and/or guidelines for ensuring that any rating used to evaluate candidate work is consistently applied. The SAT 2 Committee is working on ways to assist programs in attaining reliable results on the CPI and on any other assessment dependent upon a judgment of quality.

Discussions of proficiencies and clarity of language similar to those for the initial programs will occur among the advanced programs in the next few weeks. While the 5 advanced level proficiencies parallel the 5 NBPT standards, faculty will consider re-grouping the proficiencies into 3 outcomes. Nothing will be lost but the new organization should help simplify decisions about what assessments are appropriate for inclusion as evidence for standard 1. Too, differentiating among knowledge, skill and dispositional proficiencies should be easier. A concern for advanced programs, like that of the initial programs which the SAT 2 Committee will be addressing this year, is the matter of inter-rater and intra-rater agreement in instances requiring subjective evaluations of candidates' work. Since the portfolio is the principal assessment in the advanced programs, the unit must demonstrate that candidates are fairly and accurately assessed by all faculty and that the same level of rigor is applied throughout. As with the initial programs, the SAT 2 Committee is working on ways to assist programs in attaining reliable results on the CPI and on any other assessment dependent upon a judgment of quality.

Undergraduate and graduate candidate proficiencies were derived from discussions of philosophy and beliefs in connection with the refinement of the conceptual framework that took place in 2000-01. The initial effort to assess candidates was through the CPI, but after one year of implementation in 2001-02, results and feedback from cooperating teachers, faculty and candidates showed that the instrument did not measure up to the expectation as a primary assessment of proficiencies. After the recent workshop on the conceptual framework, a new approach has been taken to improve the unit's ability to determine the strength of candidates' proficiencies. Each initial and graduate program will complete a worksheet matrix in the next few weeks that will show the relationships of the unit proficiencies with each program's professional content standards and how the curriculum supports candidates' attainment of the specific proficiencies. From this worksheet, SAT 2 will determine: 1. the assessments that are common to all programs, and 2. select from the list one or more key assessments that each program reports candidate performance on each semester. These key assessments will be matched to the unit's proficiencies and to the appropriate elements in Standard 1.

The Conceptual Framework Committee and program areas will benefit from the completion earlier this year of a document showing the relationship of unit proficiencies to professional and state standards. A comparison to show the relationship of unit proficiencies to professional and state was completed this year and has been a valuable source of information to the Conceptual Framework Committee and to program areas as they continually assess and ensure connections in course work. The assessment system also incorporates timely information about KSU graduates entering their first year of teaching. A formalized program of induction for all beginning teachers in the 11 partnership school systems engages KSU graduates for two years following completion of the degree program. Data collected this past year indicate these assessments provide valuable feedback to both CFEP and to programs. Survey results from all candidates, cooperating teachers and principals of schools used as placement sites in two lower division core courses were added as key components of the unit's assessment system. Additional information regarding the effectiveness of opportunities for candidates' continued development is obtained from sessions designed specifically for student teachers held concurrently with the induction conferences. Feedback from the past year has resulted in modifications at the unit and program levels, and for this reason, these surveys will be continued.

The formalized structure for the evaluation and improvement of unit operations related to field experiences, diversity, faculty, and unit resources is handled through Standard Action Teams, or SAT Committees. These committees are responsible for determining evidence needed to document how the standard is met. Each committee is in a preliminary data-gathering phase of determining areas of need. Based on their findings this fall and plans for collecting information, the unit assessment system will be further developed to include specific assessments required by each SAT Committee.

Element 2. The assessment system uses a variety of internal and external assessments to determine the quality of curriculum, delivery, and support services to candidates. Results from surveys, national exams, performance evidence, field experiences, diversity characteristics, and others are compiled, reported and analyzed semi-annually or annually, depending on the assessment.

The commitment for a fully integrated Data Management System began early in the year. The Dean of the Bagwell College of Education received in February a proposal from a committee for funding the development of a comprehensive unit database to accommodate the unit assessment system. The proposal outlined the urgency for securing a consultant to write specifications for a fully integrated system to support data collection, analysis, storage, aggregation of candidate, faculty and resource data and the ability to generate reports as needed. Additionally, the system should accommodate both dynamic and archival data. In late spring, the proposal was discussed and reviewed with university computer technology personnel including the university's Chief Information Officer and Professor of Information Systems in the event the system could be developed in-house.

Weekly discussions with representatives from Administrative Computing Systems began in early summer, continuing through August and into the beginning of fall semester. To date, our own Academic Computing personnel have developed a software application that will handle the professional behavior checklist that all program areas use to note instances of non-professional behavior of candidates. Software to handle the various admissions' applications and tracking is in the development and testing stages, and discussions of data retrieval strategies and reporting formats occur as each phase nears completion.

One feature agreed upon unanimously at the outset was the need for a secure system that would protect against unauthorized use, misuse and inadvertent loss of information. The primary university database Banner has multiple built in safeguards but because our system would be outside the Banner system and accessible by multiple users, similar precautions are a requirement.

Element 3. The unit prepared a tracking form for all to show how the results from assessments are used as feedback for improvement. Unit and program level personnel most directly benefiting from the results complete the analysis soon after the data become available. Much remains to be done with regard to utilizing data for the purpose of improving what we currently do. This is just the beginning of a process that over time will refine the data collection and reporting so that the feedback is manageable and realistic. Improvements in technology in the next year will also contribute in making results more readily available.


Return to top



Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
Section C. Unit capacity

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 personnel develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 3 that occurred in your unit this year:

By early summer, the SAT 3 Committee had examined NCATE Standard 3 and its elements and formulated 12 essential expectations that could be incorporated into a survey for distribution to a mix of public school and university personnel in late summer. The purpose of the survey was to assess the views of the professional school and campus community regarding our field experiences and how they measure up to key expectations. The committee compiled and analyzed the results from 29 surveys returned out of 78 or a 37 percent return rate. Based on the feedback, SAT 3 is recommending the following:

Element 1:
1. Increase knowledge of the conceptual framework on the principal level, as surveys of principals indicate that not all are familiar with the conceptual framework.
2. Increase knowledge of conceptual framework of all school based faculty at the unit level and at the program level.
3. Need to ensure all program areas continue to work on partnership development.
4. Need to ensure all program areas post evaluation forms with analysis and summary on the I-Drive
5. Ensure rubrics/evaluations are aligned with the conceptual framework at the program area level.
6. Recommend an informal assessment form to be used by University Supervisors, Cooperating Teachers, and Candidates who evaluate each other. This form should be linked to the Conceptual Framework.
7. Ensure that Cooperating Teachers are conducting an informal assessment twice before the midterm and twice before the final.

Element 2:
1. Require portfolios in all program areas, graduate and undergraduate, with minimum core components. Each program area will establish portfolio rubrics used to evaluate the portfolios.
2. Include a statement on every syllabus that encourages involvement in school-based activities. Collect more supporting evidence at the program level that candidates are involved in a variety of school-based activities

Element 3:
1. Ensure there is a Masters Level Summary Rating Form in the applicable program areas.
2. All course syllabi in the program areas need to link outcomes, assignments, and assessments to Professional and State standards and CPI.
3. Ensure multiple assessments are being conducted in each program area and provide evidence of impact on student learning.
4. Teaching Specific Subjects, or TOSS, and student teachers who are placed in the same school will observe and evaluate each others' performance using informal assessment form that is linked to conceptual framework.
5. Work with Standard 4 to further identify core evidence that is needed to ensure our candidates develop and demonstrate proficiencies that support learning by all students. Ensure program areas are providing these opportunities.

The committee compiled a list of core evidence based on their review of the survey data that each program area needs to collect and summarize regularly. While each program area's evidence may vary on the style, content, components, and/or characteristics, all programs must put in place by spring 2003 reliable data collection and retention procedures.

The Center for Field Experiences and Partnerships, or CFEP, has documented changes and improvements at unit level for Standard 3. The Center has aligned their NCATE/PSC evidence files with the Essential Expectations and Evidence that has been identified by the SAT 3 Committee. The Center has posted data analysis for all its unit level work in the share electronic directories for easy access to the PTEU faculty. CFEP continue to make significant improvements based on analyses of data collection taking place as follows:
1. A new form was developed that is used during the TOSS experience by principals, collaborating teachers, and candidates to determine if candidates will remain with their collaborating teacher for the student teaching experience. Research strongly supports a yearlong experience, and survey feedback indicates key players support the idea.
2. For those not continuing at their TOSS site for student teaching, the Center's Director made additional telephone contacts with candidates and their perspective student teaching sites to better match candidate to a placement for a more effective student teaching experience.
3. A diversity statement was written to provide guidelines for all field experience placements at the unit level to ensure that all candidates have multiple experiences in diverse setting. The guidelines provide diversity category percentages/benchmarks that represent a more diverse setting than what the candidate encounters at Kennesaw State University. As a result of the diversity statement, we ensure that all candidates have a diverse setting in EDUC 2201 Teaching in Schools in a Changing Society and in EXC 3304 Education of Exceptional Students.


Return to top



Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
Standard 4. Diversity
The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and experiences for candidates to acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. These experiences include working with diverse higher education and school faculty, diverse candidates, and diverse students in P-12 schools.

Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 4 that occurred in your unit this year:

During August and September, the Diversity Committee mailed a diversity survey to faculty and school personnel involved in teacher education/field experience placements. This survey requested that educators give their opinions on a variety of concerns related to diversity: the strength of the curriculum at Kennesaw State University or KSU as well as the diversity seen among students and teachers at the schools and university.

The small rate of return of diversity surveys has made it difficult for the committee to draw meaningful generalizations. One pattern does appear to be emerging: most KSU faculty members expressed more positive beliefs about progress on diversity than did school personnel. Faculty members saw diversity within the educational programs as strong. Generally, they approved of the requirements for diversity within the curriculum and in field placements. Though faculty praised the diverse populations within schools, a few faculty also noted a lack of diversity among university supervisors and KSU students. As one commented, 'We do the best we can with the minimal amount of diversity.' A few faculty members suggested revising the Candidate Performance Instrument CPI to focus more attention on diversity. The current form contains only one proficiency specific to diversity but several related to skillful application in teaching of knowledge pertaining to diversity.

As of this writing, the Diversity Committee has received only two surveys from schools. An analysis of their remarks appears in the next section of this report. The Diversity Committee considers the survey rankings and comments useful in determining the future direction of diversity at KSU. We would also like to tap into our candidates' experience with diversity. Therefore, plans are to survey candidates on their opinions about diversity during their senior year at KSU. This survey is a good starting place for understanding the perceptions held, and progress made, on diversity. The Diversity Committee would now like to begin taking steps toward gathering substantive information on our status and on the progress we should make. The Diversity Committee plans to take several steps in the next year to further its work on improving diversity.

Short-term Goals. The Diversity Committee will propose a new draft of the university statement on diversity that appears in university catalogs. We hope the PTEU will consider this new statement, including an expanded definition of diversity with elements of race, culture, disability/ability, SES, religion, gender, and family structure.

We expect to disseminate surveys to senior undergraduate students in December. Thus, we should reach all the adults affected by diversity programs at KSU, polling them for their opinions of its effectiveness. We will use this information to influence curricular policy at KSU.

Long-term Goals. The Diversity Committee will also be working closely with the University's legal counsel improve awareness of, and ability to work with, a diverse student population. We will become familiar with the University Strategic Plan and to work with the legal counsel on conferences related to diversity.

With these goals, the Diversity Committee expects to take the discussion to a deeper level and help the KSU community to decide on its own definition of diversity.

Element 1: The survey results indicated that faculty at Kennesaw State University found this element strongly supported. At this writing, 24 faculty respondents noted that Element 1 was strong or very strong, 11 noting that moderate effectiveness, five rating it as very weak, four as weak, one as moderate/weak, and one writing don't have a clue. Comments such as diverse placements are required for all candidates were typical of the positive remarks. A few faculty members requested clearer documentation of diversity in the curriculum, however: we need to require evidence during student teaching & TOSS field experience expressed this belief. One of these surveys contained a comment about concerns over the amount and quality of KSU students' college work in working with any form of diversity. Another respondent remarked that diversity should be imbedded in every class. This is real world and a challenge for every teacher. Both of these respondents were chiefly interested in having a more effective curriculum for diversity at Kennesaw State University.

Teachers working with our students in the field returned only two of their surveys. They gave a moderate rating for Element 1. These two teacher respondents made these comments, which relate to Elements 1 and 4: More field studies in schools with great diversity and language differences should be given to candidates prior to their placement in schools for student teaching, and Students need more varied lessons when working with students not meeting expectations.

Element 2. Again, the faculty of Kennesaw State University gave the diverse faculty domain strong marks: 13 strong or very strong, eight moderate marks, two weak/moderate, one weak, and one don't have a clue. The belief in the strength of diverse faculty, however, is not as strong as in diverse curriculum. Respondents wrote these remarks: I do not think that there is enough diverse representation among KSU faculty and Probably we don't know as much about students with exceptionalities as a strong or very strong rating would indicate.

The public school teachers did not have enough information on diverse KSU faculty to comment on these qualities and rated it with a don't have a clue.

Element 3. The faculty of Kennesaw State University seems to believe that much more work needs to be done in the domain of diverse candidates. Eight faculty rated the program with a strong or very strong for diverse candidates with 13 giving it a moderate score, and two a weak score. Typical remarks include KSU is not very diverse and Our demographics limit us. This domain clearly needs the most attention in our effort to improve diversity at Kennesaw State University. Teachers gave Element 3 a don't have a clue and made no comments specifically addressing this domain.

Element 4. Faculty tended to feel satisfied about this domain. Fifteen rated this domain with a strong or very strong score. Only four respondents marked it as moderate and four don't have a clue. Respondents tended to write long lists of supporting evidence for this domain, which seemed to reflect a depth of knowledge and confidence about diverse school populations. A representative remark reads: Candidates are required to have broad-based experience at all levels.

The teachers gave this domain a moderate/strong and a moderate. Their comments were instructive: I marked strong because my student teachers have been excellent from Kennesaw. I have concerns about the amount and quality of their college work in working with any form of diversity. Students we have observed demonstrated these characteristics, but do seem to need more training in working with students with diverse needs, i.e. ESOL, EIP, etc.

The sharp contrast in responses from faculty and school respondents merits further investigation. The Diversity Committee plans to continue to study these issues. We hope that the findings from a survey of candidates will add greatly to our insights into candidates' preparedness for teaching in diverse schools. In addition, the Diversity Committee may need to conduct a follow-up study of the concerns raised by these responses.


Return to top



Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
Standard 5. Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development.
Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance. They also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.

Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 5 that occurred in your unit this year:

The SAT 5 Committee during regular meetings throughout the past several semesters finalized specific roles and responsibilities of its members and agreed upon key primary sources for evidence. We decided to look at faculty vita, annual reviews, the Kennesaw State University Faculty Handbook, PTEU Faculty Induction Handbook, Part-Time Faculty Handbook, aspects of the unit assessment system, faculty hiring policies and practices, faculty appointments to graduate faculty status, tenure, promotion and pre- post-tenure review; faculty grievance and appeals; and faculty awards, recognition, and professional development opportunities. Future plans include developing a consent form which faculty would sign to allow access to their own annual reviews by NCATE BOE members during an on-site visit.

The degree to which our constituents and we perceive compliance with the standard served as the beginning point of discussion for this year's work. A survey was developed to get at that very question from respondents representing an array of university and public school personnel. Findings revealed that all elements of Standard 5 are very strong except Modeling Best Practices in Professional Scholarship, which was rated strong. The Professional Teacher Education Unit or PTEU, administrators, program coordinators, Center for Field Experiences and Partnership or CFEP and public school personnel including principals, assistant principals, master teachers, and collaborating teachers comprised the representative sample. Since the initial survey return rate was not high, a second survey was sent out to non-respondents who received the first survey.

A customized vita template was developed with assistance from the Director of KSU's Career Placement Center to serve as a single but powerful document for demonstrating the interconnections among faculty's work in scholarship, teaching, service and collaboration. An integral feature of the document is the way in which the faculty member discusses the conceptual framework in the context of course work and supervisory experiences. Faculty volunteers are currently piloting the template for completeness and feasibility. Once the problems are worked out, an electronic web version of the template will replace the word processing version beginning January 2003 to achieve faster, more effective input and retrieval of pertinent information. The tasks and responsibilities of SAT 5 for the remainder of the 2002-2003 academic year will be to identify areas in need of improvement based on evidence that was compiled and examined throughout the year.


Return to top



Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
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.

Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 6 that occurred in your unit this year:

The Standard Action Team or SAT 6 was formed to determine our current situation relative to this standard and also to determine what needs to be done to meet our target goals for this standard. After some membership changes, the current team consists of key administrators including the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences and two chairs from the Bagwell College of Education.

Several meetings were held to determine the target goals for meeting Standard 6. From those goals a survey instrument was developed which was sent to all Deans, Department Chairs, and Directors associated with teacher education programs and support for such programs. A summary of the findings indicates that:
1. All expectations for Leadership & Authority, Personnel, Facilities, and Resources were rated as strong or very strong by a majority of the respondents with the exception of online course delivery
2. Expectations with regard to Budget and Workload were generally rated as very weak, weak, or moderate by a majority of respondents

Therefore, areas that need attention are:
1. Budget ' including the pursuit of additional resources i.e. external funding
2. Workload ' especially the need to balance teaching, scholarship, and service
3. Online course delivery and/or web-enhanced course delivery

The next steps in the process include:
1. Determination of what evidence is needed to document the current situation
2. Determination of how best to evaluate, organize, and make available that evidence
3. Determination of what steps need to be taken to improve in those areas that need attention
4. Assessment of progress toward improvement in those areas that need attention

Budget issues are a major issue for the institution as a whole and specific recommendations can only be made after institution wide discussions and the formulation of a new institution strategic plan, a process which is currently being undertaken by the Office of Academic Affairs. It is clear however, that external funding will be needed to supplement state appropriations.

Workload is also a major institutional issue and is related to budget. A forum, sponsored by the University Senate, is being held to begin discussion of these issues. While there are specific workload issues associated with teacher Preparation programs, they must be fitted into the context of institutional workload and therefore, can only be addressed in conjunction with discussions addressing institutional guidelines.

Return to top