NCATE ID:	10432
	AACTE SID:	1713
	Institution:	Kennesaw State University
	Unit:	Bagwell College of Education
	Next Accreditation Visit:	F09
	Last Accreditation Visit	F04
	Deadline to Submit Final Version of Part C:	11/18/2005

	Unit Head Name:	Dr. Yiping Wan
	Unit Head Title:	Dean
	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 Email:	bmitchel@kennesaw.edu
	1st Coordinator Phone:	(770) 423-6417
	1st Coordinator Fax:	(770) 423-6527
	2nd NCATE Coordinator:
	2nd Coordinator Title:
	2nd Coordinator Email:
	2nd Coordinator Phone:
	2nd Coordinator Fax:
	CEO:	Dr. Betty L. Siegel
	CEO Title:	President
	CEO Email:	bsiegel@kennesaw.edu
	CEO Phone:	(770) 423-6033
	CEO Fax:	(770) 423-6453

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:
	Kennesaw State University's conceptual framework undergoes review annually or more frequently as needed whenever a program is developed or revised. In this year alone, a new MAT program in mathematics and English received approval from the Georgia Board of Regents and the new Ed.S/Ed.D programs of study is currently under review by the university's multi-level curriculum committee structure. Plans call for revision to the framework in light of the new Ed.S/Ed.D degree program since its focus is around teacher and administrative leadership. We have a standing committee within the Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) solely dedicated to the review of the framework for its continuing validity.
	Conceptual framework Areas for Improvement cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
	NA
	Section B. Candidate Performance
	Standard 1. Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
	Candidates 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 learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.
	To sustain the value of feedback from external practitioners, we systematically collect, report, and reflect upon results from three unit assessments and several surveys completed by candidates, graduates of our programs, collaborating teachers, collaborating principals, and employers. In fact, our datasets are continuous since fall 2002. The assessment tools, including surveys and performance evaluations of candidates, receive on-going evaluation to be sure they remain valid and feasible indicators of candidates? knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Several program areas are piloting revised rubrics for the Portfolio Narrative and Impact On Student Learning after an analysis of several semesters of data revealed a weaker than acceptable correlation between the requirements of the assignments and the criteria for evaluating candidate work. In similar fashion, results from assessments on our advanced candidates yield consistent findings that show our graduates to be proficient in attaining both institutional and discipline specific standards. The cohort model, where candidates enter, progress, and graduate with the same peer group, does present some challenges for data collection in that the schedule for giving unit adopted assessments varies with each program. New MAT programs are scheduled to begin summer 2006 along with minor revisions to the unit assessments so as to maintain a strong correlation with new state standards and institutional proficiencies.
	Areas for Improvement related to Standard 1 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
	Please indicate how the unit has addressed these Areas for 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.
	The Education Information Center (EIC) continues to serve our needs for collecting, analyzing, and reporting unit level results from initial, advanced, and non-degree candidate assessments. The system requires periodic refreshing as new and revised information becomes incorporated; however, the system does meet an acceptable level of reliability despite the occasional need to repair certain features. The unit agreed several years ago to have an annual 'Data Reflections' day each fall. The recent event was successfully completed with participation from all programs. The reflections piece of the assessment tool is linked to each set of results as well as to the compiled results from all evaluators. Reflections on unit results become a part of the EIC while survey reflections are kept presently on our internal website.
	Areas for Improvement related to Standard 2 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
	Unit- and program-level technologies do not allow for the integration of some program-level data at the unit level.
	Please indicate how the unit has addressed these Areas for Improvement (Optional).
	The challenge inherent in this area for improvement is both exciting and daunting. It took several months of study and analysis before we chose the software to pilot with real assessment systems from one undergraduate and one graduate program. The pilot phase runs for one academic year after which faculty and candidates have an opportunity to report on its effects. We are not required but rather elect to structure our curriculum and candidate performance expectations around the national (SPA) standards, and for this reason, faculty must be secure in managing their own program assessment systems. The software looks promising for maintaining candidate as well as faculty information.
	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:
	Field experiences continue to be strengths of our teacher education preparation in all disciplines. Collaboration within program areas through Advisory Boards and similar arrangements in the unit's Office of Field Experiences ensures a strong voice from school-based personnel as part of our commitment to maintain effective experiences for our candidates in school settings. We monitor closely the qualifications of collaborating personnel who supervise our candidates and where necessary we make adjustments in supervisory responsibilities. The assignment, Impact on Student Learning, continues to be a primary indicator of candidates' instructional impact.
	Areas for Improvement related to Standard 3 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
	(Advanced Preparation) The unit does not ensure that candidates in ESOL programs have field experiences that require them to demonstrate their skills with P-12 students.
	Please indicate how the unit has addressed these Areas for Improvement (Optional).
	The Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) stipulates conditions for any program that does not meet its standards. And since the PSC standards parallel those of NCATE, we were cited as well by the PSC for failing to have consistent experiences in field settings for all candidates enrolled in all three deliveries of our ESOL program. Two major decisions made by the unit head regarding the ESOL endorsement program have direct implications to this standard. First, the Continuing Education delivery has been officially discontinued. After looking at several options to strengthen the clinical component, Continuing Education agreed they were not able to meet the unit's standards for effective experiences in clinical settings. Second, the field experience piece for the two remaining deliveries has been re-configured with more hours and more intensive responsibilities expected of candidates during the time in school settings with ESOL students. The ESOL program is scheduled for an on-site review by the PSC in January 2006.
	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:
	Diverse experiences for initial level candidates have been and continue to be required for 3 of the 4 unit level field and clinical placements. A recently expanded diversity committee replacing the former Standard Action Team 3 and now called the Committee on Recruitment and Retention for Diversity (CORRD) effectively combines the surveillance of diversity (among faculty, candidates, curriculum, field and clinical settings) with the Board of Regents' recruitment mandates for increased candidate and faculty representation from minority populations. In addition, an important component will be an international focus that will consider ways to improve and expand cultural exchanges for academic work and clinical practice.
	Areas for Improvement related to Standard 4 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
	(Advanced Preparation) The unit does not ensure that candidates have experiences with diverse P-12 students.
	Please indicate how the unit has addressed these Areas for Improvement (Optional).
	A decision in 2003 by advanced program faculty recommended that advanced candidates extend field experiences beyond their own classrooms to work with diverse students even if the candidate's classroom reflected a representative profile of diverse characteristics. The recommendation was carefully and thoughtfully drafted but as noted by the NCATE BOE it did not go far enough to ensure adequate experiences. The recommendation has been re-addressed in light of the standard and will be presented in the form of a motion at the December, 2005, Advanced Program Coordinators' meeting to change the wording from 'recommended' to 'required' practice.
	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:
	Progress continues toward making an electronic system available to faculty to report activity related to teaching, scholarship, service, and collaboration. This move will enable us to generate qualified electronic evidence for annual reviews, promotion and tenure, and post-tenure review decisions. If successful, the system will eliminate the current practice of managing the multiple and oftentimes redundant databases of faculty qualifications and related experiential information housed on desktop computers in Academic Affairs, Office of Institutional Research, and Human Resources. Such progress is underway as a result of the regional accreditation review in 2006-07 by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). We expect to continue having faculty self-report their activity but the validation of degrees, concentrations, and descriptions of qualifications (if teaching includes 'out of field' courses) will be generated from a university-wide database. Meanwhile, the new software piloted this year for candidates also includes a faculty portfolio component through which vita type activity can be organized and reported.
	Areas for Improvement related to Standard 5 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
	Please indicate how the unit has addressed these Areas for 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:
	Unit governance remains strong with the potential of growing stronger as administrative re-organization rises to greater effectiveness in time within the College of Education. In an effort to streamline processes and services plus fill gaps noted during preparations for the 2004 NCATE on-site visit, one new Associate Dean's position was created. Now, initial programs and advanced programs each has its own supervisor responsible for all matters relevant to academic policy and curriculum. Collaborative efforts such as induction programs and securing grants are now divided out from the unit head's (Dean's) office with oversight by the new position of Executive Director. These growing pains that often accompany changes in administrative structure should lessen as we make smarter, more thoughtful decisions. Financial resources are adequate in that the state has not imposed (yet) budgetary constraints this fiscal year. Supplemental income from candidates enrolled in field and clinical experiences allows reimbursement for travel by university supervisors. This income helps academic departments offset the 71% increase in state mileage reimbursement. Resources allocated to technology for faculty, staff and students in student support areas, academic areas, departments, labs, and library enable access to state-of-the-art electronic equipment and software.
	Areas for Improvement related to Standard 6 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
	Please indicate how the unit has addressed these Areas for Improvement (Optional).