Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation - IUB Response: Accreditation Report 2002

The Unit Assessment System (UAS) at Indiana University School of Education Bloomington operates at two levels; a school-wide assessment system and individual program assessment systems. The school-wide assessment system incorporates three over-arching components in addition to the annual Teacher Education Council review of individual program reports: 1) data relative to the School-wide benchmarks, 2) candidate and program information from different phases of the teacher education programs, and 3) data from the school-wide Teaching Abilities Self-Assessment Instrument. Faculty within individual programs have integrated assessments and/or benchmarks specific to each program, incorporating means and/or opportunities for providing ongoing feedback to candidates as they progress through the program. These are communicated to the candidates within the program and monitored by the program faculty. As a part of the UAS, each program will present annual reports of its respective assessment process along with the program faculty's analysis to the Teacher Education Council.

Structure of the School-wide Assessment System

A candidate data record is established for all applicants to the IUB teacher education programs. As noted above, this school-wide assessment system is structured around three overarching data gathering components.

Individual program assessment systems: The new teacher education programs are in various stages of implementation, with the majority of them in just their second year of delivery in the 2001-2002 academic year. Thus, most program faculty have only two years of course delivery and/or individual assessments experience to date. The first student teachers of two of the new programs are scheduled for placement in the 2002-2003 academic year; other new programs do not yet have candidates ready for student teaching.

Over the course of the past year, the program faculty members have worked to document how each program addresses and assesses, using both formative and summative instruments and processes, all the relevant principles and standards. A complete set of program matrices summarizes this information for each program. The matrices document where each program addresses individual principles and standards, how candidates' performance is assessed, and the criteria by which assessments are judged.

In addition to these efforts, faculty members of several programs have delineated programmatic benchmarks (see document room), systematic points within their program where the students' learning and progress to date are assessed and communicated to the students. These benchmarks are integrated with the four school-wide benchmarks previously identified. The data relative to both the four school-wide benchmarks and individual program benchmarks, if applicable, will be analyzed annually by the Teacher Education Council as part of its ongoing management of the UAS.

Design: Since 1995, the school's faculty has taken the initiative to re-design the teacher education programs in alignment with the school's Six Guiding Principles, INTASC principles and respective Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) standards. Throughout the design process, the faculty has worked closely with colleagues across campus and in public schools. Thus, the individual program faculty teams have collaborated with various stakeholders throughout their deliberations.

In addition to these faculty initiatives, there have been three more encompassing collaborative efforts in the design of both the teacher education programs and their ongoing assessments:

First, the Joint Advisory Review Board (JARB), a long standing partnership between Indiana University School of Education and the Monroe County Community School Corporation, historically has involved K-12 faculty and administrators in discussions with Education faculty and staff over the administration of early field experience and student teaching components of the teacher education programs. Issues associated with the implementation and assessment of these components, which are key parts of the school's Unit Assessment System, have been brought to this group over the course of the years. Recently this collaborative concept has been expanded. The Regional Schools Advisory Council (RSAC) was created to involve teachers and administrators from the six area school corporations that provide the most significant number of field experience and student teaching placements. These teachers and administrators come together for discussions with the school's faculty and administrators. The charge to the council is to address collectively the processes and policies associated with both the early field experience and student teaching facets of the teacher education programs. The charter meeting of the RSAC was May 6, 2002. The council agreed to meet quarterly and will serve as a collaborative partner in discussions and planning of the field-based components and their assessments throughout the teacher preparation programs.

Second, the 21st Century Teachers Project, initiated in 2000 by Indiana University President Myles Brand, has brought together the faculties of the School of Education, the College of Arts and Sciences, and K-12 schools to discuss their joint responsibilities in preparing K-12 teachers. A primary focus of their deliberations has been the content courses required in the preparation of teachers. At present, there are five collaborative faculty groups (science, literature and speech, mathematics, visual and performing arts, and civics), from both university units and K-12 schools working on the re-design and assessment of courses. Initial changes and recommendations of these working groups were implemented in the Fall 2001 semester. This project is committed to maintaining this collaborative exchange among university and K-12 faculty to assess and strengthen various facets of the teacher education programs and their quality assessment.

Third, the Teacher Education Council (TEC) is the school's primary teacher education policy-recommending body and has been assigned responsibility for the management of the school's Unit Assessment System (UAS). This council is made up of 20 members, representing Education faculty, faculty from across the campus, K-12 faculty and administrators, as well as students and staff. The TEC has been instrumental in reviewing and approving the school's new teacher education programs and their reflection of the school's Six Guiding Principles. Furthermore, the TEC has facilitated the integration of performance-based assessments into each of the programs, as well as the development of the school-wide assessment system. The active involvement of this collaborative body is a strength of the school's assessment system.

The school-wide data collected and analyzed within the UAS include a range of assessments selected to provide information not only about individual candidate performance, but also, collectively about the quality of the teacher preparation programs. The UAS incorporates data utilized nationally to reflect candidates' content knowledge, (i.e., Praxis I and II). Assessments from all stakeholders are embedded in the data selected to inform the faculty through the UAS, (i.e., candidate performance in arts and science classes, professional education classes and field experiences). Furthermore, the data are collected at various stages of the teacher education programs to provide a more complete analysis of the quality of the programs.

Data are reviewed systematically from admissions, throughout the programs, before and after student teaching, and following graduation. Also, the data reflect not only candidates' knowledge and skills, but also their professional dispositions through field experience evaluations and reports from the "alert" system managed by the Office of Teacher Education and the ad hoc Professional Standards Committee.

To complement the data collected as part of the school-wide system, the individual program assessment processes integrate a full range of formative and summative evaluations. Within each program, a wide range of performance-based assessments are used, from reflective journals to case studies to lesson and unit plan evaluations to working portfolios (see Initial License Program Pages). A significant portion of these program assessments is field-based. Several programs have included program-specific benchmarks (see document room) to provide feedback to both candidates and faculty about the professional development of individual candidates. Taken together, data from the school-wide system and from the individual program processes provide a systematic range of internal and external assessments selected to reflect both candidate performance and program quality.

The design of the UAS guarantees a systematic review of data at important stages across the programs. The four school-wide benchmarks reflect important phases in all of the teacher education programs:

The UAS has been developed to collect these data regularly and to report the findings routinely to the appropriate faculty and administrative bodies.

Continuous Management: The school has identified two entities to ensure the continuous management of the unit assessment system. First, the Teacher Education Council (need network ID and password) has as its main function oversight of the unit assessment system, and review of data collected annually at various points throughout the programs. Second, the Office of Teacher Education continuously reviews its organization and its existing databases to ensure regular and consistent management of the UAS, respective data, and necessary databases. As a part of the school's effort to work toward data-driven decision-making models, ongoing improvements in the Office of Teacher Education and its databases have been made.

Data Management: The Office of Teacher Education relies on two databases to facilitate the recording and monitoring of candidates' performance. IU CARE, managed by the University, relates candidates' ongoing academic performance to the specific academic standards of their program. This database is updated each semester to reflect candidates' performance in the previous semester and registration in the current semester. Also, IU CARE is monitored and updated regularly by the Office of Teacher Education to reflect advisors' review and decisions relative to individual candidate's programs, as well as changes in specific program requirements. Each candidate's IU CARE record is available to the candidate and to Office of Teacher Education staff for review at all times. It is password protected, and the security of the database is managed by the University Information Technology Services (UITS).

Omnibase, the second database upon which the Office of Teacher Education relies, has been designed and is maintained within the School of Education. Omnibase contains records of candidates from their admission into teacher education through student teaching. Data are entered, managed and updated by Office of Teacher Education staff. Efforts are underway to refine Omnibase to improve its reporting functions for the UAS. Access to Omnibase is limited to students and authorized Office of Teacher Education staff. It is password protected, and its security is managed by Education Technology Services (ETS) in the school in compliance with University security guidelines.

UAS Management: The organization of the Office of Teacher Education recently has been reviewed and revised to facilitate continuous management of the UAS. In 2000, the School created the position of Assistant Dean for Teacher Education whose responsibilities include oversight of the UAS. The Assistant Dean ensures that data and reports are collected and prepared in a timely fashion to facilitate the Teacher Education Council's ongoing review of the quality of the teacher education programs. To assist in the implementation of the UAS and to improve data-driven decision-making as it relates to teacher education, another new position, Director of Student and Information Management, was created in April 2002. Among the responsibilities of this position is the daily management of teacher education admissions, advising, retention, and associated reporting. Integral to both positions is continuous management of IUCARE and Omnibase, and the timely collection and analysis of school-wide benchmark and other UAS data.

Elements of the Unit Assessment System

School-wide assessment system: The design and specific elements of the school-wide assessment system have been defined and approved by the Teacher Education Council because, as mentioned above, that group has been designated as responsible for the school's unit assessment system. Several important components of the system have been noted earlier -- the four school-wide benchmarks, six different sets of candidate information, and one school-wide assessment, the Teaching Abilities Self-Assessment Instrument. This will be required for candidates' completion at the following points:

This self-assessment instrument is aligned with both the INTASC and School of Education's Six Guiding Principles and represents one consistent measurement of all candidates' self-reported growth at three benchmark points in the teacher education program and following their first year of teaching.

Individual program assessment systems: The new teacher education programs are in various stages of implementation, with the majority of them in just their second year of delivery in the 2001-2002 academic year. Thus, the program faculty has only two years of course delivery and/or individual assessments experience to date. The first student teachers of two of the new programs are scheduled for placement in the 2002-2003 academic year.

Over the course of the past year, the program faculty has worked to document how each program addresses and assesses, using both formative and summative instruments and processes, all the relevant principles and standards. A complete set of program matrices documenting where each program addresses individual principles and standards, respective evidence of candidates' performance, and the criteria by which the evidence is reviewed is available on the program pages.

In addition to these efforts, several program faculty have delineated programmatic benchmarks (see document room), systematic points within the program where the students' learning and progress to date are assessed and communicated to the students. These benchmarks are integrated with the four School-wide benchmarks identified. The data relative to individual program benchmarks will be reported to and analyzed by the Teacher Education Council as part of the annual program reports to the TEC.

Element Two: Data Collection, Analysis And Evaluation

Responsibility for the ongoing management of the Unit Assessment System resides in the Office of Teacher Education where the recording and monitoring of designated data are conducted. Integral to the Office's work are the activities associated with school's four benchmarks. As indicated below, these benchmarks represent multiple internal and external forms of performance assessments.

Admission to Teacher Education

A review of these criteria is conducted on a continuous basis resulting in a decision of unconditional, conditional or deferred admission status. Unconditional admission to teacher education entitles candidates to proceed with their authorized professional education coursework. Conditional admission is granted to candidates who have met all the requirements, but their current semester grades have not been reported. The overwhelming majority of candidates fall into this category, since continuing registration for the next semester occurs before the current semester is over. These candidates are allowed to register, but their "conditions" are checked before the start of the new semester to assure they have met the admission requirements. If candidates fail to meet their "conditions", they administratively are removed from their authorized professional education courses and notified of their deficiency(ies). Decisions are deferred, when candidates provide incomplete information. The Office of Teacher Education will submit annual reports about teacher education admissions to the Teacher Education Council.

Retention in Teacher Education: Candidates' academic performance is monitored each semester through a review of their earned grade point average (GPA). The University Registrar provides the Office of Teacher Education at the end of each grading period -- fall and spring semesters, and summer I and II sessions -- a list of candidates whose semester/session and/or overall GPA falls below 2.5. Note: At Indiana University School of Education, there are two levels of admission; one to the school and the next to a Teacher Education Program. The Registrar's list includes all university students who have been admitted to the School of Education, thus incorporating students who may be taking education courses that are pre-requisites to admissions to teacher education.

Candidates with an overall GPA of 2.45 - 2.49 are required to sign an Academic Probation Contract (APC). They are check listed with the Registrar which prohibits them from conducting university business until released by the School of Education. To be released from this check list, candidates must sign a contract outlining their responsibilities: to raise their GPA or to make at least a 2.7 GPA in the next 12 credit hours, and to meet with the Student Support Team (SST). If the candidates have been admitted to teacher education, they are permitted to stay in the authorized courses in which they currently are enrolled, but they can not register for additional authorized courses.

For candidates whose overall GPA is 2.35 - 2.44, they are placed on a Continuation Contract (CC). Candidates placed on a CC are check listed which allows them to register for any non-professional education courses offered, once they have signed the contract and met with the SST. Candidates already admitted to teacher education and enrolled in authorized courses are administratively removed from the authorized classes and their admission status is changed to deferred. Candidates not yet admitted to teacher education may not be admitted and may not register for any professional education courses.

Candidates with an overall GPA below 2.35 are required to transfer or be dismissed from the university for academic reasons. Candidates may transfer within the IU system or to another institution. Failure to transfer results in academic dismissal, a notation made on the candidates' record, and requires the candidates to wait at least one full semester before they may reapply to admission to the University.

In addition to the continuous monitoring of candidates' academic performance, professional dispositions are monitored through the school's alert system. The alert system is designed to monitor student achievement and identify areas of professional weakness (see document room - Indiana University School of Education Bulletin 2000-2002, p.10, ). Alerts are targeted specifically at non-academic problems that raise questions about candidates' potential as teachers. Faculty and staff may file a written alert with the Associate Dean for Teacher Education. The Associate Dean then determines if the alert warrants additional action on her part or the formation of a Professional Standards Committee, composed of faculty and candidates, to review the issue and recommend action. Federal FERPA guidelines and due process rights are considered in each step of the process.

Each candidate's admission status in teacher education is recorded and monitored in the School of Education's electronic database known as Omnibase. Also, the candidate's performance and status relative to specific program standards are maintained in the IU CARE Student Information System. Both candidates and the school's academic advisors have continuous access to this database for individual monitoring of candidates' academic performance.

Eligibility to Student Teach: Candidates' readiness to student teach is reviewed the semester immediately prior to their placement by the Office of Teacher Education staff. An academic audit, using the IU CARE database, is completed to assure that candidates meet the student teaching eligibility requirements established by the faculty (see document room - Indiana University School of Education Bulletin 2000-2002, pp. 12 ).

Candidates' performance in every required professional education course must be satisfactory (C or better). Their satisfactory completion of the professional education component of their respective program assures that their knowledge, skills, and disposition have been reviewed by the faculty in multiple assessments as indicated in each program's matrices. Thus, satisfactory completion of professional education coursework reflects the faculty's recommendation of candidates' preparedness to student teach. As the program matrices indicate, the faculty consciously has included opportunities in the professional education curricula to assess the candidates' performance with respect to all the respective IPSB standards.

Eligibility to graduate and/or completion of requirements for licensure recommendation: The criteria for graduation have been established by the faculty (see document room - Indiana University School of Education Bulletin 2000-2002, pp. 5-6 ). One criterion is satisfactory completion of the required student teaching experience. The newly drafted student teaching evaluation assesses candidates' abilities in terms of the school's Six Guiding Principles. This assessment incorporates specific indicators and performance rubrics for each indicator. Thus, satisfactory completion of student teaching will indicate that candidates have met the performance expectations set by the faculty relative to the school's Six Guiding Principles. This student teaching evaluation will be piloted in the 2002-2003 academic year. University supervisors will be trained in use of the evaluation form in early August and will receive training, as well, in how to introduce the new assessment to supervising teachers. This effort will represent a trainer-of-trainers model. A monitoring process and analysis of this initial pilot will be conducted over the course of the year.

A final audit of candidates' satisfactory completion of all graduation criteria (courses, grades, student teaching, and performances or portfolios, as appropriate) is completed in the Office of Teacher Education before any candidate is recommended to the University for graduation. Similar audits are completed prior to the recommendation of candidates to the IPSB for licensure.

As stated above, the Office of Teacher Education will compile annual reports providing an overview of candidates' performance in terms of these benchmarks, and these reports will be reviewed by the Teacher Education Council.

Use of information technologies is central to the management of the School's data used in monitoring the four benchmarks. As referenced above, the Office of Teacher Education relies on two databases to facilitate the recording and monitoring of candidates' performance: IU CARE, managed by the University, records candidates' ongoing academic performance relative to the specific academic standards of their program; and Omnibase, maintained within the School of Education, includes records of candidates from admissions into teacher education through student teaching.

In addition to collecting data relative to the school's four benchmarks, the school also has initiated the concept of collecting data by administering one consistent self-assessment survey, the Teaching Abilities Self-Assessment Instrument (TASI) four times, over the course of the candidates' teacher preparation program. The instrument includes 24 items each of which reflects a competency based on the INTASC principles. Candidates respond to each item using a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). For the candidates, completion of this instrument at three points during their program of study provides the opportunity to reflect upon and to determine individually their level of perceived ability and growth as a professional. For the school, these trend data represent one indicator of the candidates' abilities and of programmatic impact on candidates' perception of their abilities. Responsibility for the collection and analysis of this assessment is shared between the Office of Teacher Education and the Assistant Dean for Outreach and Recruitment. Presently, candidates complete the first two installments of this survey on the Web, and efforts are underway to make the survey entirely Web-based.

The TASI survey has been completed by candidates at the end of their student teaching for three academic years (99-00, 00-01, 01-02). Beginning with the 2002-2003 academic year, all candidates will be required to complete the Teaching Ability Self-Assessment Instrument as a part of their teacher education admissions application, thus representing the first class for which all four administrations of the instrument will be completed to allow for trend analysis of candidates' perceived growth throughout their program.

A final set of data collected and analyzed consistently across the school is from and pertinent to graduates. Three different forms of assessment data are collected about graduates, representing three different sources of evaluation.

In addition to these efforts, data also are collected and analyzed within individual preparation programs. Over the course of the past year, the program faculty members have worked to document how each program addresses and assesses, using both formative and summative instruments and processes, all the relevant principles and standards. In addition to these efforts, several program faculty have delineated programmatic benchmarks, systematic points within the program where the students' learning and progress to date are assessed and communicated to the students. Examples of such systematic assessments include working portfolios, reviewed by both candidates and program faculty at several points within the program. Data from these program assessments are analyzed by the respective faculty, shared as a part of their annual reports to the Teacher Education Council, and utilized to make program changes as appropriate.

Element Three: Use Of Data For Program Improvement

The management plan of the Unit Assessment System, as approved by the Teacher Education Council, reflects a systematic review of all the data described above. The organization of the Office of Teacher Education has been revised, and the databases now are being refined to support the consistent availability of the UAS data for analysis. Specifically, the Teacher Education Council has identified the following reports to be reviewed and discussed annually:

Many elements of this UAS are new. Therefore evidence of changes based on data collected as part of the UAS thus far is relatively sparse. Yet, there are already examples of some noteworthy elements incorporated into the new programs and/or changes made to programs as a result of data and feedback. For example, the Early Childhood Education program faculty has made changes, based on feedback from the admissions process, concerning when candidates are required to complete their children's literature course. Based on feedback from both candidates and instructors, the Teaching All Learners (TAL) faculty members have aligned these candidates' second field experience requirement with that of the elementary candidates' field experience to provide the TAL candidates a more coherent opportunity to implement lesson ideas promoted in the associated professional education courses.

Element One: The Assessment System

Introduction: A constellation of social, economic, demographic and structural factors are changing the world within which schools operate, leading to new expectations for the entire school community. Major forces in determining these new conditions and expectations include an internationalized economy, demographic changes, changes in state and national policies, modifications in social and family structures, new technologies, changing leadership and management systems, higher expectations for student outcomes, and privatization and deregulation. The changing school and community contexts create unusual demands as well as exceptional opportunities for educational professionals. Schools must adopt new missions, structures and relationships in response to the changing environment. A better utilization of resources, especially human talent and initiative, is required. Under these conditions educational professionals must possess the capacity to manage change and to create collaborative action on behalf of student outcomes.

Tomorrow's educational professionals must be able to work with diverse groups and to integrate ideas to solve a continuous flow of problems. They must study their craft as they practice their craft, reflecting and then applying what they have learned to people and institutions and the achievement of tasks. This requires patience and perspective, the exercise of judgment and wisdom, and the development of new technical and analytical skills. It also demands sensitivities to other cultures and highly-developed communications skills. Finally, it requires dispositions that integrate the ethical and moral dimensions of decision-making with those of a more technical variety.

The immediate task is to develop competent professionals to serve in changing school systems and to make certain that new conditions facing accomplished practitioners are reflected in our redesigned preparation and licensure programs.

Since 2000, the graduate faculty of the School of Education has been involved in a series of activities to review, assess, and evaluate existing advanced programs. While most of these programs are accredited by national professional organizations most of the effort has been directed toward those programs that do not enjoy national recognition. The following programs are included in this grouping: MS Degree in Elementary Education; MS Degree in Secondary Education with specialization in Mathematics Education and Science Education; MS Degree in Art Education; MS Degree in Social Studies Education, MS Degree in Special Education; and MS Degree in Language Education.

Many individuals have been involved in the review of programs. For example, we conducted 12 statewide focus groups that included conversation regarding advanced programs and their design. Over 150 individuals ranging from teachers, principals, higher education personnel, members of the public, parents, state organization leaders participated in these sessions. A wealth of information was gleaned from the focus groups. It became apparent from the comments received from the participants that redesign of existing programs was likely needed.

These focus groups were followed by a survey instrument provided recent graduate of the programs in which a number of questions were asked pertaining to their satisfaction with their program of studies. While most comments were positive, the respondents clearly offered suggestions for improvement that were pointing to the need for a major revision of advanced programs. For example, we were told numerous times that we needed to be more sensitive to designing and updating programs around the propositions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS).

Meetings with program coordinators to determine their perceptions of the currency of our programs provided additional evidence of the need for updating a number of programs of study. The prevailing attitude was to study different design models for graduate education and then to move forward with a proposal.

The primary group that monitors and controls advanced programs is the Graduate Studies Committee (GSC). This committee is composed of faculty, students (classroom teachers), and staff members. The Associate Dean for Graduate Studies serves in an ex officio role. All course changes, new course proposals, modifications to existing programs must be reviewed and approved by the GSC prior to action by the School's policy making group, the Policy Council.

Finally, we conducted two focus groups with potential candidates for these program offerings and for a review of the UAS model. The feedback from these two groups was very useful for learning about details and preferences of experienced teachers and their sense of a useful, accountable UAS.

Thus, over the past year or so, we have come to the realization that we must redesign our advanced Master's Degree options in order to attract the more capable and talented graduate students. The redesign sessions were initiated during the Spring 2002 semester with individual conferences with program coordinators. Most of them supported a redesign model focusing on NBPTS propositions and the elements of the School's advanced conceptual framework.

A final, but very important stakeholder group consists of our 18-20 Armstrong Fellows, the IUB version of teachers-in-residence. This group of outstanding, experienced educators has been and will continue to be involved in program design, candidate assessment, and program delivery.

Additionally, through attendance at two national conferences on advanced programs sponsored jointly by NCATE and the NBPTS, we had the opportunity to talk with and collaborate with many national board certified teachers and get ideas both for assessment and for program design from these model educators.

As design efforts continue, we will continue to involve a large number of stakeholders as we define the advanced program UAS and the redesigned structure of each program. This is clearly a work in progress and the effort will be continuing as we host the site visit in November. The GSC will coordinate the work of the redesign and its membership may grow as a result of increased attention to the needs of experienced educators.

The Development of the Conceptual Framework

In 1996, in preparation for the 1997 NCATE/IPSB accreditation visit, an advanced program conceptual framework was developed and approved as applicable to all programs. The 1996 framework included three elements that were selected as desirable traits for advanced programs and desirable skills for our advanced program graduates. The elements that provided direction for all advanced programs offered by the unit included becoming agents of educational change, modeling reflective practice, and developing skills for scholarly inquiry. However, as we have studied and reflected on the three elements we realized the need to provide a stronger foundation for advanced students in learning, a stronger focus on working with students, a careful and thoughtful emphasis on ensuring that content knowledge was a primary trait, a clearly stated focus on the need for skills to teach all learners, and an emphasis on technology. Thus, we have retained the original three principles from the 1996 conceptual framework

and added four new elements. Our seven new principles incorporate the five propositions of the NBPTS, and two additional standards of which one focuses on technology and the other on facilitation of educational change. Each principle is followed by an interpretation and elaboration.

Thus, the conceptual framework for advanced programs would be characterized by the following statements upon which our programs are based. Advanced program candidates:

The seven elements of the framework form the basis for the advanced program courses, admissions procedures, retention in programs, entrance in the internship/practicum, and for graduation. Additionally, candidates are expected to complete a reflection and collaboration journal, and complete a self-assessment instrument focused on the above principles at least three times during their program of study.

As faculty revise their courses, the GSC will ensure that all standards of the IPSB and national professional organizations are covered and ensuring that the goals and objectives included in the framework are covered during the program of study. In the appendix, please note a grid that speaks to the alignment of standards with the elements of the advanced conceptual framework. Additionally, please note the practices and assessments that are associated with each of the framework elements. Program matrices for all advanced programs that are not nationally accredited will be presented and reviewed by the GSC during the coming school year.

As we initiated our program redesign, it was important to ensure alignment among NCATE Standards, INTASC Principles, ISLLC Standards, IPSB Content School Setting Standards as well as congruence with our Conceptual Framework. A document published by the IPSB titled, "Analysis of Unifying Themes Across all Development Levels" was particularly instructive to our planning and design efforts. Further, another article from the IPSB also provided alignment information that linked the IPSB Standards with INTASC Principles and NCATE Standards. A final alignment document that was used extensively provided alignment among INTASC Principles, NCATE Standards, and the NBPTS Core Propositions.

By ensuring that the following eight unifying themes are included in our advanced programs, the alignment tables cited above provide assurance that standards from the identified groups have been accommodated both in our UAS and in our program design. The unifying concepts are:

Over the years, the IUB advanced programs have been regularly ranked by the US News and World Report as being among the very best in the country. We believe that we have developed programs that are cohesive, sequential and attentive to the developmental nature of becoming an education professional. Many advanced programs are nationally accredited by such accrediting agencies as the American Library Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Speech and Hearing Association, the Council on Counseling and Related Educational Programs, with all advanced programs following the principles and guidelines of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.

The assessment system was initially conceived by advanced program faculty and then over time refined through the attention of colleagues on campus and school based faculty. We have depended on many sources of input at each decision point of the UAS development. With the initiation of the process, faculty members provided information regarding the various "benchmark" assessments that occurred in courses in every program every semester. This process helped us to identify what data needed to be analyzed by individual faculty, groups of faculty, and those responsible for programs and the evaluation of the advanced programs as a whole.

The assessment system described on the following pages is the advanced program road map for how data will be used to ensure candidate competence and the necessary program revisions to ensure that all IUB unit programs help candidates meet national, state, and our own standards as identified in the conceptual framework for advanced programs. The advanced studies in teaching and learning programs have been designed in a process that started with matching outcomes to courses, experiences, and performances that are informed by standards and provide evidence of candidates attaining those standards.

There are four benchmarks in the UAS for advanced programs. These include multiple assessments at each of the four benchmark decision points.

There are standardized requirements across all advanced studies programs that include the cumulative grade point average, completed application form including a writing sample (goals statement), two letters of recommendation, in selected areas meeting initial license requirements, and a self assessment instrument related to the conceptual framework and national standards. It is expected that advanced candidates earn a semester grade point average of 3.3 (M.S.) and 3.5 (EdS.) each term. Master's and licensure students whose graduate grade point average falls below 3.0 are subject to probation and dismissal.

In order to enroll in an advanced internship or practicum, candidates are expected to have completed at least three-fourths of all work toward program completion. Again, each candidate will complete the IUB Advanced Candidate Self Assessment form at the time of entry into the advanced field placement.

Finally, in order to be eligible for graduation and licensure, all candidates are expected to earn a cumulative grade point average of 3.3, successfully complete the advanced field experience, complete all course and degree requirements, apply for the degree, complete the Refection and Collaboration Journal, and complete a final self-assessment form.

Each benchmark has identified decisions that pertain to candidates. Thus, the first benchmark includes decisions regarding candidate admission to programs. These decision include admitted (meets all requirements), admitted with remediation required (meets most of the requirements), or denied (does not meet requirements), and an appeal process through the Office of Graduate Studies.

For retention in programs and eligibility for field placements, the following decisions concern candidate continuation. If the candidate meets requirements, the decision is continue the program; if the candidate does not meet requirements then the decision is to require a meeting with the candidate and his/her advisor to formulate a remediation plan or counseling recommended; again, there is an appeal process through the Office of Graduate Studies.

The final benchmark candidate decision is based upon satisfactory performance in all course work, the internship or practicum, and on all performance measures evaluated at an acceptable level by faculty. The decision points are: meets requirements and recommendation for graduation and /or licensure; does not meet requirements and the requirement for resubmission of work evidence until acceptable performance is achieved. Again, an appeal process is available through the Office of Graduate Studies.

The performance requirements included in each benchmark provide helpful information for use by program areas. This information should allow program areas to aggregate identified candidates' strengths and weaknesses; review courses and make program revisions, identify remediation needs of candidates, review candidate performance on state required licensure exams; provide a measure of program quality and program needs; monitor candidate progress toward meeting program outcomes and themes; provide information for an annual performance report to the Graduate Studies Committee and the Recruitment, Admission and Financial Aid Committee.

A schematic that depicts the above procedures is included in the appendix to this section of the UAS.

The following chart outlines the essential elements of the advanced studies in teaching and learning program. Please note that this is a draft and additional courses and assessment activities will be added over time. Along the left margin is a statement of the principles and candidate outcomes for the program followed by a sampling (at this point) of courses, followed by assessment practices and finally sample assessment activities are presented.

Core Propositions Education professionals are:	Course(s)	Assessment Activities/Practices	Products
1. Committed to students and their learning, including meeting the needs of diverse learners	P540: Learning and Cognition in Education E555/S555: Human Disability and Diversity L511/L512: Advanced Study in the Teaching of Writing in Elementary/Secondary Schools H520: Education and Social Issues H549: Sociology of Education	Recognizing individual differences in students and adjusting practice accordingly Believing that all students can learn Developing deep understanding of how students develop and learn Incorporating theories of cognition and intelligence: social learning theory; multiple intelligences, differentiation of instruction, etc. Treating students equitably ("fair" not same as "equal") Respecting individual, cultural, religious, and racial differences Fostering students' self-esteem, motivation, character, civic responsibility Aware of influence of context and culture on behavior Developing students' cognitive capacity and respect for learning Understanding that intelligence is culturally defined	Evidence for Professional Development Portfolio Includes: Individual Case Study Reflection Paper Reflection and Collaboration Journal Adaptive Lesson Plan Poster and Presentation Inquiry Project Panel Discussions Community Participation Exercises
2. Knowledgeable of content of their fields and how to deliver that content/services to students	Varied by content field All courses required for major J500 Instruction in the Context of Curriculum L500 Instructional Issues in Language Learning	Having rich understanding of subjects' teaching Appreciation of how the knowledge in subject is created, organized, linked to other disciplines and applied to real-world settings Developing critical, analytical and questioning capacities of their students Teaching for understanding -- helping students integrate aspects of knowledge in their habits of thinking Possessing "pedagogical content knowledge" -- knowing what to teach (content knowledge) and how to teach it to students (pedagogy). Generating multiple paths to knowledge Knowledge of available curricular resources	Evidence for Professional Development Portfolio Includes: Unit Plans Lesson Plans Research Projects Presentations Team Teaching Curriculum Development Reflection and Collaboration Journal Examinations
3. Responsible for managing and monitoring student learning	J500 Instruction in the Context of Curriculum J538 Practicum/Internship L511/L512: Advanced Study in the Teaching of Writing in El/Sec. Schools P540: Learning and Cognition in Education	Creating, enriching, maintaining and altering instructional settings to capture and sustain interest of students Clearly articulating instructional/learning goals Adept at engaging students and adults in assisting teaching Adept at making use of colleagues' knowledge and expertise in complementing own Using multiple instructional strategies/methods to meet goals Devoted to high-quality practice Knowing how to offer each student opportunity to succeed Orchestrating learning in group settings Adept at setting norms of social interaction among students and between students and teachers Understanding how to motivate students to learn how to maintain interest Regularly assessing progress of individual students as well as class Employing multiple methods for measuring student growth and understanding Explaining student performance to students, parents, and administrators	Evidence for Professional Development Portfolio Includes: Short Papers Lesson Plans Inquiry Projects Diagnostic Report Evaluation and Assessment of Student Writing Culturally Responsive Diagnostic Report Assessment Plan Case Study Structured Observations of Learning Outcomes
4. Able to think systematically about their practice and learn from experience (Reflective thinking and inquiry)	J500 Instruction in the Context of Curriculum J538 Practicum/Internship Y520: Strategies for Educational Inquiry P540: Learning and Cognition in Education H520: Education and Social Issues H540 Sociology of Education L511/L512: Advanced Study in the Teaching of Writing in Elementary/Secondary Schools	Examining, critiquing, making judgments, seeking advice of others, and choosing multiple paths in improving teaching Modeling to students the habits of a lifelong learner; helping them in setting their own purpose and engaging in continuous learning Making difficult choices which test judgment Seeking advice of others, and drawing on education research and scholarship in improving practice Reverence of craft of teaching, recognition of its complexities, and a commitment to lifelong professional development	Evidence for Professional Development Portfolio Includes: Literature Review Journal Article Critique Examinations Analysis Paper Reflection Paper Reflection and Collaboration Journal Presentations
5. Members of learning communities	J500: Instruction in the Context of Curriculum P540: Learning and Cognition in Education E555/S555: Human Disability and Diversity H520: Education and Social Issues L511/L512: Advanced Study in the Teaching of Writing in Elementary/Secondary Schools	Contributing to school effectiveness by collaborating with other professionals in improving instructional policy, curriculum and staff development Working collaboratively with parents asking advantage of community resources Participating in coordination of services to students	Evidence for Professional Development Portfolio Includes: Service Learning Activity Policy Analysis Reflection Paper Reflection and Collaboration Journal Collaborative Inquiry Project
6. Facilitators of change in educational settings	J500 Curriculum in the Context of Instruction H504 History of American Education H520: Education and Social Issues H540: Sociology of Education	Analyzing K-12 Policy Analyzing historical developments Working collaboratively with parents Taking advantage of community resources Analyzing testing practices Developing pedagogies and curricula Participating in coordination of services to students Collaborating with professional peers Attending community and professional meetings Networking with colleagues in other schools Study groups	Evidence for Professional Development Portfolio Includes: Service Learning Activity Policy Analysis Paper Role Play Simulation Game Collaborative Research Reflection and Collaboration Journal
7. Able to utilize technology in their fields of practice	P540: Learning and Cognition in Education L511/L512 Advanced Study in the Teaching of Writing in Elementary/Secondary Schools	Evaluating educational software Integrating technology into curriculum Using software and internet to support inquiry projects Collaborating on Internet searches Evaluating, critiquing, making judgments about technological resources	Evidence for Professional Development Portfolio Includes: Product Evaluation Web Searches and information evaluation Development of technology based lesson plans Reflection and Collaboration Journal

The program design for the advanced study in teaching and learning program is summarized as follows: Submission of professional documentation for admission to the program; Completion of a core set of courses (18 hours) with additional options to be identified that meet performance standards of the conceptual framework, state and national standards, and guidelines of the NBPTS; completion of an area of specialization (18 hours). The content of the area of specialization will be determined by the requirements from each area and the courses are aligned with IPSB content standards and those of the NBPTS. Finally, each candidate will present his/her Reflection and Collaboration Journal to a panel of practicing educators, faculty and peers and be evaluated on the basis of a synthesis of knowledge as well as reflections upon future activities.

At each benchmark, each candidate will complete an "Advanced Program Self-Assessment Instrument and this document becomes a part of the professional documentation of progress in the program. The advanced studies program strongly supports the concept of using one consistent self-assessment instrument over the course of the candidates' program of studies. The intent of this instrument is to assist the candidate in noting progress toward fulfilling program standards and outcomes. The instrument is linked to statements in the conceptual framework and to the structure of the curriculum of the program. For the GSC, these trend data represent one more indicator of the candidates' abilities and, perhaps, of programmatic impact on the candidates' perceptions of their abilities.

Each program area will be expected to provide the GSC a program evaluation annually. The aggregation of data across program areas will allow the GSC to make decisions regarding modifications or changes that may be needed in the program. Further, such data will also be useful in evaluating our own assessment system.

Candidates completing several programs either have on file or will have shortly the results of state-wide or national competency exams in their content fields. This includes exams in media education, speech and hearing, educational leadership, school counseling, and school psychology. Several of the exams are scheduled to begin with the 2003-04 academic year.

Element Two: Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation (Advanced Programs)

The entire structure of the advanced program in teaching and learning is based upon candidates' demonstration of knowledge and skills and dispositions appropriate for experienced education professionals. In criterion three, the process of assessment including benchmark assessment was described. As further evidence of the process for ensuring the meeting of IPSB Standards, please note a matrix outlining how three educational leadership programs meet the standards and the courses in which those standards are included. Further, a sample of a course syllabus from one of the programs is provided.

Individual advanced programs will have aggregate data about their candidates' growth at each designated benchmark in the program. Further, annually each program will submit a report to the GSC of the results of their program assessment system and the success of candidates at each benchmark within the program. We will ask each program area to identify any changes made as a result of the review of candidate information. The GSC will monitor the results of the individual program assessments, identifying trends across programs and ensuring faculty response in the form of program modification as the assessment evaluation warrants.

It is important to note that the GSC will be reviewing annually the data across all preparation programs in the unit. Through this process, it will be possible to identify trends in programs as well as their overall quality. The use of test scores will be included in this review as they become required for additional preparation programs during the next few years.

Finally, it is hoped that candidate data from the Advanced Program Self-Assessment Instrument will provide the GSC with additional aggregate analysis regarding the quality of advanced teaching and learning programs. Data from other advanced programs will be included in reports to the GSC as these program areas work with their respective national groups for continued accreditation purposes.

In order to ensure that all advanced candidates meet IPSB Standards, the GSC reviews benchmark data at each of the four decision points. In order to enroll in the practicum or internship, a check is made in the program area to ensure that all eligibility requirements have been fulfilled including the completion of required courses that indicate the completion of IPSB Standards. A final check is made at the completion of the internship or practicum as candidates are reviewed to ensure that required performance expectations or elements have been fulfilled. Additionally, our initial study of advanced candidate performance on state mandated exams indicates that all examinees performed higher than the national median and performed slightly better than pre-baccalaureate students.

The timeline that indicates when the assessments are completed at each of the advanced program benchmarks is provided in the appendix following this report. These points are admission to graduate education, retention in graduate programs (semester checks), eligibility to enroll in a practicum or internship, and completion of all requirements (graduation and /or licensure).

The GSC is responsible for the overall management of each advanced program UAS. As described in criterion three, annual reports from program areas will be submitted to that faculty committee. These reports will include progress at each benchmark, aggregate data on the Advanced Program Self Assessment form. It is important to note, that program outcomes are directly related to the conceptual framework and thus any necessary modifications will be easily determined. Program changes likewise may be recommended by the GSC as evidence shows the need for such refinements.

The annual reporting process will be initiated during the 2002-03 academic year. Thus, actual examples of changes from the process described herein are not possible at this point. However, the entire reform of advanced programs not accredited by national professional groups occurred as a result of feedback from recent graduates, from focus group comments, and from program coordinator sessions.

Element Three: Use of Data for Program Improvement (Advanced Programs)

The Office of Graduate Studies has primary responsibility for the management of the UAS for advanced programs and their UAS. That office will work in concert with the GSC to ensure that reports and data appropriate to ensuring a smoothly operating system is operational. Due to the reasonably small number of candidates in advanced programs, it is expected that monitoring of candidates will occur through a transitional period. The Graduate Studies Office has access to the School's information system called Omnibase. Aggregate data regarding candidates is readily available using that resource. As programs identify needs for information services, necessary resources will be available for developing new applications. At this point, we are investigating a possible need for a more user friendly management system, one that the end-user will find more easily managed. While there is a reasonably effective system in place at this time, refinements are always critical to over all program success.

One part of the GSC management process for the UAS includes an annual review of the function of the system's components themselves. This will include a review of the basic foundation of the advanced study in teaching and learning program design itself including elements of the conceptual framework and revisions to the assessment system structure. Since the program is basically a major redesign of existing graduate programs, we expect to have ongoing program and course modifications.

We will continue to use focus groups providing feedback about our programs, evaluations from internships and practica, aggregate data from the Advanced Program Self-Assessment form, and all other forms of performance data that is available. Since the advanced program UAS is not fully functional at this time, it will always be considered as a "work in progress." A central element in the IUB unit mission is a commitment to advancing scholarship through research. That commitment extends to revisions and applications of all advanced programs. Therefore, we understand that the elements of the UAS and the UAS process are always subject to review and revision.

As an example, while not an advanced program instrument, we studied, reviewed, updated, analyzed data from candidate responses to the Teaching Abilities Self-Assessment Instrument until we were assured of its psychometric integrity. This study started in 1995 with annual updates and modifications being made through 1999. We expect such scrutiny of the newly designed Advanced Program Self-Assessment form.

It is anticipated that we will receive feedback from the Fall 2002 NCATE/IPSB site visit regarding elements of advanced programs. With that information along with locally produced aggregate information we anticipate any needed revisions will occur during the summer of 2003. These data will form the basis of a feedback loop for the UAS. The management function for evaluating the efficacy of the UAS is the province of the GSC working in concert with the Associate Dean for Graduate Education.

Accreditation Report 2002
Core Campuses: Bloomington and Indianapolis
for the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
and the Indiana Professional Standards Board