1

Institutional Report CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OPTION (PILOT)

Submitted by:

Trinity University

Department of Education

One Trinity Place

San Antonio, Texas 78212

(210) 999-7501

Submitted: October 2010

BOE Site Visit: April 10-12, 2011

Dr. Shari Becker Albright

Norine R. Murchison Professor of Practice

Department Chair

Shari.Albright@trinity.edu

(210) 999-7506

Lisa Jasinski

Certification, Assessment and Communications

Specialist

NCATE Coordinator

lisa.jasinski@trinity.edu

(210) 999-7581

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Institutional Overview 3

Standard 1, Question 1 5

Standard 1, Question 2 8

Standard 2, Question 1 11

Standard 2, Question 2 13

Standard 3, Question 1 (Target Level Standard) 15

Standard 3, Question 2 (Target Level Standard) 19

Standard 4, Question 1 25

Standard 4, Question 2 27

Standard 5, Question 1 30

Standard 5, Question 2 33

Standard 6, Question 1 37

Standard 6, Question 2 40

Instructions for Accessing Electronic Exhibit Room 43

Links to All Required Exhibits 44

3

INSTITUTIONAL OVERVIEW

TRINITY UNIVERSITY, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

What are the institution's historical context and unique characteristics?

Founded in 1869 by Presbyterians, today Trinity is governed by an independent Board of Trustees. In 1940,

the university moved from Waxahachie, Texas to its current location in San Antonio where it has continued to

develop and expand. Trinity’s 2,322 undergraduates and 128 graduate students come from 45 states and 64

countries to attend this private, residential, co-educational university. Noted for red brick buildings, native live

oaks, beautiful grounds, and sparkling fountains, Trinity encompasses 117 acres on a hillside overlooking

downtown San Antonio. Students learn from 243 full-time faculty members, 97 percent of whom hold

doctoral or terminal degrees. The student/faculty ratio is 10:1. Professors teach in modern classrooms and

labs, and lecture and cultural venues. With an endowment valued in 2010 at more than $900 million, Trinity’s

resources compare favorably with other small, masters –level, private universities.

Trinity is known for its rigorous, flexible curriculum—the optimal blend of liberal arts and professional

programs. This includes 39 majors, 52 minors, including five professional programs, and five master's degrees

(three in Education: teacher education, school psychology, and school leadership). Trinity is an accredited

member of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Our teacher education program is accredited by

the Texas Education Agency (TEA). 2009-2010 tuition and fees are $29,262. About 83 percent of Trinity

students receive financial aid.

What is the institution's mission?

Trinity University is an independent co-educational university whose mission is excellence in the interrelated

areas of teaching, research, and service. Trinity seeks to provide broad and intensive educational opportunities

primarily to undergraduates in liberal arts and sciences, and in selected professional and pre-professional

fields. It also offers a small number of selected high quality graduate programs. Trinity University is

dedicated to creating a superior intellectual environment by: recruiting, developing and retaining outstanding

faculty members dedicated to teaching, to scholarship and creative endeavor, and to service to the University

and its community; identifying, and attracting talented and highly motivated students to its predominantly full-

time, residential student body; and providing a supportive and challenging experience wherein students,

faculty, and staff can realize the potential of their abilities and engage their responsibilities to others. Trinity

respects its historic ties to the Presbyterian Church, with which it continues to have a covenant relationship.

Trinity has adopted additional mission statements entitled ―Diversity for Excellence‖ and ―Commitment to

Excellence.‖

What is the professional education unit at your institution and what is its relationship to other units at the

institution that are involved in the preparation of professional educators?

The unit refers to the Department of Education at Trinity University—10 full-time faculty, 26 part-time

faculty, 5 staff members, and approximately 250 graduate and undergraduate candidates in our three degree

programs: Teacher Education, School Psychology, and School Leadership.

Education is one of 24 academic departments within Trinity University. Since our candidates major in an

academic discipline rather than Education, indeed we are deeply connected to our peer colleagues in the Arts

and Sciences to provide essential content knowledge. In addition, we partner with university colleagues in

other meaningful ways to support our candidates and our program. For example, we meet annually with

faculty in the relevant disciplines to review the courses that our students will be expected to take and to revise

our course catalogue accordingly. Our university colleagues further support our program by serving on the

Council for Teacher Education, providing oversight and assistance with program admission, curricular

changes, and governance.

4

What are the basic tenets of the conceptual framework and how has the conceptual framework changed

since the previous visit?

Our mission is not only to prepare professionals in our three professional programs but also to develop leaders

in each of these fields. In this effort, we engage in research and policy development to improve our own

programs and to inform local, state, and national educational communities. We work closely with San Antonio

area school districts to improve the quality of instruction and to increase student learning.

Over the past three years, we have substantively revised our unit’s Conceptual Framework with the assistance

of faculty and our school partners. Although our previous document reflected our values and beliefs, it had

evolved over time, with increasing layers of complexity, and was no longer readily accessible and

understandable, especially to our students and school partners. We undertook to rewrite the Conceptual

Framework from scratch to remedy these problems as well as to strengthen our commitment to developing

technology proficiency, now one of our six broad goals or outcomes, and to include our dispositions.

The revised Conceptual Framework also provides a clearer and more explicit statement of the values and

beliefs that underlie our programs and better aligns with program standards. The document includes our core

beliefs about the principled practice we want our students to develop, including: (1) Knowledge of content and

pedagogy, (2) Cultural responsiveness, (3) Ethical responsibility, (4) Leadership of self and others. It also

states our core beliefs about how candidates develop that principled practice, including: (1) Apprenticeship, (2)

Continuum of Practice, (3) Engagement in Inquiry, and (4) Professional Learning Community. In each of our

programs, learning involves apprenticeship. Employing problems-based approaches that are anchored in

inquiry, reflection, and ongoing assessment, we enable candidates to create knowledge in-use as they practice.

Our small size enables us to achieve this aim through intense individual and small group teaching relationships

to building professional learning community.

Electronic Exhibit Room Access Instructions

To share documents and data related to our NCATE reaccreditation visit in April 2011, Trinity University

created a web-based electronic exhibit room hosted on the University server

(http://www.trinity.edu/departments/Education/ncate/index.html). The site does not require a user name or

password. BOE Members will be provided a password to access Exhibit 1.5 – Samples of Candidate Work.

If you have questions or encounter technical problems, contact our NCATE Coordinator, Lisa Jasinski

(lisa.jasinski@trinity.edu) or (210) 999-7581 (work) or (860) 919-8123 (cell).

5

STANDARD 1: CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS

QUESTION 1

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and

demonstrate the content, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical, and professional knowledge and skills,

and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet

professional, state, and institutional standards.

1. What do candidate assessment data tell the unit about candidates’ meeting professional, state,

and institutional standards? From programs not nationally reviewed, summarize that data from key

assessments and discuss these results.

Our small high school programs were not nationally reviewed. Evidence from key assessments and analysis of

the results is included in Exhibit 1.4.

1a. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates

Teacher candidates demonstrate knowledge in several ways. All candidates major in an academic discipline.

Full admission to the M.A.T. program requires an undergraduate GPA of 3.0 or higher. For the past three

years, the average GPA of M.A.T. candidate has been 3.41 (Exhibit 2.2 Data from Key Assessments). Another

indicator of academic proficiency is candidate performance on the content sections of the state certification

exam named the TExES. Candidates continue to demonstrate a high level of content mastery (See TExES

Results). Finally, program standards, entitled Professional Teaching Standards (PTS) align with both state and

INTASC standards. Program Standard 1(a) requires all candidates to demonstrate robust content knowledge.

During their internship, unit faculty and P-12 mentor teachers assess candidate portfolio twice, at the end of the

fall (midpoint) and spring (exit) semesters. On the rubric scaled from 1-4, average scores for 2009-10 were

3.32 /4.00, indicating that candidates understand ―major concepts, assumptions, and debates, and ways of

knowing that are central to the disciplines‖ they teach (See PTS Data Table). Evidence of strong content

knowledge for programs that are not nationally reviewed are equally strong and can be reviewed as Exhibit

1.4.

During our most recent program review in summer, 2009, the Texas Education Agency determined that we

were in compliance related to admission criteria and received additional commendations for ―having high

standards for its teaching candidates‖ (See TEA Desk Audit, page 9).

1b. Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates

PTS 1(c) requires that candidates demonstrate that they know content-related pedagogy and can present

content appropriately. On the rubric scaled from 1-4, average scores for 2009-10 were 3.28/4.00, indicating

that they had demonstrated ―ability to select, modify, and teach with existing content-specific methods,

curricular materials, technology, and resources.‖ (See PTS Data Table)

NCATE’s requirement that candidates develop and demonstrate broad knowledge of instructional strategies,

including the integration of technology, is embedded in a number of PTS sub-standards. For example,

Standard 3(c) requires candidates to use ―instructional strategies, resources and technologies to make subject

matter accessible to all students.‖ Average scores for this indicator in 2009-10 were 3.13/4.00, confirming that

candidates could use ―multiple strategies, models of teaching, technologies, and representations to make

knowledge accessible to diverse learners.‖ (See PTS Data Table)

1c. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates

NCATE’s requirement that candidates develop and demonstrate professional and pedagogical knowledge and

skills are embedded throughout our PTS. Standard 5(c) requires candidates to communicate and collaborate

with families. Average scores for 2009-10 were 3.21/4.00, indicating that candidates could ―effectively and

6

respectfully‖ communicate with families and that they could be ―responsive and proactive […] in order to

promote student success.‖

As stated in our Conceptual Framework, one of our core beliefs is that we must teach candidates to engage in

―inquiry into their practice.‖ PTS Standard 6(c) requires that candidates demonstrate the ability to reflect on

their practice as well as to incorporate new information. Average scores for 2009 -10 were 3.24/4.00,

indicating the ability to seek opportunities ―to develop teaching practices by raising questions and investigating

problems and issues that arise in teaching and coursework.‖ (See PTS Data Table)

During our most recent program review in summer, 2009, the Texas Education Agency determined that we

were in compliance in meeting the state’s 17 curriculum standards and received additional commendations for

―superior curriculum design‖ in our program (See TEA Desk Audit, p. 20).

1d. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates

Portfolio assessments that document classroom observations as well as mid-year and exit conferences reveal

that candidates have tended to earn comparatively weak scores on PTS standards centered on the assessment of

student learning. Like many novice educators, our candidates wrongly assume that (1) if they had taught,

students had learned and (2) that if they had not learned, it was up to the student to fill in his/her knowledge

gaps not the teacher.

As a result of this data, in 2008 unit faculty decided that candidates should engage in purposeful examination

of student learning through the development and implementation of a Teacher Work Sample (TWS) to be

completed during their internship year. Candidate work is assessed using a rubric in Foliotek, our electronic

portfolio provider. Pilot results have been encouraging—average scores for fall, 2009 were 40.5 / 44 (92.5%).

For each of the indicators, candidates have scored an average of 1.36 – 2.00 on a 2.00 scale—meaning that

their scores reliably fall between the categories ―Indicator Partially Met‖ and ―Indicator Met.‖ Faculty have

continued to revise the TWS assignment and rubric to better suit the needs of our candidates and to improve

our candidates’ ability to measure student learning.

1e. Knowledge and Skills for Other School Professionals

Candidates in our two advanced-level programs graduate with the knowledge and skills expected by program,

standards, including: knowledge of their students, families, and communities; the abilities to use data, current

research, and technology to inform practice; and the ability to support student learning through professional

service.

In the School Psychology program, the PRAXIS II test, required for state certification, aligns with the NASP

standards and our program standards. Candidates have a pass rate of 100% on the PRAXIS with the mean well

above the state requirement. Other program assessments in the NCATE School Psychology Program Report

confirm that graduates gain and can demonstrate at least adequate knowledge and skills.

In the School Leadership program, the Texas Examination of Educator Standards (TExES) principal

certification test aligns with the ELCC standards that we have adopted as our program standards. Over the past

three years, 41 students have taken the test and 39 have passed on the first or a subsequent effort, for a passing

percentage of 95% (see TExES results). Other program assessments in the NCATE School Leadership

Program Report confirm that graduates gain and can demonstrate at least adequate knowledge and skills.

1f. Student Learning for Other School Professionals

In the School Psychology Program, candidates must demonstrate sensitivity to student developmental levels

(NASP 2.3). On the Practicum Assessment, 100% of candidates were rated competent or better on a five-scale

from clearly below competence to exceptionally competent. On the Internship Assessment, again, 100% of

candidates scored competent or better on this indicator. Candidates also have to demonstrate proficiencies in

7

understanding and responding to student diversity in development and learning (NASP 2.5). On both field-

based assessments, once again, 100% of candidates scored competent or better. Finally, candidate must

demonstrate proficiency in collaboration with families (NASP 2.8). On both assessments, 100% of candidates

scored at the competent level or better.

In the School Leadership program, candidates must demonstrate that they can promote a positive school

culture (ELCC 2.1). Results on the School Culture Assessment indicate that on a scale from 1-3, with 2=at

expectations, the three year (2007-2009) aggregate average for all candidates was 2.3 / 3.00. Candidates must

also show that they can collaborate with families and communities to improve student learning (ELCC 4.1).

The aggregate three-year average for candidates on the Family and Community Assessment was 2.49.

Candidates, finally, must show that they understand the larger policy context (ELCC 6.1). The aggregate

three-average on the Understanding the Larger Context Assessment was 2.21.

1g. Professional Dispositions for All Candidates

In the revised Conceptual Framework, the unit has identified six dispositions that candidates in all programs

must demonstrate by graduation. The School Leadership program has identified two additional dispositions

(See Exhibit 1.8 - Candidate Dispositions). Unit faculty have integrated candidate awareness and

understanding of the required dispositions throughout courses and activities. Since the fall of 2008,

Dispositional Assessment has occurred in all three programs at the graduate and undergraduate level.

Teacher education faculty issued an average score of 3.59/4.00 on the 29 indicators included in the

Dispositional Assessment for 2010 M.A.T. graduates—indicating that the overwhelming majority of

candidates have demonstrated at least clear evidence of each disposition.

In the School Leadership program, the faculty decided that each candidate must address dispositions in Critical

Incidents in their electronic portfolios. The faculty developed a Dispositional Assessment Scoring Guide. In

2009, the faculty piloted dispositional assessment with several classes. Results suggest candidate growth during

the program. The Dispositional Ratings for Candidates in the First Class of the program show a majority

presenting little or emerging evidence of the disposition on most indicators. In contrast, the Dispositional Ratings

for Candidates in a Fourth Semester Class show almost all candidates presenting clear or clear and convincing

evidence of the disposition.

In School Psychology, dispositions have been incorporated in the Supervisor evaluations completed for

candidate field experiences. On the Practicum Assessment that occurs in the second year of the program,

aggregate averages for the last three years indicate that, with the exception of one candidate in one disposition,

all candidates have demonstrated the disposition at least at the competent level. On the Internship Assessment,

that occurs a year later, aggregate averages over the last three years indicate that all candidates have

demonstrated performance above the competent level, with the overwhelming majority rated as exceptionally

competent.

8

STANDARD 1: CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS

QUESTION 2

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and

demonstrate the content, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical, and professional knowledge and skills,

and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet

professional, state, and institutional standards.

2. What are the most significant changes related to Standard 1 that have led to continuous

improvement?

Strengthening content-specific pedagogy

Our last NCATE accreditation confirmed that our candidates need more content and pedagogical content

preparation in math and science. The core principle of our teacher education program is an apprenticeship

model. In their fifth year, our interns work intensively under the guidance of a P-12 teacher to master content-

specific pedagogy. Especially at the elementary level, where many school programs are literacy focused,

mentor teachers lack expertise in math and science teaching. Over the past six years, the unit has engaged the

University and community partners in an effort to obtain the resources to expand our faculty to meet these

needs.

In 2009, we were finally successful. The expertise of the new tenure-track science educator and new clinical

mathematics educator who joined the Department of Education in fall, 2009 will strengthen the content and

pedagogical content knowledge of our candidates. During 2009-10, we developed a new required

undergraduate course in elementary mathematics education and have redesigned once elective and now

required courses in elementary and secondary science education methods for undergraduate candidates.

Each fall, the unit hires a part-time instructor (a reading specialist with a local school district) to offer an

undergraduate teaching reading methods course. Undergraduate courses in social studies and foreign language

pedagogy are offered by their respective University departments.

In preparing candidate to work with diverse learners, we have struggled to provide both the awareness,

understanding, and ability to deal with cultural and linguistic differences and the abilities to provide help to

students with learning disabilities. Prior to 2005, the program narrowly focused on a medical model approach

that identified deficits and attempted to remediate them with specific classroom strategies. With a faculty

retirement and the opportunity to revamp this area of the program, in 2005 we hired a faculty member with

expertise in cultural and linguistic differences who advocates building on assets rather remediating deficits.

We feel that course revisions have helped us to strengthen the cultural responsiveness of our candidates. Yet,

graduates express a need for more specific, hands-on help in differentiation techniques to accommodate

learning differences in their classrooms (see Exhibit 1.6 Alumni Survey Results). A recently hired tenure-track

teacher educator, who began in the fall, 2010, brings experience and expertise in differentiating instruction that

can address this need.

Teacher Work Sample

Portfolio and other program assessment data have revealed the need to strengthen candidate knowledge and

skills in focusing on student learning.

In May 2008, Teacher Education Advisory Council designed a template for a Teacher Work Sample (TWS),

drawing on the Renaissance Partnership TWS, the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program Teacher Performance

Assessment Handbook, and the Department’s own Professional Teaching Standards (see Development of

TWS). Specific components include:

9

• Knowledge of Learners information section – requiring candidates to compile and organize knowledge about

their students;

• Pre- and Post-Assessments – strengthening backward planning of curriculum and instruction and to show

clearly whether teaching was effective and with whom; and

• Post-Differentiation – after the post-assessment, identifying ways to move groups of learners forward and

then follow up with these plans in the classroom.

In fall, 2008, candidates completed the TWS. Faculty assessed their work using a rubric in Foliotek, our

electronic portfolio provider.

After candidates completed the pilot TWS, we conducted focus groups with candidates and mentor teachers

about the process. This feedback and the assessment data was considered by the Teacher Education Study

Group (TESG) in June 2009 in order to revise the TWS for following year. The TESG reviewed the overall

feedback (largely positive) and revised the document in order to streamline the process and clarify areas of

confusion. The current version of the TWS better aligns the language of the rubric to program standards. We

reformatted the document to make the role of the mentor teacher more explicit.

Elimination of the Humanities Major

In recent years, as Trinity post-baccalaureate candidates have come to elementary teaching late in their

undergraduate experience with a major in a discipline other than the interdisciplinary program called

―Humanities,‖ we have noticed differences in their intellectual capacities. Depth of knowledge in a single

content area helps them develop epistemological understandings and tools of inquiry that they can then

translate to other content areas that they are required to teach. In contrast, Early Childhood – Grade 4

candidates who complete the ―Humanities‖ major have tended to have a smattering of courses across a variety

of disciplines which does not provide any intellectual advantage.

These observations led us to conduct an historical examination of the ―Humanities‖ major, comparing the

current structure of the major with what it looked like 20 years ago at its inception. We determined that the

major had lost some of its initial intellectual strength. The current major, comprised of a laundry list of

courses across 16 different departments, sacrifices depth of understanding for breadth of knowledge. We were

concerned that our candidates are unable to develop deep subject matter understanding and the skills required

to engage in discipline-based inquiry, both of which are necessary to teach well.

In addition, other changes reinforced our concerns. A new Texas teacher certification structure from Early

Childhood – Grade Four to Early Childhood – Grade Six now requires that our teacher candidates possess

even more subject matter knowledge. The university and department of education have undergone significant

changes that have impacted the feasibility of the ―Humanities‖ major today. First, the University Common

Curriculum is more highly developed and defined than it was two decades ago. This graduation requirement

accomplishes much of what the ―Humanities‖ major was first designed to do, namely to provide a study basis

for understanding the varied domains of human knowledge and experience. Moreover, there is significant and,

we think, increased overlap between designated ―Humanities‖ courses and Common Curriculum offerings.

For example, of the 152 listed courses constituting the ―Humanities‖ clusters, 62 of them are cross-listed as

Common Curriculum offerings (over 40 percent). Thus undergraduates who select courses fulfilling both

Common Curriculum and ―Humanities‖ requirements can complete the major with only 20 additional hours of

study outside the Common Curriculum. Such a major lacks the intellectual rigor of majors in other academic

disciplines.

As a result of this data collection and analysis, in 2008, we proposed the following changes to those students

seeking certification as elementary generalists:

1. We no longer offer the ―Humanities‖ major;

10

2. Candidates complete a major in any academic discipline offered at Trinity;

3. Candidates complete a revised ―Education Course of Study‖; and

4. Candidates complete as many recommended courses as possible, most of which meet Common

Curriculum requirements, that will build their subject matter knowledge as a generalist teacher.

The University Faculty unanimously approved these changes in the spring, 2009.

Dispositional Assessment Development

In general, our experience is that candidates who are not successful in our three graduate programs typically

demonstrate dispositional rather than cognitive failings. They demonstrate, for example, a lack of

responsibility or judgment rather than an inability to learn and apply theories. Over the past four years, the

faculty has worked to develop a set of dispositions that we have begun to develop in candidate and to assess.

Beginning in 2008, the teacher education program developed a Dispositional Assessment Rubric that faculty

have since used to rate candidate growth. We have worked closely with our Advisory Council and our PDS

partners to continually refine the assessment instrument and train evaluators. In both our graduate and

undergraduate courses, we require candidates to complete a dispositional ―self-assessment‖ to reflect upon and

closely monitor their own development. Supervising faculty and in some cases, classroom mentors, also rate

the candidates. The results support the claim that our graduates demonstrate classroom behaviors that are

consistent with ideal of fairness and the belief that all students can learn (see Exhibit 1.8 Dispositional

Assessment Results – Teacher Ed).

Technology

Several data sources across all three programs— including scores on the use of technology in candidates' field-

based work on the Dispositional Assessment (see Exhibit 1.8), alumni surveys (see Exhibit 1.6), Focus Group

interviews, and informal feedback— have suggested that developing the knowledge and skills to integrate

emerging technologies into teaching has been a weakness in candidate preparation. To address these concerns,

the unit developed a TEaCH Lab Proposal and Facilities Plan and received a $150,000 federal grant to fund the

building renovations and equipment purchase necessary to create a state-of-the-art technology facility housed

in our building. Plans to provide faculty development in the modeling and use of technology in undergraduate

and graduate courses are underway.

Induction Support for Graduates

Another element of continuous improvement concerns the expansion of induction support for recent program

graduates. As described in the Conceptual Framework, one of our core beliefs is that educators gradually

develop knowledge and skills throughout their careers throughout a ―continuum of practice.‖ As such, our

commitment to preparing educators does not end with graduation. For the last six years, we have invited our

graduates to attend a weeklong Summer Curriculum Writing Institute, during which time each candidate

develops a new curricular unit using the Understanding by Design framework. Over 130 M.A.T. graduates

and their professional colleagues have attended the Institute.

Another continuing professional development activity is a weeklong Critical Friends Group New Coaches

Training Seminar each May. The unit offers scholarships to our M.A.T. graduates to attend this workshop so

that they are equipped with tools to support their students’ learning and to help establish/sustain professional

learning community at their school campuses.

Faculty provides additional support to recent graduates through monthly new teacher support groups,

invitations to events and speakers on campus, and additional opportunities through our alumni list-serv.

11

STANDARD 2: ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION

QUESTION 1

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.

How does the unit use its assessment system to improve the performance of candidates and unit and it

programs?

2a. Assessment System

The unit assessment system (see Exhibit 2.1 Assessment System Overview and Rationale) continues to evolve

in response to a variety of factors, including changes in our conceptual framework, program elements, and

assessment technology. Since its inception in 2003, the assessment system has been continually evaluated and

revised in public process by the professional educational community, most notably in semi-annual Advisory

Committee meetings (see minutes).

The unit is able to use its assessment system to improve the performance of candidate because the system

aligns with the Conceptual Framework as well as state and program standards. The Assessment System Chart

demonstrates the comprehensiveness, coherence, and integration of the assessment system. The assessment

system is comprehensive in that it includes a full range of candidate performance indicators – beginning with

admission criteria, continuing with course outcomes measured by grades and portfolio performance

assessments, and closing the feedback loop with employer and alumni surveys. Other evidence of the

comprehensiveness of the assessment system and the unit’s ability to integrate it into the instructional program

is that, in 2007, when Trinity faced re-accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

(SACS) and needed to develop its data-based assessment capability, the Education Department, played a major

role with other units of the institution in the development of assessments.

As detailed, each graduate program has identified common, key transition points at admission, prior to clinical

experience, at exit from clinical experience, program completion, and post-graduation. Each program employs

an integrated set of multiple evaluation measures to assess candidate performance at each of these key

―gateways.‖ In addition to these formal assessments, because of our small size and low candidate-teacher

ratios, faculty generally confront nascent problems in performance at an early stage and are thereby able to

remedy concerns through personalized counseling and either professional growth planning or enabling the

candidate to withdraw from the program. Our program benchmarks were described as compliant with the

Texas Administrative Code requirements during our last program review in summer, 2009 (See TEA Desk

Audit Findings, p. 28).

The unit relies upon the assessment system to manage and improve unit operations. Our graduate surveys

include a question on unit operations (see Exhibit 1.6). Respondents are asked to rate the effectiveness of the

program’s support services (e.g., advising, field placement, financial aid, admissions process, responsiveness

to student’s needs). On a five point scale from 1=very well to 5=very poorly, 2009 teacher education

graduates had a mean aggregate score of 4.1/5.00. 2008 and 2009 graduates of the School Leaders rated unit

services as 4.67 and 4.75 respectively.

The unit has taken effective steps to eliminate bias in assessments and is continually working to establish their

fairness, accuracy, consistency, and accuracy. The process is detailed in Procedures for Fair, Accurate,

Consistent and Unbiased Assessments (Exhibit 2.3).

We plan to conduct validity and reliability studies to ensure the fairness, accuracy, and consistency of our

evaluation procedures and measures and to study the relationship between performance assessments and

candidate success in our programs. Advisory Council members will review assessments and conduct studies

of inter-rater reliability.

12

2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

The unit has designed the assessment systems to provide regular and comprehensive information on applicant

qualifications, candidate proficiencies, graduate competence, unit operations, and program quality. Unit

faculty are responsible for developing and implementing their assessment systems with their candidates. For

consistency, assessment efforts are centrally coordinated through our Certification, Assessment, and

Communications (CACS) Specialist who monitors timelines, issues reminders, serves as the electronic

portfolio administrator, collects and analyzes data, including state certification results and graduate surveys—

as they become available and prepares aggregate reports that are disseminated to our professional education

community. The CAC Specialist also serves as the unit’s NCATE coordinator. Policies and Procedures for

Data Collection, Analysis, Dissemination and Use provides more detail about this process including that we

have dedicated an estimated 33-50% of our limited staff resources to this position is evidence of our

commitment to data collection, analysis, and use.

The unit maintains records of formal complaints and documentation of their resolution is kept in confidential

electronic and paper files under the jurisdiction of the Department Chair (See Exhibit 2.6 Policies for Handling

Student Complaints). The Joint Statement of Rights and Freedoms of Students of the Student Handbook (pg.

110) details procedures for handling complaints about grading.

The unit incorporates a range of information technology in implementing its assessment system. The analysis

of applicant qualifications, candidate performance, and graduate contact information continues to be tracked in

a centralized Microsoft Access database. Another Access database was also created to record mentor teacher

demographic data.

2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement

The unit is committed to using data to drive decisions made at the candidate, program, and unit levels and, as a

result, improving candidate performance, student learning, and unit operations. Assessment data, including

portfolio assessments and certification test scores, clearly indicate that candidate performance is strong and the

data collected provides opportunities for growth at the faculty, program, and unit levels. As described earlier,

data are shared with faculty, staff, candidates, advisory committee members, campus administrators, and

school partners to demonstrate that the unit has a deep interest in the use of data for improvement.

Assessment of candidates, our programs, and the unit is daily activity among faculty and staff of the unit.

Because we are small, and we have regular contact with all faculty and many candidates, we are able to

discover needs quickly and respond efficiently and effectively. This network of relationships in a small

professional education community constitutes a strong, informal assessment component that fuels program

improvement. The rich set of examples detailed in Examples of Changes Made to Courses, Programs, and the

Unit (Exhibit 2.8) provide clear evidence of the effectiveness of both the formal and informal components of

the assessment system.

13

STANDARD 2: ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION

QUESTION 2

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.

2. What are the most significant changes that have led to continuous improvement?

2a. Assessment System

Several changes have improved our assessment system over the past few years. In 2005-06, after three years

working with LiveText, the unit decided to switch to Foliotek, as a new electronic portfolio provider. In

making this change, the faculty was responding to a need that both faculty and candidates expressed for a more

user-friendly portfolio process. Foliotek has enabled the unit to develop more effective and efficient

assessment and data reporting practices.

With the increased comfort and familiarity with Foliotek, unit faculty members have continued to expand the

use of the e-portfolio and added new assessments. Both the Teacher Education and the School Leadership

program have, for example, developed electronic Dispositional Assessments (Exhibit 1.8) that allow multiple

evaluators to access the same assessment as well as improved ease of analysis and data aggregation. The

Teacher Education Work Sample assignment and rubric has been uploaded in the last two years. Several

undergraduate courses, including practica, field seminars, and the survey of special education, also use

Foliotek to score candidate work and administer the dispositional assessment.

To improve its assessment system, the unit has taken advantage of institutional opportunities. In the 2008-09

academic year, for example, Trinity University introduced a new system of student, course, and faculty

evaluations. The system was designed by a subcommittee of the Faculty Senate and ratified by the entire

faculty. Moving away from a standardized form with ―one-size-fits-all‖ questions, the new system allows each

department the option of constructing its own form, authoring its own questions, and selecting the rating scale

to be used. The Education faculty chose the customizable option and revised the form over a series of

meetings in the spring, 2008. The flexibility of the new form has afforded new opportunities to include

candidate voice as a meaningful part of program revision, faculty evaluation, and improvement (see Revised

Form).

Our three graduates programs have revised elements of the assessment system to better suit individual needs.

In the spring of 2009, the Teacher Education Study Group (TESG) devoted multiple work sessions to create a

document that reflects current assessment practices, especially in terms of gateway assessments. The revised

assessment system now accurately reflects the assessments used for admission, entry to clinical practice, mid-

point, exit from clinical practice, and program completion. As part of continued discussions, the TESG has

begun to review assessment data to ensure that our assessment system is fair, free of bias, and consistent. In

June 2009, TESG members participated in an inter-rater reliability scoring exercise to compare scoring

philosophies and expectations for major projects.

Based on feedback from the alumni survey and focus groups with current candidates, the faculty decided to

push back the start of summer school from mid-May to mid-July. The revised calendar provides two major

benefits: (1) providing candidates a restorative six-week break between undergraduate graduation and the start

of classes and (2) providing greater program flow by allowing the end of summer courses to dovetail with the

start of a school-based internship and district-level professional development workshops and orientations held

in August. Another areas the unit is currently investigating are ways to increase coherence and consistency

between teacher education cohort groups, including instituting a greater number of shared assessments like the

Teacher Work Sample.

At a full-day retreat attended by both full-time and part-time School Leadership program faculty in spring,

14

2008, participants began to revise its program assessment system to reflect both NCATE and ELCC

requirements. The faculty, first re-aligned course projects and activities with ELCC and program standards.

They then discussed and decided now to assess candidate dispositions. As the School Leadership Retreat

Notes for both the AM and PM sessions detail, the faculty added two dispositions to the Departmental list and

agreed to ask all candidates to develop Critical Incident descriptions from their practice to be uploaded to

Foliotek that would provide evidence of dispositional development (see Exhibit 1.8). Subsequently, the faculty

developed a plan to implement the Critical incident methodology across courses as well as an electronic

dispositional scoring guide.

In 2009, the School Psychology program revised its assessment system to better reflect National Association of

School Psychologists (NASP) program standards. As a requirement for program completion, in their electronic

portfolio, all candidates must include a piece of work and written reflection for each of the eleven NASP

standards. Candidates who do not receive a satisfactory score on the first faculty evaluation must re-submit their

work until it meets a high standard of excellent.

2b. Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

The unit has strengthened its data collection and analysis, notably in gathering data on candidates’ post-

graduation performance. In 2009, the School Leadership program revised its Employer Survey to clarify its

alignment to ELCC and program standards (see Exhibit 1.7). The new survey was distributed to employers of

graduates of the most recent two graduating classes. The response rate was nearly 50%. The data was

analyzed and is included in the ELCC SPA. In addition to an in-house employer survey designed and

administered by the unit, supervising principals of recent M.A.T. graduates are now required by state law to

complete a survey for the Texas Education Agency (TEA). This third-party data will be of value to drive

program improvement (see TEA principal results).

The new Foliotek electronic portfolio system enables us to aggregate data more efficiently and produce reports

that are more useful in assessing programs and unit operations. In addition, revising the job description for the

current Certification, Assessment, and Communications Specialist in spring, 2007, has better allowed us to

devote personnel resources to data collection, analysis, and reporting. In 2008, the unit paid to send two full-

time staff members—the CAC Specialist and the Academic Office Manager—to a two-day intensive Microsoft

Access training session. The skills acquired in this session have allowed the staff to maintain program records

and create reports much more easily.

2c. Use of Data for Program Improvement

Additional revisions to the assessment system will result in more useful program improvement information.

For example, in its new student course and teacher evaluation form, the Department faculty elected to include a

question addressing field placement, thus creating a channel for more precise feedback on this critical aspect of

professional preparation (see revised form). The new questionnaire better allows the unit to collect feedback

on the specific criteria that the Department has identified as essential for tenure and promotion (see P&T

requirements). Specifically, this aspect of the assessment system improves the unit’s ability to conduct a

pedagogical evaluation of how well faculty use and model best practices. This type of feedback increases the

rigor of our course and faculty evaluation system.

In fall, 2010, the unit has begun reviewing the composition of our Advisory Councils to consider the role that a

greater diversity of voices—from our partner schools, school districts, and the wider civic, business, and

educational community— can play in sharing the task of data analysis and program improvement.

15

STANDARD 3: FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

QUESTION 1

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.

1. How does the unit work with school partners to deliver field experiences and clinical practices to enable

candidates to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help all students learn?

Our vision is for our candidates to know, think, and act like teachers. In our five-year Teacher Education

program, the undergraduate years primarily focus on knowing and thinking like a teacher, with increasingly

challenging field experiences. Candidates come to know like a teacher by majoring in the subject matter they

plan to teach and building strong content knowledge. They learn to think like a teacher by understanding the

complex intellectual work in which teachers engage through careful study of classroom teachers’ practice and

K-12 students’ learning. Fittingly, nearly every undergraduate education course offered by the unit has a well-

integrated and appropriately structured field component.

All of our graduate programs offer increasingly challenging and carefully scaffolded field experiences where

candidates learn how to integrate their knowing and thinking into principled action. These experiences are

collaboratively developed with P-12 partners. In the School Leaders program, for example, both major field

experiences (practicum and internship) begin with candidates developing a standards-based plan that the site

supervisor and faculty member review and discuss in a three-way conference. As detailed in Description of

Field Experiences (Exhibit 3.4), all programs require intensive and extensive field experiences to develop

proficiencies that candidates must demonstrate. In these experiences, they apply knowledge and thinking,

analyze P-12 learning, and reflect on their practice.

3a. Collaboration between Unit and School Partners

The unit, its school partners, and other members of the professional education community design, deliver, and

evaluate field experiences and clinical practice. The structures of our programs foster the collaboration that

enables students to develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions they need to help all students to learn. In

Teacher Education, for example, we have formalized partnerships with three San Antonio-area Professional

Development Schools (PDSs) where we concentrate long-term efforts and resources to create environments

conducive to candidate learning. Memoranda of Understanding define the specific roles and responsibilities

that lead to high-quality field experience. These agreements include the expectation that Trinity and the

partner school each commit to contribute $20,000 annually in order to provide mentor training and faculty

development as well as to promote long-term improvement in student learning. Each partner school also

commits to provide release time for a faculty member to serve as the Trinity liaison. With our help, each of

our partner schools has achieved significant recognition on the local, state, and national levels. In the School

Leaders and School Psychology programs, we have less formalized but long-standing partnerships with a

limited number of schools and districts where we have a high level of confidence that our candidates can have

quality field experiences. Partnership expectations are outlined in contracts with school districts and internship

supervisors.

Another structural component underscoring our commitment to field experience is that a university clinical

faculty member in Teacher Education is assigned exclusively to one PDS campus in order to develop and

sustain a strong collaborative relationship that focuses not only on the needs of our aspiring teachers but also

on the needs of P-12 teachers and students. A related structural aspect in teacher education is the cohort

model. All graduate interns at the same certification level, for example, learn to teach on the same campus

under the supervision of the same clinical faculty member. This organizational arrangement best facilitates

communication between the clinical faculty member and mentor teachers, the clinical faculty member and

building administration, and the candidates themselves.

16

Another important structural component in all our programs is small numbers. Each clinical faculty member in

Teacher Education supervises no more than 12 candidates. They have the opportunity for near daily contact

with interns, mentors, their school liaison, and building administrators. Clinical faculty members observe

interns teaching at least once every two weeks (see Summary of Intern Observations 09-10). Additional

program faculty—a recently hired differentiation expert and a science educator—conduct additional field

observations. Thus, interns receive regular and ongoing support from many different faculty. Our School

Leaders and School Psychology program admit no more that 15 candidates each year in order to enable faculty

to scaffold and monitor field experiences closely through frequent communication with school partners and

site visits.

A final structural component of our collaborative partnerships is the Advisory Committees that we have

established in all three programs. The Committees meet one to two times annually to review program data and

to make decisions about program changes (See Advisory Committee minutes). Description of Field

Experiences (Exhibit 3.4) details other collaborative components of each program.

In all programs, unit faculty and their P-12 partners jointly determine the specific placement of student

teachers and interns for other professional roles. In Teacher Education, clinical faculty determines the grade

level, content area, and preferences of candidates. They then work closely with their school liaison and school

administrators to identify a pool of high-quality mentors in these areas. Clinical faculty member, school

liaison, and administrator meet and match particular candidates with particular mentor teachers. In the School

Leaders program, candidates choose a site supervisor, usually their school principal, as a mentor. Program

faculty then work closely with the mentor and the candidate, using the ELCC standards as a guide, to plan the

field experience (See Descriptions of Field Experiences). In the School Psychology program, the Director

discusses school site needs with the site supervisor and then tries to match those needs with the needs,

interests, and preferences of candidates.

The school and the unit share expertise to support candidates’ learning in field experiences and clinical

practice. The mentor and Trinity faculty member uniquely shape each assistantship and internship, together

creating an individualized program for each candidate that addresses needs and strengths. To this collaborative

effort, mentors bring expertise in knowing P-12 students, content, and pedagogy. Trinity faculty members

bring expertise in pedagogical content and in knowledge of candidates. Through ongoing informal

conversation and mentor development opportunities, Trinity faculty members help mentors to be intentional

about sharing their tacit knowledge with candidates and shaping learning opportunities in the classroom and in

the school.

3b. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Clinical Practice

The Assessment System (Exhibit 2.1) charts specify the explicit entry and exit criteria for clinical practice that

candidate must meet. In order to meet program standard requirements, field experiences in all programs

provide opportunities for candidates to observe in schools and other agencies, tutor students, participate in

education-related community events, interact with families, attend school board meetings, and assist teachers.

In the undergraduate special education sequence, for example, teacher education candidates visit community-

based agencies. In their internships, all teacher education interns are required to participate fully in the life of

the school as well as the classroom -- for example, sponsoring a club, assisting with academic competitions, or

attending school-sponsored events for students and their families.

Field experiences in all three programs also align with Program Standards that shape the design of the

experiences through specifying the knowledge and skills that candidates must attain and demonstrate. In the

advanced programs, field experiences are structured to enable candidates to prepare for the specific roles for

which they are training. The School Psychology internship requires candidates to engage in the projects and

activities that they will be responsible for once they become licensed – for example, an assessment, a

consultation, and a counseling intervention (see NASP Standards). The School Leaders program requires

17

students to demonstrate ELCC standard elements that emphasize site leadership, such as providing leadership

to programs serving students with special and exceptional needs.

Field experiences in all three programs align with the unit’s Conceptual Framework. Our stated belief is that

candidates learn their craft through apprenticeship, under the careful guidance of an experienced veteran who

inducts them into practice. The apprenticeship model defines both the undergraduate and graduate field

experiences.

Engagement in inquiry, another of our core beliefs, also occurs in all field-based experiences. Candidates

reflect on what they do and consider their own and students’ learning. Program Standards in all three

programs require candidates to be able to conduct action research—identifying a problem, collecting and

analyzing data, implementing solutions, and evaluating outcomes through reflection, discussion, and writing.

Program standards, again, require candidates to demonstrate their use of information technologies not only to

support teaching but also to enhance student learning. In Teacher Education, for example, candidates plan

virtual field trips, collecting digital photos and other electronic artifacts that P-12 students study in the

classroom, as well as use assistive technologies for special needs students. During the internship year,

candidates must submit portfolio entries that demonstrate how they have used technology to support students’

learning as well as their instruction. These entries are formally assessed at the end of the year. In the School

Leaders and School Psychology programs, students’ technology proficiencies are assessed through course

projects as well as portfolio review.

Criteria for the Selection for School Faculty (Exhibit 3.2) describe clear criteria for mentor selection in all

three programs that is known to all involved parties. In addition, mentors receive orientation, training, and

ongoing support for their roles. During our most recent program review in summer, 2009, the Texas Education

Agency awarded us commendations for the training we provide mentors (See TEA Desk Audit, page 26).

In all three programs, candidates must submit portfolios for evaluation that contain evidence that they have the

knowledge and skills from field experiences that the program standards require.

3c. Candidates’ Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions that

Help All Students Learn

Candidates in all three programs have field-based opportunities to develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions

to help all students to learn. Since field experiences occur in diverse, high-need public schools in the San

Antonio area, they include students with exceptionalities and students from diverse ethnic/racial, linguistic,

gender, and socioeconomic groups (See Exhibit 4.8 - Demographics of P-12 Students in School Used for

Clinical Practice).

As the Assessment System (2.1) charts detail, candidates demonstrate mastery of content areas and

pedagogical and professional knowledge before admission to and during clinical practice. In Teacher

Education, for example, before beginning their internship, candidates must have maintained a 3.0 GPA in their

subject matter major, have developed a disciplinary and interdisciplinary curriculum unit that they plan to

teach, and have received an acceptable assessment of their dispositional growth.

The Assessment System (2.1) charts also detail multiple assessment strategies that are used to evaluate

candidate performance in all programs. These include: course grades, state and national test results,

performance review conferences, mentor evaluations of field experiences, portfolios of work, dispositional

assessments, classroom and school observations, and logs of field experience hours. Candidates also self-

assess and reflect on their own performance. In Teacher Education, for example, fifth year interns participate

in a three-way evaluative conference – with their mentor and their clinical faculty member – at the mid-point

and end of the year. In the School Leaders program, candidates complete a self-assessment of their progress in

18

meeting ELCC standards at five checkpoints during the program (See Exhibit 3.6 – School Leadership Self-

Assessment). The Results from Specialized Program Reports indicate that candidates meet professional, state,

and institutional standards.

Candidates and clinical faculty systematically examine P-12 student learning results. In their fifth year, interns

complete a Teacher Work Sample project that focuses on assessing the outcomes of their teaching and

developing strategies for re-teaching as necessary (See Brief History of Teacher Work Sample Project

Development).

19

STANDARD 3: FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

QUESTION 2 (TARGET-LEVEL STANDARD)

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.

2. Describe the work undertaken to move to the Target Level. Discuss plans for continuing to improve.

To move to the Target Level, we have, first, rewritten our Conceptual Framework to state more explicitly and

clearly core beliefs about how candidates develop a principled practice. These include: the commitment to the

Apprenticeship model; the belief that we must support candidates across their Continuum of Practice—from

their informal apprenticeship of observation to formal preparation, through their induction years and beyond;

the importance of Engagement in Inquiry as they learn from their practice; and the value of a Professional

Learning Community in examining and learning from practice. Our efforts to engage in a process of

continuous improvement and move to the Target Level have focused on strengthening our enactment of these

core beliefs.

3a. Collaboration between Unit and School Partners

Our PDS partners were actively involved in re-designing, implementing and evaluating our new Conceptual

Framework. Beginning in 2006, they provided informal advice on our identification of core beliefs. The

Program Advisory Committees then reviewed the draft of the new Conceptual Framework and offered input

(See Advisory Committee Minutes). In the fall of 2009, finally, we sent copies of the Conceptual Framework

to representatives from our school partners and invited them to attend the December faculty meeting where we

reviewed the document and made final revisions.

In order to enact the Apprenticeship model effectively, the field contexts in which candidates train must

provide rich learning environments. The reciprocal involvement of Trinity faculty and P-12 faculty in staff

development has strengthened our ability to reach this goal.

In Teacher Education, unit faculty work closely with their school administrators to assess P-12 teacher

professional learning needs and to develop a collaborative plan for professional development, as described in

the related document, Clinical faculty responsibilities for PDS campuses. These plans get enacted in several

ways. Clinical faculty members contribute to teachers’ learning by offering instruction at school retreats and

workshops throughout the year. Dr. Laura Allen, for example, has provided training in the Understanding by

Design model for curriculum design to the faculty at her PDS, Jackson Middle School. Another example is

that Dr. Patricia Norman has offered Writing Workshop training to faculty at the PDS, Hawthorne Academy.

Along with the building administration, unit faculty co-design and co-facilitate P-12 faculty development. As

a final example in this category, Dr. Angela Breidenstein provides this support to her PDS, the International

School for the Americas, through Critical Friends Groups, a sustained initiative where groups of educators

come together to investigate problems of practice, examine student work, and read professional literature.

Interns, too, contribute to the collaborative professional development plan. In spring semester, they conduct an

action research project and present their findings to faculty at their PDS. Finally, the reciprocal nature of these

learning experiences means that if our clinical faculty does not design and implement professional

development for P-12 teachers, they often participate right alongside teachers. At Hawthorne Academy, for

example, early childhood educators wanted to study ways to design classrooms. Dr. Norman contacted a local

early childhood center with a reputation for best practice and set up a visit where she and the PDS teacher

studied classroom design together.

The unit and PDS partners share expertise and integrate resources in order to enrich the breadth and depth of

the P-12 professional development. The jointly funded PDS budgets support the collaboratively developed

professional development plans at each PDS. These budgets pay for outside speakers, additional in-service

20

days for teachers, attendance and presentations at regional, state, and national conferences for both P-12

teachers and our interns.

In addition to resources, the unit and PDS partners also share expertise. Besides designing and offering the

professional development experiences described above, the clinical faculty serve on PDS search and campus

improvement committees. Reciprocally, PDS partners have specialized knowledge that Trinity faculty do not.

P-12 faculty members teach or co-teach courses in all our programs. They also are guest lecturers in many

courses. The PDS school liaisons provide access to specialized knowledge at their campuses to our candidates.

When we were developing the plan for our TEaCH Center, we called on instructional technology experts from

our PDS partners to join us and contribute. When we hire new faculty, we always include P-12 faculty on our

search committees because of the unique perspectives that they provide. In our advanced programs, networks

of alumni who currently hold appropriate positions in local school districts provide support and help by sitting

on Advisory Committees, evaluating portfolios, and serving as mentors.

3b. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

To engage in continuous improvement and to move to the Target Level in the design, implementation, and

evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice, we have tightened the alignment between our Conceptual

Framework and the structure of field experiences in the three programs. Clinical faculty in Teacher Education

have worked toward developing Professional Learning Communities through training from the School Reform

Initiative, a group of educators across the country who are committed to improve student achievement through

teacher collaboration and inquiry and who promote Critical Friends Groups. Critical Friends Groups (CFGs)

enable small groups of educators to create a professional learning community by establishing group norms and

engaging in collaborative practices. Several faculty members have received training and become trainers

themselves. In addition to implementing CFG protocols and practices in their own classrooms, they

established and coordinate a local Center for the dissemination of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions

involved in CFG work and have provided training to PDS faculty and other area educators through summer

workshops and other professional development vehicles.

In order to implement and model the core belief in our Conceptual Framework in the Continuum of Practice—

that is, that the development of educators occurs over distinct phases including pre-service preparation,

beginning teacher induction, and continuing professional development—faculty have undertaken to re-define

our responsibilities in providing field experience to include induction support to recent graduates. In recent

years, individual faculty have developed several promising induction support practices that have impacted our

graduates as well as the clinical sites where they teach. These include: (a) a full-day classroom visit from their

former mentor teacher; (b) a monthly beginning teacher support group; (c) a week-long summer curriculum-

writing institute; and (d) a week-long summer institute to become a Critical Friends Group coach. Since many

of our graduates return to work at PDS sites, these induction support activities impact and benefit those

campuses.

In order to implement and model the core belief in our Conceptual Framework in Engagement in Inquiry,

faculty have strengthened opportunities for candidates to apply and reflect in practice on their knowledge,

skills, and dispositions. Assignments that require reflection about learning are integrated into all field-based

experiences. Candidates are asked to reflect on what they do and to consider what they are learning in the

process. In an undergraduate practicum course, for example, candidates study one student to better understand

who he or she is and how to support learning. During their internships, candidates conduct a formal project

focused on how a mentor teacher establishes a learning community with a new group of students -- setting up

the physical classroom environment, establishing routines and procedures, setting the tone for learning, and

creating conditions for working and learning together. Candidates reflect, write, and submit their reflections

for review and assessment.

Other program structures that we have initiated also provide additional opportunities for candidates to self-

21

reflect about their field experiences. The dispositional assessment process, for example, asks candidates to

continually assess their own growth (See Exhibit 1.8 Candidate Dispositions). The assessment process to

determine if candidates meet our Professional Teaching Standards asks candidates to reflect on their

development. They come to the assessment conference having generated evidence, and their exit portfolios

must contain artifacts demonstrating how they have met standards. The recent Teacher Work Sample

Assignment has a section called, ―Instructional decision making‖ that asks candidates to identify a time of

confusion or uncertainty during instruction and to unpack and consider alternative actions. The final section of

the assignment is called ―Reflection.‖ It asks candidates to identify areas of strength and weakness and to set

goals and strategies to address areas of growth. Assessment results indicate that candidates do self-reflect and

learn. On a scale from 1-4, aggregate three-year average scores on Professional Teaching Standard element

6(c): Reflects on and improves practice, ranged from 3.24 – 3.38 / 4.00.

Additionally, faculty implement and model the Conceptual Framework through their own instruction and

through experiential learning activities they provide candidates. A primary instructional principle in all our

programs is that what candidates will teach, they first learn through doing it themselves in a university class.

For example, our faculty teaches cooperative learning by modeling cooperative learning strategies. Another

example is that before our elementary candidates begin to teach writing, they become students of writing as

our faculty model Writing Workshop. A last example is that in our middle school program, faculty models the

Understanding by Design curriculum model by organizing and presenting their own curriculum using these

principles. Faculty also models the shared leadership and collaboration of a Professional Learning Community

by asking candidates to lead class activities, for example, facilitating a CFG protocol.

Other ways that faculty extend our Conceptual Framework into practice include: modeling advocacy of our

values and beliefs through participation on search committees and campus improvement committees at their

school sites; and taking students to national conferences and giving presentations with them.

Extending our Conceptual Framework into practice also occurs informally on a daily basis. Each clinical

faculty has no more than 12 interns to supervise, and they are concentrated in one school. The daily contact

that is possible increases the opportunities for faculty to model values and beliefs in action.

All our programs design field experiences to provide opportunities for candidates to apply and reflect on their

knowledge, skills, and disposition in a variety of settings. As undergrads, candidates in Teacher Education at a

minimum take two different practica in two different school settings. All but one undergraduate course has a

field component. Most candidates at least visit, observe, and reflect on experiences in several additional

schools. During their internships, candidates also have opportunities to work, at least for a short period, in

different settings (e.g., an early childhood center, school for learning disabled children, or a residential

program). In the School Psychology program, candidates undertake two extensive and intensive field

experiences in different settings. In the School Leadership program, although candidates typically do their

practicum and their internship in the same school, they are encouraged to undertake structured visits to other

schools.

Candidates in all our programs observe and are observed by other candidates. In Teacher Education, during

their internship year, candidates take EDUC 5352: School Leadership, Supervision and Evaluation in which

they complete a peer clinical supervision project. Interns form triads where they use the clinical supervision

process – pre-conference, observation, post-conference, write-up and reflection. In addition to this formal

requirement, their close proximity to each other on their campuses in the cohort model enables interns to

informally observe each other’s classrooms all the time. Interns also share their practice with each in other

ways. For example, interns are required to videotape a lesson then share an excerpt with their peers who offer

feedback and suggestions for continued learning. As a further example, as interns prepare to share action

research projects at their PDS campus, they first give their presentation to their cohort, receive constructive

feedback, and revise.

22

Program standards for each of our programs require that candidates interact with teachers, families of students,

administrators, college or university supervisors and other interns about their practice regularly and

continually. In Teacher Education, Professional Teaching Standard element 5(c) requires candidates to

communicate, collaborate, and interact with families and 6(d) requires them to participate in broader

professional communities, engaging with students, colleagues, and families in multiple contexts. On a scale of

1-4, three-year assessment results on these standard elements have been uniformly positive with aggregate

averages for 5(c) ranging from 3.2 - 3.27 / 4.00 and for 6(d) ranging from 3.07 - 3.22 / 4.00. In the School

Leaders program, ELLC Standard 4 requires candidates to collaborate with families and other community

members. On a scale of 1-3, three year assessment results indicate that candidates have succeeded with

aggregate averages ranging from 2.17 – 2.49 / 3.00. In the School Psychology program, NASP Standard 2.8

requires candidates to demonstrate skills in Home/School/Community Collaboration. On a scale of 1-3, three-

year assessment results indicate that candidates have succeeded, with aggregate averages ranging from 2.6 -

2.9 / 3.00.

Program standards also require that candidates be members of instructional teams at the school and active

participants in professional decisions. Professional Teaching Standard element 5(d) requires candidates to be

contributing team members and to work constructively with colleagues to improve student learning.

Assessment results indicate that they succeed. On a scale from 1-4, three-year aggregate averages range from

3.24 - 3.36 / 4.00. In the School Leaders program, ELCC standard 3.2: Manage Operations, requires

candidates to involve stakeholders—staff and community—in conducting the operations and setting priorities;

on a scale from 1-3, three-year aggregate averages on this standard range from 1.89 – 2.33 / 3.00. In School

Psychology, NASP Standard 2.3 requires candidates to function well as a member of school teams; on a scale

from 1-3, three-year aggregate averages ranged from 1.8 – 2.9 / 3.00.

In our advanced programs for other school personnel, candidates participate in field experiences and clinical

practice that require them to design, implement, and evaluate projects related to the roles for which they are

preparing. These projects are theoretically based, involve the use of research and technology and have real-

world application in the candidates’ field placement setting. Learning in both the School Psychology and

School Leaders programs is project-based. Candidates regularly work collaboratively with others to apply

theory and research to solve problems that they will confront in their practice. They observe each other’s

practice, make suggestions, and offer feedback. An example in the School Leaders program occurs in EDUC

6391: Advanced Problems in Administration where candidates are given a semester-long case study problem

that they are asked to resolve collectively, as a class, through consensus, applying educational theory and

research. In the School Psychology program, during their culminating internship, candidates must submit three

cases—an assessment, a consultation, and a counseling intervention. These submissions are assessed by

practicing school psychologists who evaluate them in real-world terms. Criteria include the use of technology,

the clarity of the theoretical model utilized, and the research base for recommendations (See School

Psychology Program Handbook).

3c. Candidate Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions to Help

All Students Learn

Our cohort model enables us to attain the target level on this standard element. Candidates work

collaboratively with other candidates and clinical faculty to critique and reflect on each other’s practice and

their effects on student learning. During the Pedagogics course, teacher education candidates have multiple

opportunities to give and receive feedback to and from peers. They use a ―Tuning Protocol‖ designed to give

feedback to each other about alignment of learning goals and activities in a proposed lesson. When candidates

develop their Understanding by Design curricular units, they present a working draft to peers and use the

―Tuning Protocol‖ to provide constructive feedback. Assessment results indicate that candidates develop the

skills and disposition for giving and receiving constructive feedback. PTS Standard element 6(b) requires

candidates to demonstrate that they can accept and respond to feedback from colleagues and students. Three-

23

year aggregate average scores range from 3.31 – 3.49 / 4.00.

As they move as a cohort through the succession of classes in our advanced programs, candidates also have

multiple opportunities to critique and reflect on each other’s practice as they undertake collaborative projects

and present their results to each other.

Program standards in all three programs require that in their field experiences candidates develop and

demonstrate proficiencies that support the learning of all students. PTS Standard element 5(a) requires

candidates to demonstrate sensitivity and ability to work with diverse students (e.g., race, ethnicity,

socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, religion, culture, and language). Three-year average

aggregate scores range from 3.26 – 3.40 / 4.00. ELCC Standard 4.2 requires candidates to demonstrate that

they can accommodate diverse needs and interests, and provide leadership to programs serving students with

special needs. On scale of 1-3, three-year aggregate average scores range from 2.11 – 2.46 / 3.00. NASP

Standard 2.5 requires candidates to demonstrate skills in responding to student diversity. Three-year aggregate

average scores range from 2.5 – 2.7 / 3.00.

Plans for Continual Improvement

Over the last several years, we have been learning about what it means to enact NCATE’s Professional

Development School standards. As we have worked to implement and assess the standards, they have served

as a means to engage partners in addressing ongoing needs. We have come to see our expectations for our

PDS partners and ourselves more clearly and to hold all of us more accountable for meeting them.

In the standards, there are challenges not only for the university but also for the school. As we have discussed

the standards with our partners and worked to implement them, we have learned that a key to a successful

partnership is the capacity of the campus administration to focus on improving not only our program but also

their school. Developing a shared vision and mission for student learning outcomes hinges on being able to

engage in a different kind of professional conversation where we and PDS partners can talk about underlying

beliefs about teaching and learning and where trust develops to enable conflict to surface and be resolved

constructively. The capacity for this kind of engagement changes with administrator turnover.

PDS partnership success also depends on the capacity of classroom teachers to serve as school-based teacher

educators. Mentors must not only have a strong teaching practice but also a strong mentoring practice.

Teachers must have the motivation to develop the skills necessary for a standards-based practice. Without

these capacities, candidates get short-changed.

Equity issues are also important. PDS partners must provide IT resources for both students and teachers.

School and district administrators have to be willing to work to develop these resources. Otherwise, our

candidates lose opportunities to observe best practice in the use of technologies and also to develop those

practices themselves.

Over the last five years, we have experienced each of these problems—loss of capacity through administrative

turnover, lack of faculty will and skill in mentoring, and resource inequities—with one of our long-time PDS

partners, Hawthorne Academy. We have attempted a series of interventions to remedy problems. In 2009-10,

for example, we led a daylong retreat with faculty that assessed partnership strengths and weaknesses using

NCATE’s PDS standards and developed a collaborative plan. However, campus administrators, though

promising to be present, did not attend the retreat and proved uncooperative in implementing the plan.

We have, thus, made the decision to end our long-term relationship with Hawthorne and to undertake in 2010-

11 to find another PDS partner through a systematic process. We plan to:

a. Identify clearly and specifically characteristics and capacities we seek in a new PDS partner;

24

b. Develop a Request for Proposals that specifies these requirements and an application process;

c. Meet with area school superintendents and principals to publicize the opportunity and to engage interest to

encourage schools to apply;

d. Screen paper applications and identify the most promising;

e. Hold phone interviews with school administrators to determine three finalist sites;

f. Visit these finalist sites, interviewing the school administrators, meeting with the faculty to clarify roles

and responsibilities, and visiting classrooms.

g. Select a PDS partner and develop a formalized written agreement between the university, school district

and school.

25

STANDARD 4: DIVERSITY

QUESTION 1

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.

1. How does the unit prepare candidates to work effectively with all students?

Conceptual Framework

Our revised Conceptual Framework demonstrates our commitment to enabling our candidates to acquire and

apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.

4a. Design, Implementation and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences

The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and experiences to ensure that candidates acquire the

knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all children learn. In our program standards, we have

clearly articulated expected Diversity Proficiencies (Exhibit 4.1) and integrated them throughout the

curriculum, instruction, and assessment in all three programs to ensure that candidates have the opportunity to

gain knowledge and develop skills and dispositions related to diversity. The Diversity Alignment Matrices

(Exhibit 4.2) that we have created show where in our courses and field experiences diversity standards are

addressed and how they are assessed.

Development of diversity proficiencies occurs throughout the three-certification levels of our teacher education

program, our largest program. As Teacher Education – Diversity Proficiencies details, candidates receive

intensive instruction and practice in: strengthening their awareness of different learning styles, adapting

instruction appropriately, connecting lessons to students’ experiences and cultures, communicating with

students and families with sensitivity to cultural and gender differences, incorporating multiple perspectives in

their teaching, and developing a classroom climate that values diversity.

All teacher education candidates, in addition, take two common courses, both of which have substantial

projects that focus on developing understanding and empathy for differences in cultural background, language,

and learning needs and on developing the skills to respond to them. As undergraduates, all Trinity seniors take

our capstone course, EDUC 4100: Senior Seminar. As a final project, each student: reads one of three books

on cultural differences; participates in a literature circle with a small group of classmates who read the same

book; presents the insights from the small group discussion to the whole class; self-assesses his or her own

performance; and assesses the performance of others. In the fifth year, all students take EDUC 5339: Teaching

Diverse Learners where they learn knowledge and skills for responding to cultural, language, and learning

differences in classrooms.

In all three programs, candidates demonstrate that they have gained the required diversity knowledge, skills,

and dispositions through work submitted in their electronic portfolios. In Teacher Education, the faculty

assesses these work samples at the midpoint and at the end of the fifth or internship year. In the School

Psychology program, similarly, candidates submit three cases as portfolio work samples during their third, or

internship year. Finally, in School Leaders, in their fifth and last semester, candidates present portfolios with

work products that demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required by the diversity standard

elements. Faculty assesses the work samples with the rubrics (Exhibit 4.3) that contain criteria aligned to the

proficiencies.

The data (4.3) clearly indicate that candidates have the diversity knowledge, skills, and dispositions to teach all

students and to create learning environments that support and nurture students from diverse backgrounds.

4b. Experiences Working With Diverse Faculty

26

Increasing the diversity of faculty is a priority for both the institution and the unit. We have expended

considerable resources to make progress in this area. The unit has added two full-time Hispanic or Latina

faculty members in the last six years. In a small department with 10 full-time faculty members, those hirings

represent a significant change. The institution, too, has made progress. In 2003-04, 87.3% of faculty was

white and only 12.7% were racial minorities. In 2009-10, 80.2% were white, and 19.8% were racial minorities

(See Exhibit 4.4 Diversity of Professional Education Faculty).

The unit’s advanced programs have even more diversity than the Teacher Education program because of the

part-time faculty. In all, 22.2% of faculty in the advanced programs are racial minorities. Finally the school-

based faculty who supervise and mentor candidates in field experiences in all three programs include 30.5%

who are racial minorities.

The unit’s progress in hiring and retaining diverse faculty has occurred because it has set their hiring as a high

priority and then developed comprehensive recruiting strategies to obtain the best possible applicant pool,

especially of candidates from underrepresented groups on our faculty. Hiring Practices and Procedures

(Exhibit 4.5) details search procedures. Especially successful has been the effort to contact personally teacher-

training institutions across the country to ask for recommendations of candidates.

4c. Experiences Working With Diverse Candidates

Both the university and the unit are committed to increasing the diversity of the student body. As a result the

number and percentage of students of color have increased over the last six years. In 2003-04, 68% of

undergraduates were White, with 32% as students of color. In 2009-10, 63% were White, and 37% were

students of color. Since our Teacher Education candidates are largely recruited from the Trinity undergraduate

population, our unit figures closely match those of the university. Diversity of Candidates in Professional

Education (Exhibit 4.6) shows that in 2009-10, 65.6% of candidates in Teacher Education were White and 34.4

%were students of color.

There are significantly more students of color—41.4 percent—especially Hispanic, in our advanced programs,

School Psychology and School Leadership. These data reflect the fact that these programs recruit from the

young adult population in San Antonio and South Texas that is a majority-minority population center, with

58% Hispanic or Latino.

4d. Experiences Working With Diverse Students in P-12 Schools

The field sites we have chosen for our programs reflect our commitment to prepare candidates who can help all

students to learn. All field experiences occur in diverse settings throughout urban and suburban San Antonio.

Our Professional Development School (PDS) partners mirror the demographics of San Antonio in their

diversity. San Antonio ISD (SAISD), where one of our PDSs is located, and North East ISD (NEISD), where

the other four are located, are two of the largest districts in the immediate area surrounding campus, with a

combined enrollment in excess of 100,000 students. These districts provide all the field placements for our

Teacher Education program and many of them for the advanced programs. As Diversity of P-12 Students in

Clinical Practices (Exhibit 4.8) shows, the schools we use in these districts are diverse. For example, 89.3% of

students in SAISD and 48.6% of students in NEISD are Hispanic or Latino. 90.3% of SAISD students are

economically disadvantaged as are 40% of NEISD students. In addition, both districts include English

Language Learners and students with disabilities in regular classrooms. Our candidates have ample

opportunities to work with them.

Candidates receive feedback from peers, mentor teacher, and university faculty about their ability to help all

students learn through the informal conferences that occur throughout their field placements and through the

formal conferences and written evaluations that occur throughout their internships.

27

STANDARD 4: DIVERSITY

QUESTION 2

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.

2. What are the most significant changes that have led to continuous improvement?

Conceptual Framework

The unit strengthened the diversity language in its revised Conceptual Framework to include: the vision

statement that graduates will be ―well prepared to enable the learning of students who increasingly differ

racially, ethnically, culturally, linguistically and who often have other unique learning;‖ and the core belief in

the importance of culturally responsive practice. We continue to work toward achieving this ambitious goal

through targeted academic and institutional opportunities.

4a. Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences

This strengthened commitment has led to significant changes to our curriculum, especially in Teacher

Education. Prior to the hiring of Dr. Rocio Delgado in 2004, curriculum related to diversity focused on

children with disabilities, with a medical model approach that emphasized diagnosis and remediation of

deficits. With the hiring of Dr. Delgado, the Department instituted a new course EDUC 5339: Teaching

Diverse Learners that all fifth year students take, emphasizing cultural responsiveness and building on student

strengths. The class promotes an examination of programming and instructional management techniques to

facilitate effective instruction of diverse learners with and without disabilities. Strategies for teaching

culturally and/or linguistically diverse students in the general and special education setting are also provided

(See description of course revision and evolution).

As the director of the special education program, Dr. Delgado significantly revised the undergraduate course

sequence completed by candidates seeking special education certification. Previously, special education

courses had located the causes of academic and behavioral difficulties within the individual child and focused

on remediation. Revisions to courses were necessary to address aspects of cultural and linguistic diversity and

their impact on disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. The resulting new

course sequence that Dr. Delgado created encourages candidates to question a deficit way of thinking and to

view learners with special needs through an asset-based perspective that encompasses and highlights positive

social, cultural, and linguistic factors in addition to disability-related needs.

In addition to better preparing teacher candidates to support academic and behavioral needs of kinder through

12th grade students, the content and field experiences incorporated in the new special education courses

contribute to deepening prospective teachers’ understanding of the intersection between culture, language, and

disability. Moreover, streamlining the course sequence from four to three classes presents the possibility for

more teacher candidates to acquire background knowledge regarding populations with special needs. For

example, applicants to the teacher education program are now required to take an introductory course to

special education to better prepare them to serve students with disabilities, whether they choose to pursue

supplemental special education certification or to teach in a regular education inclusive classroom. Having

more prospective teachers take the special education course sequence has also promoted the idea that special

education and general education professionals need to work together to understand each student’s individual

differences and the implications of these differences for class instruction. By encouraging prospective general

and special education candidates to take more classes together, we aim to continue developing a sense of

shared ownership and responsibility while candidates in turn are prepared to teach all students with diverse

needs whether they require special education services or receive instruction in the regular education classroom.

28

Starting 2009, the unit significantly revised its introductory course for first-year students. The new syllabus

for EDUC 1210 includes a greater attention to the problems facing urban schools and minority students. A key

text is Jonathan Kozol’s Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling.

Another strategy the unit has employed to increase candidate awareness of cultural differences and to motivate

them to become more culturally responsive has been to devote its Carter Lecture each year to these themes.

The Carter Lecture is the unit’s only endowed lecture series. Each year we invite a prominent national

educator to address our interns, their mentor teachers, and our faculty. The speaker typically spends at least

part of a day working with candidates in our advanced programs. Over the past four years, the speakers have

included: Gloria Ladson Billings, a nationally-renowned African-American teacher educator; Ron Takaki, who

came to national prominence with his efforts to create multicultural programs in the California university

system; Rafe Esquith, former National Teacher of the Year and author of Teach Like Your Hair's On Fire,

whose talk highlighted his successes teaching first-generation immigrants who live in poverty in Los Angeles

and are English Language Learners; and Dr. Pedro Noguera, a preeminent scholar on urban education. Dr.

Noguera’s talk for mentor teachers, candidates as well as area principals promoted thoughtful discussion about

equity and policy reform to better enable all students to reach their potential.

Our Center for Educational Leadership’s Gifted and Talented Consortium, finally, has offered several

diversity-related professional development workshops in recent years. The main audience is local P-12

teachers of the gifted and talented, but our Teacher Education candidates also attend. During the 2007-08

academic year, Dr. Donna Ford, Betts Chair of Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt University,

presented a day-long workshop that focused on recruiting and retaining culturally diverse students in gifted

education. In the spring, Dr. Jaime Castellano led a daylong workshop on equity, access, and opportunity for

culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education programs.

4b. Experience Working With Diverse Faculty

Hiring two full-time faculty who are racial minorities, Dr. Rocio Delgado in 2004 and Ms. Beatriz Font

Strawhun in 2009, has, for the first time, provided opportunities for White candidates in our teacher education

program to interact regularly with professional education faculty from different ethnic/racial groups.

In order to continue to strengthen the ability of our candidates to work with diverse students, the unit made the

decision in 2009 to hire, in a replacement position, an expert in instructional differentiation. In the fall of

2010, the unit hired Dr. Courtney Crim as an Assistant Professor of Education. Dr. Crim’s academic area of

specialty is differentiation, especially instructional strategies for the gifted. We are confident that Dr. Crim

will continue to improve our candidates’ abilities to effectively teach all students.

Beyond this, the unit continues to collaborate closely with our PDS campuses to ensure that candidates have

the opportunity to work with diverse classroom teachers. During the 2009-10 year, 34% of mentor teachers

and internship supervisors (School Leadership) program were non-White (See Exhibit 5.2 – Licensure

Information on School Faculty). Program faculty continually look to recruit talented teachers of color to serve

as mentor teachers and supervisors.

4c. Experience Working With Diverse Candidates

In the last three years, the unit has actively sought to increase the diversity of the university’s undergraduate

student body. The Chair, select faculty, and the Director of our Upward Bound Program, were successful in

advocating more aggressive recruiting outreach to local high school graduates who are both economically

disadvantaged or living in poverty. As a direct consequence of these efforts, the Director of Admissions and

Financial Aid, established a new undergraduate scholarship program for first-generation college students from

San Antonio. Specifically, four incoming first-year students receive full cost-of-attendance scholarships. Unit

faculty and staff have actively recruited candidates for these scholarships and serve on the Scholarship

Selection Committee.

29

The unit has also actively supported and participated in the University’s McNair Scholar program that prepares

undergraduates for doctoral studies through involvement in research and other scholarly activities. To qualify,

participants must come from disadvantaged backgrounds or be a first-generation college student and have

demonstrated strong academic potential. Dr. Delgado has mentored an undergraduate McNair Scholar.

4d. Experience Working With Diverse Students in P-12 Schools The unit has strengthened its commitment to work with high-need, high-minority schools through the

development of the Trinity San Antonio ISD Mathematics and Science Partnership. In partnership with the

SAISD Superintendent, we submitted a successful proposal to the local Zachry Foundation to fund a powerful

math/science professional development project in urban schools. Based on adult learning research, we

proposed to bring a math and science educator to high minority, high-need schools on a weekly basis to work

directly with teachers in their work setting. After the project was funded in 2009, we worked collaboratively

with SAISD to identify pilot schools that need to strengthen math and science achievement but that also have

the leadership and faculty commitment to change practices. We have begun to work with some of these

promising schools. Our new partnerships with them have also increased opportunities for our candidates to

work in diverse field sites.

30

STANDARD 5: FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT

QUESTION 1

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.

1. How does the unit ensure that its professional education faculty contributes to the preparation of

effective educators?

5a. Qualified Faculty

Rigorous search processes and selection criteria ensure that we hire exceptionally qualified faculty (see Faculty

Search Documents). Nine full-time Department of Education faculty members have earned doctorates; one

possesses a master’s degree. All have exceptional experience in school and university settings. All full-time

faculty, have served as full-time teachers in public schools and are credentialed accordingly. Several have also

served in administrative roles, including principal and superintendent, and hold administrative certifications.

More importantly, all full-time faculty possess extensive contemporary professional experience in school

settings. The clinical faculty in the Teacher Education program, for example, is intensively engaged with PDS

partner schools as they develop the capacities of those schools (see Exhibits 5.1 Faculty Qualifications and

Clinical Faculty PDS Responsibilities).

Among our 26 part-time faculty members, half (13) have earned doctorates while the other half (13) have

master’s degrees in a discipline relevant to their teaching assignment. All part-time faculty concurrently hold

full-time positions in professional capacities in which they demonstrate and continue to develop their expertise.

The majority work in local public schools (see Faculty Qualifications). Beside the classes they teach, part-time

faculty serves many essential roles—including membership to program advisory councils and admission

committees.

The unit relies heavily on the support of classroom mentor teachers and other field supervisors. Before

selecting supervisors, we confirm that each is licensed in the fields that they teach or supervise, are master

teachers, possess robust experience, or are otherwise well recognized for their competence in their field. All

are properly credentialed (see Exhibit 5.2 - Licensure Information on School Faculty).

5b. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Teaching

Department faculty have in-depth understanding of their field(s) and are teacher-scholars who integrate what is

known about their content fields, teaching, and learning in their own instructional practice. Faculty model best

practices in teaching by continually improving the programs they direct and the courses they teach. Faculty

members actively encourage the development of reflection, critical thinking, and problem solving and

professional dispositions by incorporating a variety of instructional strategies in their classes. University

faculty continually model the kind of teaching and communication strategies that each candidate can use in her

own classroom—authentic assessments, designing opportunities for problem-based learning, respectful

―people-first‖ language, and facilitating protocols that foster equity and professional learning community.

Across our three graduate programs, unit faculty has continued to integrate diversity and technology into the

courses they teach and the field experiences they supervise. In the last four years, for example, EDUC 5339:

Teaching Diverse Learners, a required course that all M.A.T. candidates take in the fall semester of the fifth

year, has been significantly strengthened (see Summary of Course Revisions). In its current form, the course

has been expanded to include an examination of instructional strategies for working with culturally and

linguistically diverse (CLD) students with and without disabilities (See EDUC 5339 Syllabus). Beyond this

required course, all faculty members recognize the importance of including targeted course activities and

assignments to help candidates develop their capacity to discern and appreciate abilities, needs and potential

31

contributions of the students for whom they are responsible (see Exhibit 4.2 – Curricular Components that

Address Diversity).

Another way that unit faculty model best practices in teaching is by incorporating multiple performance

assessments into courses and field experiences. Assessments in all programs now are largely project and

performance based, including the required standards-based electronic portfolios completed by all candidates.

Faculty have continued to develop performance assessments as well as rubrics and scoring guidelines for

evaluating candidate work electronically. In the last year, a dozen undergraduate teacher education

assignments—including child and teacher studies—use electronic rubrics in Foliotek. The time-intensive

process of creating and uploading rubrics is justified by the many benefits it bestows upon our candidates.

All faculty members, both full and part-time, systematically assess their teaching effectiveness, in part through

student course and faculty evaluations completed by candidates for every course (see Exhibit 5.6 – Evaluation

Summary). We ask candidates in all classes to answer with a quantitative rating on a Likert Scale from 0-6

ranging from ―Strongly Disagree‖ to ―Strongly Agree‖ (See Sample Form). The ratings for full-time faculty

are impressively high—with averages across the five semesters ranging from 5.37 to 5.66. Albeit slightly

lower, the overall averages for part-time faculty are still at 5 or higher in all but one question. Each full-time

tenured faculty member must specifically address teaching, including performance on course evaluations,

syllabi, grade distributions, and the development of new courses / assignments in their annual Summary of

Professional Achievement (see report template). Tenure-track candidates must address the same items for their

formal reviews at the end of the second and fourth years as well as in their self-evaluation at the start of the

sixth year (see Criteria for Tenure and Promotion).

Beyond these examples, many faculty members invite feedback on and modify their teaching through a range

of informal measures, including focus groups with enrolled students, ―mid-course‖ evaluations, peer

mentoring, and by requesting that the Department Chair or a faculty peer observe and de-brief a class session.

In 2008-10, at least four department faculty applied for and were awarded Information Literacy Course Design

and Improvement Grants through the University’s Quality Enhancement Plan Committee. In exchange for a

small monetary award, selected faculty participated in a two-day workshop where each shared and received

feedback on course assignments and rubrics—thus receiving additional constructive feedback on their

teaching. In 2008-10, two department faculty members received Curricular and Pedagogy Innovation grants

from the University to improve elements of courses of their own teaching.

During our most recent program review from the Texas Education Agency, we were rated as ―in compliance‖

for our high faculty standards and we received additional commendations for using PDS schools and for

providing support to mentors (see Desk Audit Findings, p. 25).

5c. Modeling Best Professional Practice in Scholarship

Full-time faculty members have continued to demonstrate significant scholarly work related to teaching,

learning, and their fields of specialization. Their recent publications and presentations provide substantial

evidence.

Faculty also engages in substantive, non-traditional scholarship that is consistent with our Departmental view

of scholarly activity (see Position Statement on Scholarship). Faculty inform policy and practice decisions

engaged in by government officials (local, state, and federal), foundations, teachers, principals, and others who

make the key decisions about the nature of the field and how it should be practiced. Our faculty design and

strengthen ways to disseminate what is known in the field through various delivery systems including

professional workshops, the preparation of textbooks, and on-line media.

5d. Modeling Best Professional Practices in Service

Summary of Service and Collaborative Activities (Exhibit 5.4) demonstrates how faculty have continued

32

commit themselves fully to service activities—to the department, the university, the community, and the

profession. In the past three academic years, full-time faculty have completed 174 different service projects

ranging from time-intensive commitments (e.g., chairing a university or search committee, serving as a

NCATE program reviewer) to one-off volunteer activities (e.g., serving as a member of a panel discussion).

A review of funded grants within the unit indicates strong participation by faculty with ten grants funded

totaling approximately $3,000,000 from federal and private sources since 2007 (see Exhibit 5.3 Summary of

Funded Faculty Grants). We recognize and appreciate the amount of time and effort that went into crafting

additional grant requests that remain unfunded.

Collaboration

One of the key ways the unit has ensured that professional education faculty contribute to the preparation of

effective educators is through active collaboration with arts and sciences faculty, PDS faculty and

administrators, community partners, and others. Select examples of this collaboration includes: the Howard

Hughes Medical Institute grant in 2008 that has funded a new science educator position; the two successful

Noyce grant proposals to the National Science Foundation developed in 2009; and the creation of the East

Asian Studies at Trinity (EAST) program including an opportunity for majors to earn certification as P-12

Chinese language teachers in 2009. For more information, consult The NSF-Noyce Teaching Fellows

Proposal or (Phase II) NSF-Noyce Scholarship Program Proposal.

Through special projects and initiatives, the unit collaborates regularly and systematically with over 600 P-12

schools in the San Antonio region. Our Center for Educational Leadership Annual Report provides detailed

information of the range of outreach projects in which faculty engage.

5e. Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty Performance

The unit ensures that its professional education faculty contributes to the preparation of effective educator

through the careful and thorough implementation of Trinity’s comprehensive evaluation and merit pay system.

This system includes annual reviews of the professional education faculty’s teaching, scholarship, service, and

collaboration with the professional community, and leadership in the institution and profession (See Exhibit

5.6 The Unit Evaluation of Professional Education Faculty).

With three tenure-track junior faculty, the Department’s Criteria for Promotion and Tenure along with the

University’s Policies and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure of Academic Faculty (Exhibit 5.5) are

especially important.

5f. Unit Facilitation of Professional Development

Both university and department policies and practices encourage all professional education faculty to be

continuous learners through the ways described in Opportunities for Professional Development Provided by

Trinity University (Exhibit 5.7). These opportunities include annual stipends of at least $1,500 for conference

and research travel, paid academic leaves, and opportunities to apply for supplemental grants to enhance

courses or conduct additional research.

33

STANDARD 5: FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT

QUESTION 2

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.

2. What are the most significant changes related to Standard 5 that have led to continuous

improvement?

Faculty Transition

In the last seven years, the unit has had the opportunity to strengthen and reallocate faculty resources because

of the retirements or death of older, long-term faculty. Beyond this, the unit has welcomed the opportunity to

add two new full-time lines. In this process, the Department has undergone a significant transition. Of the

eight full-time faculty members in 2003, four remain. Five new full-time faculty—three replacements and the

two new faculty members—have been hired. One senior position remains to be filled due to the retirement of

Dr. Tom Sergiovanni in December 2009.

Faculty hiring has enabled the unit to become not only younger but more diverse. In 2003, for example, none

of the faculty were racial or ethnic minorities—whereas two of the five recent hires are racial or ethnic

minorities. This concentrated burst of hiring has further enabled the unit to align the knowledge and

experience of new faculty with the changing needs of our programs and local P-12 schools. In particular, our

faculty now possesses experts in areas where we were previously weak: cultural and linguistic diversity

(Delgado), differentiation strategies for gifted and talented and secondary students (Crim), pedagogical

methods in mathematics (Font Strawhun) and science (Nordine), and global education (Albright).

Searches

Evidence of the quality of new faculty is the rigorous recruitment and search process that we have undertaken

for each search. We have undertaken six searches for new faculty since 2003. We concluded five of them

with an accepted offer from the top candidate. One search did not conclude successfully. Rather than

compromising on the quality of the candidate, we instead chose to hire a temporary (one-year) replacement and

to conduct a new search for the position the following year. The second search concluded successfully.

All full-time searches follow a careful, comprehensive recruitment and selection plan. The sample Teacher

Educator Search Plan (2009) chronicles the steps we typically take, who is responsible for taking them, and the

various deadlines to ensure accountability. Prior to beginning a search, the faculty collaboratively develops a

position description that specifies the qualities and abilities we seek (See sample Teacher Educator Position

Description). Once approved by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, these become the criteria that the

Search Committee uses in evaluating candidates. Each search committee includes (at a minimum) several unit

faculty members, the Department Chair, and a faculty representative from the Trinity Arts and Sciences

faculty. Because of the importance of involving PDS partners, we also include faculty from those schools as

well as local program alumni. After the application deadline passes, the search committee first utilizes a

Template for Rating Applicants to organize applications. After the paper screening is complete, the Search

Committee conducts telephone or Skype interviews before deciding which candidates to invite for campus

visits (See sample Telephone Interview Questions). We typically invite two to three finalists to campus.

Campus visits always include a presentation for faculty, candidates, and search committee members and at

least one PDS campus visit (See Sample itinerary for finalist campus visit).

In 2009-10, when undergoing the search for an open senior position, the Norine R. Murchison Professor and

Department Chair, we followed the process above with a few notable enhancements. We developed a

resource-rich Web site to provide prospective applicants with important information about our Department and

34

programs (since the position has been filled, the site has been deactivated). Second, we expanded the Search

Committee to include all full-time (tenure-track) faculty, two local superintendents, and an important partner

from the business community. We highly publicized the candidates’ public talks and arranged the visit

schedule to ensure that several different constituents—current and former candidates, Arts and Science faculty,

librarians, university administrators, PDS partners, staff, part-time faculty—were all granted access and input.

In order to accommodate the increased number of events, national advertising, and the visibility of this high-

profile search, the unit supplied about $2,500 from our annual budget to cover costs beyond what the

University customarily provides for faculty searches.

New Student Course and Teacher Evaluations

In order to improve their ability to assess their own effectiveness, in 2008 and 2009, the faculty engaged in

extensive discussions and revision work sessions to improve the course evaluation form. New university

technology has enabled the each campus department to develop their own questions that align with our

Conceptual Framework. In the new Student Course and Faculty Evaluation template, the faculty includes

questions about the degree to which the course broadened student thinking, pushed them beyond their comfort

zones, and asked them to apply knowledge. The new evaluation also asks candidates the degree to which the

instructor: models teaching strategies and dispositions put forth in the program, is prepared and organized, and

encourages students to ask questions and to agree and disagree. Because of the alignment with Departmental

instructional values, these new questions provide more meaningful and valuable information than the more

generic questions included previously. Evaluations may be administered on paper or electronically, an

increasingly popular option.

Improved support and evaluation of part-time faculty members

Over the last decade, the teaching performance of part-time faculty has been continually problematic. We

know this anecdotally and because the average ratings for part-time faculty on Student Course and Faculty

Evaluations have been consistently lower than those for full-time faculty. Although we have some strong and

successful part-time faculty, especially in our advanced-level graduate programs, annually, we encounter

faculty whose instructional performance did not meet our high standards despite careful hiring and screening

processes.

In response to this problem, we have undertaken several steps that have improved the overall quality of part-

time faculty performance. First, since new part-time faculty may have limited or no university teaching

experience we have given them a systematic orientation to: Trinity and Department expectations about

teaching and candidates, university and departmental policies and procedures, program standards, and

resources available to support teaching (e.g., a budget to purchase course texts and supplemental materials).

Second, we have provided each new hire with a full-time faculty mentor who visits at least one class per

semester and offers support and constructive feedback. Third, consistent with a new university policy, we

have begun to evaluate each part-time faculty member at the end of each semester appointment, reviewing data

from course evaluations, grade distribution, and follow-up interviews. These steps have lead to increased

success among part-time faculty. Any part-time faculty who lack strong evidence of teaching success are not

hired in future semesters.

Modeling Best Practices

Faculty has strengthened their modeling and dissemination of best practices through new initiatives that

directly benefit current candidates and provide induction support that is critical to our graduates’ success.

(1) Understanding By Design (UbD)

A generation ago, most teachers were taught to write lessons, not develop coherent units of study that identify

the big ideas and essential questions and then use these to design performance tasks that ensure student

understanding as well as knowledge. Teacher Education faculty have incorporated the Understanding by

Design framework (Wiggins & McTighe) into their courses as well as into a week-long summer institute for

35

recent graduates (see UbD in a Nutshell). Since 2004, we introduce UbD as the preferred method of

curriculum design in our graduate-level teacher education seminars (EDUC 5350 and 5351).

For the last six years, we have sponsored an annual Summer Curriculum Writing Institute (SCWI), inviting

graduates to return the Trinity campus for one week each summer where they reconnect, write a unit of study

using the UbD framework, and continue their professional growth. These curricular units are uploaded to the

web for use by current students and the broader education community (see the Development of UbD at Trinity

and Description of the Summer Curriculum Writing Institute).

(2) Critical Friends Groups

Critical Friends Groups (CFGs) enable small groups of educators to create a professional learning community

by establishing group norms and engaging in collaborative practices. A CFG consists of 6-10 members who

commit themselves to learning together on a long-term, consistent basis. Each group is facilitated by a

―coach,‖ usually a school colleague who facilitates meetings and helps group members use a variety of

protocols – a set of procedures to structure a focused, equitable, substantive conversation – to examine teacher

and student work, solve problems, discuss professional literature and observe each other’s teaching. Clinical

faculty members often facilitate their graduate seminars like a CFG, using protocols and building candidate

capacity as participants and coaches.

Another continuing professional development activity is a weeklong Critical Friends Group New Coaches

Training Seminar each May. The unit offers scholarships to our M.A.T. graduates to attend this workshop so

that they are equipped with tools to support their students’ learning and to help establish/sustain professional

learning community at their school campuses. In addition, a number of M.A.T. graduates participate in CFGs

both on and off their school campuses (See more about Critical Friends Groups at Trinity).

(3) The Trinity Principals’ Center

The Trinity Principals’ Center, supported by the Center for Educational Leadership, is an important resource

for graduates of our School Leadership program and local school administrators. The TPC seeks to renew,

support and sustain school leaders in making their schools places where teachers can teach students

successfully. It provides inter-district support and professional development for principals in 24 local school

districts and five charter and private schools. Through a variety of activities, including keynote speakers,

campus sharing sessions, and book studies, it helps school leaders identify and solve problems while

developing leadership skills that improve the culture, climate and student achievement on their campuses. In

2010, the Department received a grant of $281,000 from the Meadows Foundation to continue and expand this

work with the National School Leadership Network (see the CEL Annual Report).

(4) Teacher Work Sample

An example of recent course improvement in teacher education springs from the recognition of the necessity of

preparing teacher candidates to collect and utilize evidence of P-12 student learning in their teaching. To this

end, a joint committee of faculty and PDS partners collaborated to develop a Teacher Work Sample (TWS) to

meet specific programmatic needs. The TWS provides beginning teachers a structured format for developing

and analyzing the efficacy of a lesson or curricular unit. A key element focuses on collecting evidence of

student learning via pre- and post-assessments. The template forces continuous reflection on the teacher’s

instructional choices and the resulting outcomes. Teacher education implemented this version during the 2008-

09 academic year and assessed student performance with an improved rubric.

(5) Entry Planning

A curricular change was made in the School Leadership program to better serve our candidates in the last

semester of their master’s degree program. As candidates approach graduation and begin to look for their first

administrative assignment, we provide the training so that each is equipped with the knowledge and skills to

develop an Entry Plan—a systematic, strategic, research-based method for successfully beginning a school

36

leadership position. Such a plan will enable new leaders to: improve their performance as well as improve

school performance and student learning. Faculty implemented the Entry Plan assignment in EDUC 6693:

Internship and assessed student performance with a rubric. Initial Entry Plan Data were disappointing.

Candidates averaged 19.69 out of a possible 30 points (65.6%). What we have learned is that instruction in the

techniques of entry planning will take more instructional time.

(6) TEaCH Center for Educational Technology

In the last three years, the Department faculty has undertaken significant efforts to integrate and model best

practices in educational technology into courses they teach. First, faculty adopted the National Educational

Technology Standards (ISTE). The unit collaborated with technology specialists from local school districts,

conducted alumni focus groups, and utilized the expertise of university personnel to develop a proposal and

Plan for a New Technology Lab in 2008. In order to be of maximum benefit, we determined that the center

must be located near the Department of Education to provide continuous and frequent opportunities for

contextualized technology learning for candidates. The Department, finally, sought and received a federal

grant for $143,000 to create the TEaCH Center for Educational Technology that opened in the fall of 2009. In

order to take full-advantage of the facility and its impressive state-of-the-art resources, faculty participated in

several orientations and training sessions, including a half-day seminar about SMART Boards in spring, 2009.

We will continue to arrange and sponsor these trainings as long as faculty find them useful.

37

STANDARD 6: UNIT GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES

QUESTION 1

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.

1. How does the unit’s governance system and resources contribute to adequately preparing

candidates to meet Professional, state, and institutional standards?

Consistent with its mission, Trinity University has established the professional preparation of educators as an

institutional priority. As a result of this commitment, the Department of Education has the leadership,

authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources to ensure that candidates meet and often exceed

professional, state, and institutional standards for entering the profession.

6a. Leadership and Authority

The unit is highly effective in the organization, planning, and delivery of all programs that prepare teacher

candidates or other school professionals. The unit’s organizational structure as well as decision-making

policies and procedures are spelled out in Policies on the Governance and Operations of the Unit. As this

document makes clear, the unit provides a mechanism for and facilitates collaboration between unit faculty and

faculty throughout the institution. Through the various Program Advisory Committees, the unit also involves

P-12 partners in the program design, implementation, and evaluation. P-12 partners also serve as full, voting

members on faculty search committees.

In order to ensure that candidates receive the guidance and support necessary to meet professional, state, and

institutional standards, the unit revises print and electronic information for candidates annually. Each fall, the

unit reviews and revises the course catalog. The unit web site is constantly updated to reflect key changes.

Current and accurate recruiting and admission practices are described clearly and consistently in the catalog,

other print publication, as well as on the program web site. Academic calendars, publications, grading

policies, and advertising are maintained by the University vice presidents and are accurate and current.

The unit is committed to ensuring that candidates have access to student services, such as advising and

counseling, at the department and university levels (see Exhibit 6.3 - Unit Policies on Advising, Counseling,

and Student Support ). The unit ensures that junior faculty members receive extensive training through

advising workshops and conducted a ―first year advising survey‖ in spring, 2009. Candidates provide

feedback on these services in the alumni survey (see Exhibit 1.6). On a scale from 1-5, average candidate

ratings for student services have ranged from 4.1 to 4.6 over the past four years. Beyond this, the unit relies

upon its full-time staff, specifically the Certification, Assessment and Communications Specialist and

Academic Office Manager to provide extensive support to current candidates and graduates (see description of

staff support).

In order to strengthen its field experience components, the unit offers professional development opportunities

to our school partners. Each summer, unit clinical faculty train and orient cooperating teachers to their roles as

mentors for our M.A.T. interns. Another example is the Gifted and Talented Consortium that the unit sponsors

for teachers of the gifted and talented in area schools (See Center for Educational Leadership Annual Report).

The Education Department is widely respected throughout the university, the city, and has received several

national accommodations, including the Richard Wisniewski Award. Faculty provide leadership to several

prestigious boards, including the Mayor’s P-16 Council, the San Antonio Math Science Education Coalition,

and the Texas Middle School Association. We enjoy a 100% placement rate for recent M.A.T. graduates—

many of whom secure employment with districts before May graduation—further evidence that districts

compete to hire our graduates.

38

6b. Budget

The unit receives sufficient budgetary allocations to provide programs that prepare all candidates to meet

standards. In the last two years, the total Departmental budget from the university, including salaries and

operating expenses, has increased by a total of 6.8%, comparable with increases received by other units in the

institution.

The operating budget from the University funds supplies, materials, telecommunications, copying, graduate

assistant scholarships, and other resources. In addition, the Department receives special allocations to meet

unique needs—such as the NCATE Board of Examiners visit and related expenses. Each academic year, the

Department also can request funds for capital equipment and capital projects. In both the regular operating

budget and the additional allocations, the unit has received funds that are at least comparable to those received

by other units of the institution. Of the 24 academic departments, Education typically ranks in the top ten

allocations on a per full-time faculty member basis. These allocations and analysis are detailed in Unit Budget

and Comparison (Exhibits 6.6 and 6.7).

In addition to university funding, the Department receives budget resources from grants and annual dues that

districts pay to belong to our Center for Educational Leadership (CEL). In the 2009-10 year, for example, the

CEL has received small grants, dues, and fees totaling $156,000 to fund outreach activities, continuing

professional education workshops, a speaker series, a monthly Superintendents’ Forum. We also received over

$2.4 million in federal and foundation grants (See Exhibit 5.4 - Summary of Faculty Grants).

These combined funds are also used to support on-campus and clinical work essential for preparation of

professional educators. Each clinical faculty member in teacher education receives an annual program budget

of $20,000 for development activities with their PDS partners. The University gives the unit the authority and

responsibility for awarding scholarships as well as a significant endowment. In 2010, we awarded over $1

million in undergraduate and graduate scholarships as well graduate assistantships across our three programs,

benefiting our 110 graduate students and a dozen undergraduates.

6c. Personnel Workload policies enable faculty to be effectively engaged in teaching, scholarship, assessment, advising,

collaborative work, and P-12 work, and service. Faculty Workload Policies (Exhibit 6.8) detail university

guidelines that set the normal semester load at 9 credit hours with the expectation that remaining work hours

will be devoted to research and service activities. Most unit faculty members, however, voluntarily accept

overloads because of program needs.

Workload can be analyzed in terms of: credit hours of teaching assignments, number of candidates taught or

supervised, and additional responsibilities. Applying the university guidelines to faculty in teacher education

becomes difficult because of their significant responsibilities in field site activities including supervision of

intern teachers and PDS development (See Exhibit 6.9 - Faculty Workload Summary). This spreadsheet

shows, however, that although overall credit hours taught total often exceed the University norm of 9 hours per

semester, both class sizes and supervision loads are kept intentionally low, between 8-12 candidates, to allow

for the intensive coaching that teacher development requires.

Our use of part-time faculty is purposeful to both maintain and strengthen program coherence. We have long-

term relationships with most part-time faculty; we involve them in program development and review; many are

program graduates. As a result, they have broad program knowledge beyond the knowledge of their own

courses; they also have a sense of ownership of our programs that we are pleased to reaffirm and support with

additional training resources.

6d. Facilities

39

Trinity University provides a strong infrastructure of resources including technology to support teaching and

learning. Our private residential college setting provides outstanding facilities on campus and in partner

schools to support candidates in meeting standards. All classrooms on campus have sophisticated electronic

media capability.

Each of our full-time faculty members has an individual office equipped with a personal computer with

Internet connectivity and with access to a variety of network resources, including shared printers. All

computers have been purchased on the university’s regular computer schedule and are replaced every four

years. Faculty can choose laptops with docking stations in order to enhance their flexible use. Part-time

faculty has access to shared workspaces in the large department office, the copy machine, and related support

from technology resources and part-time staff.

6e. Unit Resources Including Technology Since our founding in 1869, Trinity's unusual combination of large school resources set in a small, intimate

environment offers our candidates the best of both worlds. For over 15 consecutive years, Trinity has been

named by U.S. News and World Report as the number one university in the West among those offering

Masters degrees.

As Campus Facilities and Technological Resources (Exhibit 6.10) details, Trinity provides a wealth of

technology resources for faculty and candidates. It also provides a large, award-winning library with state-of-

the art electronic capabilities (See Exhibit 6.11 - Description of Library Resources). Coates Library has also

established a dedicated professional liaison with each department who solicits advice on the management of

the collection and keeps us apprised of library decisions about books and periodicals. Our dedicated librarian

leads targeted sessions for effective research methods in education for both full and part-time faculty and

maintains a discipline-specific website of online article search engines.

Continual assessment and improvement is a priority at Trinity; Therefore, significant institutional and unit

resources are dedicated for this important initiative. A full-time position as Associate Vice President of

Academic Affairs is devoted to Information Resources, including the annual collection, compilation, analysis,

and dissemination of assessment information. This information is shared with the university and broader

community in several ways, including an annual report and fact book of data (See the 2009-10 fact book).

To support our Assessment System and evaluation efforts, the unit employs several graduate assistant as well

as a part-time secretary to assist with data collection, analysis, and dissemination.

40

STANDARD 6: UNIT GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES

QUESTION 2

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.

3. What are the most significant changes related to Standard 6 that have led to continuous

improvement?

6a. Leadership and Authority

New personnel in top-level leadership positions are the most significant changes that enable the unit to

maintain and strengthen continuous improvement efforts. Dr. Dennis Ahlburg assumed the University

Presidency in January 2010 and immediately stated that outreach to the local education community would be

one of his priorities. In his first six months, he hosted a dinner at his home to bring together unit faculty, local

educational leaders, and members of the business community to begin to discuss local educational needs and to

formulate a plan to address them. Such an initiative by a Trinity President had not occurred before. As

another first, he also volunteered to host a reception in the fall, 2010 for P-12 faculty who provide supervision

to our teacher candidates. These gestures symbolize the administration’s appreciation and support for our

work.

In August 2010, Dr. Shari Becker Albright assumed the role of Norine R. Murchison Professor of Practice and

the chair of the Education Department. From 1992-96, Albright served on the Trinity faculty as an assistant

professor of education, before becoming the principal of the International School of the Americas, a public

magnet school in the North East Independent School District. She was named the Texas High School Principal

of the Year for 2004 by the H-E-B Excellence in Education Awards. Most recently, Albright was based in

New York City as executive director of education at the Asia Society and chief executive officer of the Asia

Society International Studies Schools Network, a national network of small, internationally-themed secondary

schools dedicated to preparing college ready, globally competent students. Albright holds three degrees from

Trinity and her doctorate from Teacher’s College at Columbia University (see Albright profile).

6b. Budget

Increased support from the University, school districts and foundations has enabled the Department to fund

continuous improvement efforts. In the each of the last three years, we have committed $20,000 each year to

the development of each of our three Professional Development Schools. Clinical faculty who serve as PDS

liaisons have broad discretion over how to spend these funds. Generally, they are used for P-12 teacher

development and support for M.A.T. interns to attend state and national conferences.

On several occasions recently, the Vice Presidents have committed additional resources, beyond the allocated

budget, as a result of discussions with the Chair and other department faculty. Examples include stipends for

writers of NCATE Specialized Program Reports (SPAs) and additional funds to support faculty research and

academic travel.

As tuition costs have risen, our candidates have experienced increasing difficulty in affording our graduate

programs. In response, we have acquired additional financial support from several sources. In the last three

years, the University has increased our graduate scholarship funds from $727,000 to $827,000, an increase of

nearly 14%. We have received annual donations of $50,000 to $70,000 from a family in memory of an

alumnus. Finally, we have received two new grants from the National Science Foundation Noyce program that

provide significant scholarships to mathematics and science majors completing M.A.T. degrees. These

allocations are further detailed in Unit Budget and Comparison (Exhibits 6.6 and 6.7).

41

With these new resources, we have had extraordinary success in enabling candidates attend our program

without taking on excessive educational debt. In 2007, we awarded total scholarships of $421,000 to 29

M.A.T. candidates, an average award of $14,500. In 2009, we awarded $560,000 to 32 M.A.T. candidates, an

average award of $17,500. The new resources further enable us to maintain our graduate assistantships in the

School Psychology program and the 50% tuition scholarships for School Leadership candidates from Center of

Educational Leadership member districts. Despite the recent economic downturn, our scholarship funds have

not been immediately affected nor do we expect significant cuts in the coming year.

6c. Personnel

Two new full-time faculty positions, established in 2009, have enabled our continuous improvement efforts. A

long-term goal of the Department has been to strengthen the preparation of candidates in critical areas of

mathematics and science. Foundation grants and university funding has allowed us to add a (non-tenure-track)

full-time Clinical Mathematics Educator and a tenured-track, full-time Science Educator to enable us toward

meeting our goal.

Furthermore, in 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic years, all clinical faculty members who are responsible for

supervising a cohort of teacher educators were supplied with a highly qualified co-instructor. This

appointment addresses workload overages as these instructors are able to conduct additional field observations

for M.A.T. candidates and share in the tasks of planning, teaching, evaluating, and supporting our candidates.

The unit has also added two new part-time staff positions: a Noyce Grant Assistant (2009) and a School

Psychology Program assistant (2010) to provide additional support.

6d. Facilities

During 2009 and 2010, the University extensively remodeled Department facilities. Capital project funds were

used to purchase technology, new furniture for faculty and staff, as well to significantly remodel the building

infrastructure, including new windows, energy-efficient lights, flooring, critical fire escape repair, and

installing a new sprinkler system.

Trinity University recently broke ground on a new Center for Sciences and Innovation. This $100 million

projects includes new construction and updates and repair to existing buildings to create a 116,000 square foot

facility that will greatly enhance learning opportunities for our candidates who will take classes in the state-of-

the-art classrooms and labs.

6e. Resources including technology

Facility improvements over the last few years have enhanced our continuous improvement efforts, especially

in providing for access to and use of information technologies. The University’s AT&T Center for Learning

and Technology has created a wireless campus—in fact, Trinity has been named by INTEL as one the nation’s

―most unwired campuses.‖ In addition, nearly all classrooms on campus, including those in our building, have

been converted to Electronic Classrooms. Several of these are ―Level III‖ facilities, providing an instructor's

station complete with computer and touch-panel control of the room's AV equipment and room features such

as lights and projection screen. During the summer of 2010, the Department’s conference room was upgraded

to a Level III Electronic Classroom, including installation of a new SMART board.

The most instructionally significant facility improvement over the past two years had been the creation of our

TEaCH lab to foster and support the integration of emerging technologies into the teaching of both our own

faculty and that of our candidates (See Exhibit 6.10 - Campus Facilities and Technological Resources). A

federal award of over $140,000 underwrote the creation of the TEaCH lab and its design was carried out by a

team consisting of department and university personnel (the Director of the Center for Learning Technology)

and representatives from local schools and districts.

42

In 2009, the unit began to provide wireless internet access cards and monthly service fees to all clinical faculty

in order to enable them to be able to access their e-mail and other electronic information sources while on field

sites.

43

ELECTRONIC EXHIBIT ROOM ACCESS INSTRUCTIONS

To share documents and data related to our NCATE reaccreditation visit in April 2011, Trinity University

created a web-based electronic exhibit room hosted on the University server

(http://www.trinity.edu/departments/Education/ncate/index.html). The site does not require a user name or

password.

With user ease in mind, the site is organized to be browsed in two ways:

(1) We have created a distinct page for each of the six NCATE standards. Users may quickly access the

standard of their choice using the horizontal menu bar. Each page includes the required NCATE exhibits

and a copy of the Institutional Report that was submitted to NCATE.

(2) The same information included on each ―Standard‖ page is duplicated in an all-inclusive exhibit room

page. This comprehensive page includes all of NCATE’s required exhibits and links to the IR that was

previously submitted to NCATE. We imagine that this page will be most useful to users who want quick

access to the entire Exhibit Room.

If you have questions or encounter technical problems, contact our NCATE Coordinator, Lisa Jasinski

(lisa.jasinski@trinity.edu) or (210) 999-7581 (work) or (860) 919-8123 (cell).

44

LINKS TO REQUIRED EXHIBITS

Overview and Conceptual Framework

Overview information about the unit

Syllabi for Professional Education Courses

Conceptual Framework

Results from Specialized Program Reports

Certification Areas offered by Trinity University

Standard 1: Knowledge, Skills & Dispositions

1.1 State review documents & findings

1.2 Title II, PEDS (Parts A & B), NCATE Part C Annual Reports

1.3 Key assessments and scoring guides (programs not included in SPA process)

1.4 Data tables and summaries (programs not included in SPA process)

1.5 Samples of candidate work

1.6 Follow-up studies of graduates and summary results

1.7 Employer feedback on graduates and summary results

1.8 Candidate dispositions (including related assessments and scoring guides)

Standard 2: Assessment System & Unit Evaluation

2.1 Assessment System Rationale and Overview

Assessment System (Chart)

2.2 Data from key assessments used at entry to program

2.3 Procedures for ensuring that key assessments of candidate performance and evaluations of unit operations

are fair, accurate, consistent and free of bias

2.4 Policies and procedures that ensure that data are regularly collected, compiled, aggregated, summarized,

analyzed, and used to make improvements

2.5 (does not apply)

2.6 Policies for handling student complaints

2.7 File of student complaints (available for on-site review only)

2.8 Examples of changes made to courses, programs, and the unit in response to data gathered from the

assessment system.

Standard 3: Field & Clinical Practice

3.1 Memoranda of understanding, contracts, and/or other documents that demonstrate partnerships with schools

3.2 Criteria for the selection of school faculty (e.g., cooperating teachings, internship supervisors)

3.3 Documentation of the preparation of school faculty for their roles

3.4 Descriptions of field experiences and clinical practice requirements in programs for initial and advanced

teacher candidates and other school professionals

3.5 Guidelines for student teaching and internships

3.6 Assessments and scoring rubrics used in field experiences and clinical practice for all programs.

45

Standard 4: Diversity

4.1 Diversity Proficiencies

4.2 Curriculum components that address diversity proficiencies

4.3 Assessment instruments, scoring guides, and data related to diversity

4.4 Faculty demographics

4.5 Policies and practices for recruiting and retaining a diverse faculty

4.6 Candidate demographics

4.7 Policies and practices for recruiting and retaining diverse candidates

4.8 Demographics of P-12 students in schools used for clinical practice

4.9 Policies, practices, and/or procedures that facilitate candidate experiences with students from diverse

groups

Standard 5: Faculty

5.1 Faculty Qualifications

5.2 Licensure information on school faculty (cooperating teachers, internship supervisors)

5.3 Overview of full-time faculty scholarly activities - publications and presentations

5.4 Overview of full-time faculty service and grants

Summary of faculty service and grants

5.5 Promotion and tenure policies and procedures

Unit evaluation of faculty performance and tenure

5.6 Samples of forms used in faculty evaluation (see University course evaluation policies)

Summary of faculty evaluation results

5.7 Opportunities for professional development provided by the unit

Standard 6: Unit Governance & Resources

6.1 Polices on governance and operations of the unit

6.2 Organizational chart or description of the unit governance structure

6.3 Unit policies on student services such as counseling and advising

6.4 Recruiting and admission policies for candidates

6.5 Academic calendars, catalogs, unit publications, grading policies, and unit advertising

6.6 Unit budget with provisions for assessment, technology, and professional development

6.7 Budgets of comparable units with clinical components on campus or similar units at other campuses

6.8 Faculty workload policies

6.9 Summary of faculty workloads

6.10 Summary of facilities, including computer labs and curriculum resource centers

6.11 Description of library resources