widener.edu/SiteData/docs/English and Language Arts Education/...

1993 users shared this document! click

BOARD OF EXAMINERS REPORT N C A T E ___________________________________________________ National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education ACCREDITATION VISIT TO : Montclair State University Montclair, New Jersey November 5-9, 2005

NCATE Board of Examiners Team:

State Team: None State Consultant:
NEA or AFT Representative: None Type of Visit

First ___ Continuing _X__
Combination ___
Probation ___
Focused ___ 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 A. The institution ..................................................................................................................... 1 B. The unit ............................................................................................................................... 1 C. The visit .............................................................................................................................. 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................... 4
STANDARD 1: CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS...................... 7 A. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates ...................................................................... 7
B. Content Knowledge of Other Professional School Personnel ............................................ 9
D. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates................. 11
E. Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other Professional School Personnel ................. 14
F. Dispositions for All Candidates ........................................................................................ 15
G. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates......................................................................... 16
H. Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel ............................................. 19
Overall Assessment of Standard ............................................................................................... 19
Recommendation ...................................................................................................................... 19
Areas for Improvement ............................................................................................................. 19 STANDARD 2. ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION ................................. 20 A. Assessment system............................................................................................................ 20 B. Data collection, analysis, and evaluation.......................................................................... 22
C. Use of data for program improvement.............................................................................. 24
Overall Assessment of Standard ............................................................................................... 26
Recommendation ...................................................................................................................... 26
Areas for Improvement ............................................................................................................. 26 STANDARD 3. FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE .................................. 27 A. Collaboration between unit and school partners............................................................... 27
B. Design, implementation and evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice.......... 29
C. Candidates’ development and demonstration of knowledge, skills and dispositions to help all students learn ............................................................................................................... 32 Overall Assessment of Standard ............................................................................................... 34
Recommendation ...................................................................................................................... 34
Areas for Improvement ............................................................................................................. 34 STANDARD 4. DIVERSITY...................................................................................................... 35 A. Design, implementation, and evaluation of curriculum and experiences ......................... 35
B. Experiences working with diverse faculty........................................................................ 36
C. Experiences working with diverse candidates .................................................................. 37
D. Experiences working with diverse students in P-12 schools ............................................ 38
Overall Assessment of Standard ............................................................................................... 39
Recommendation ...................................................................................................................... 39
Areas for Improvement ............................................................................................................. 39 STANDARD 5. FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS, PERFORMANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT
....................................................................................................................................................... 40 A. Qualified faculty ............................................................................................................... 40 B. Modeling best professional practices in teaching ............................................................. 41
C. Modeling best professional practices in scholarship ........................................................ 42 3 D. Modeling best professional practices in service ............................................................... 44
E. Collaboration..................................................................................................................... 44
F. Unit evaluation of professional education faculty performance ....................................... 44
G. Unit facilitation of professional development................................................................... 45
Overall Assessment of Standard ............................................................................................... 46
Recommendation ...................................................................................................................... 46
Areas for Improvement ............................................................................................................. 46 STANDARD 6. UNIT GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES................................................... 47 A. Unit leadership and authority............................................................................................ 47
B. Unit Budget....................................................................................................................... 48 C. Personnel........................................................................................................................... 48
D. Unit Facilities.................................................................................................................... 50 E. Unit Resources including Technology.............................................................................. 50
Overall Assessment of Standard ............................................................................................... 51
Recommendation ...................................................................................................................... 51
Areas for Improvement ............................................................................................................. 51 SOURCES OF EVIDENCE ......................................................................................................... 52 Documents Reviewed ............................................................................................................... 52
Persons interviewed .................................................................................................................. 52
School Visited........................................................................................................................... 54
Classes Visited.......................................................................................................................... 54 CORRECTIONS TO THE INSTITUTIONAL REPORT............................................................ 54
List of Tables
Table 1: Unit Programs and Status of Program Review................................................................. 2
Table 2: MSU and Statewide Praxis II Pass Rates for Past Three Academic Years ...................... 7
Table 3: Other School Personnel Passing Licensure Tests Passing Rates...................................... 9
Table 4: Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Candidates in Initial Teacher Programs................ 10
Table 5: Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Candidates in Initial Teacher Programs .............. 10
Table 6: Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Candidates in Advanced Teacher Programs ......... 11
Table 7: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills of Initial Teacher Candidates ..... 12
Table 8: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Candidates in Initial Teacher Programs ................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 9: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills of Candidates in Advanced ........ 13
Table 10: Professional Knowledge and Skills of Candidates in Programs for Other Professional School Personnel....................................................................................................................... 14 Table 11: Dispositions of Initial Teacher Candidates................................................................... 15
Table 12: Initial Teacher Candidates’ Ability to Promote Student Learning ............................... 17
Table 13: Initial Teacher Candidates’ Ability to Promote Student Learning ............................... 17
Table 14: Student Learning for Candidates in Advanced Teacher Programs............................... 18
Table 15: Student Learning for Candidates in Programs for Other School Professionals............ 18
Table 16: Field Experience and Student Teaching in MSU Initial Teacher Programs................. 29
Table 17: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice in MSU Advanced Teacher Programs and Programs for Professional School Personnel............................................................................ 31 4 Table 18: Performance Assessments Focused on Diversity at Three Transition Points in Initial Teacher Programs ..................................................................................................................... 36 Table 19: Performance Assessments Focused on Diversity for Candidates in Advanced Teacher Programs and Programs for Other Professional School Personnel........................................... 36 Table 20: Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Faculty........................................................................... 37
Table 21: Composition of Candidates Spring 2005...................................................................... 37
Table 22: Racial/Ethnic Composition of Students Served by MSUNER Districts, (2004-05) .... 38
Table 23: Faculty Scholarship Incentive Program Projects College of Education and Human Services..................................................................................................................................... 43

SUMMARY FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNIT National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education

Institution: Montclair State University
Team Findings Standards Initial Advanced 1 Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions M M 2 Assessment System and Unit Evaluation M M 3 Field Experiences and Clinical Practice M M 4 Diversity M M 5 Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and
Development M M 6 Unit Governance and Resources M M

M = Standard Met
NM = Standard Not Met Montclair State University BOE Report 1 INTRODUCTION
A. The institution

Montclair State University (MSU) is a public, comprehensive institution with an enrollment of
approximately 15,000 students. It is located on a 200-acre campus 14 miles west of New York
City in Montclair, New Jersey. Approximately 94 percent of enrolled undergraduate and
graduate students are from New Jersey.

MSU offers 45 undergraduate majors, 37 masters-level specializations, and three doctoral
programs. There are three colleges and two schools within the university—the College of
Education and Human Services (7 departments), the College of Humanities and Social Sciences
(13 departments), the College of Science and Mathematics (5 departments and the NJ School of
Conservation), the School of Business (5 departments), and the School of the Arts (5
departments). MSU is accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools.

MSU was established as a Normal School in 1908 and became Montclair State Teachers College
in 1927. In 1932, MSU was authorized to offer the master’s degree. In 1937, MSU became one
of the first teachers’ colleges accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and
Schools and was among the first group of teacher education institutions accredited by NCATE in
1954. It became Montclair State College in 1958 and Montclair State University in 1994. In
July 2004, the State approved MSU’s first doctoral program—an Ed.D. in Pedagogy. The
university is making plans to accommodate 18,000 students by 2008. A major building plan
includes a $45-million, state-of-the-art instructional building ($80 million, including contents
and other costs) that will serve as the home for the College of Education and Human Services. It
is scheduled to open in December 2005.

B. The unit

The College of Education and Human Services (CEHS) serves as the professional education unit
for teacher education at MSU. In spring 2005, 2,408 students (707 undergraduates and 1,701
graduates) enrolled in the college’s programs.

According to the New Jersey/NCATE partnership protocol, all programs were to be submitted to
the Specialized Professional Associations (SPA’s). This has been done and the review is in
process. Programs were also submitted to the New Jersey Department of Education and all have
been approved by the State. As shown by Table 1, the unit offers 14 initial teacher programs, 10
advanced teacher programs, and eight programs for other professional school personnel. None
of the programs are offered off-campus.
Montclair State University BOE Report 2 Table 1: Unit Programs and Status of Program Review (as of 10/01/05) Status of National and State Program Reviews Agency or Association Reviewing Program (State, SPA) Program Review Submitted Current Status 2 Program Name (Disciplinary Department) Award Level 1 Program Level (Init Tch, ADV Tch, Other) Number of Candidates NJ SPA NJ SPA NJ SPA Art BA, PB, MAT ITP 53 State N/A Yes N/A APP N/A Early Childhood Ed. (P-3) BA, PB, MAT ITP 197 State NAEYC Yes Yes APP APP Elementary Education (K-5)
(New program) BA/ PB, MAT ITP 429 State ACEI Yes No 3 APP DEF English BA, PB, MAT ITP 115 State NCTE Yes Yes APP APP Foreign Languages (French,
Italian, Latin, Spanish) BA, PB, MAT ITP 33 State ACTFL Yes Yes APP NRC Health Education BS ITP 2 State AAHE Yes Yes APP DEF Health and Physical Ed BS ITP 95 State N/A Yes N/A APP N/A Mathematics BS, PB, MAT ITP 71 State NCTM Yes Yes APP APP Music BA, PB, MAT ITP 30 State N/A Yes N/A APP N/A Physical Education BS, PB, MAT ITP 33 State NASPE Yes Yes APP APP Science Education
(Biological, Chemical, Earth,
& Physical Sciences) BS, PB, MAT ITP 29 State NSTA Yes Yes APP NRC Social Studies BA, PB, MAT ITP 93 State NCSS Yes Yes APP APP Teacher of the Handicapped PB, MAT ITP 119 State CEC Yes Yes APP APP Teaching English as Second
Language BA, PB, MAT ITP 1 State TESOL Yes Yes APP APC Biological Science MS ADV 23 State N/A Yes N/A APP N/A Critical Thinking M.Ed. ADV 28 State N/A Yes N/A APP N/A Early Childhood Special
Education M.Ed. ADV 19 State CEC Yes Yes APP APP Interdisciplinary Program M.Ed. ADV 82 State N/A Yes N/A APP N/A Mathematics MS ADV 66 State N/A Yes N/A APP N/A Music MA ADV 19 State N/A Yes Yes APP N/A Pedagogy (Ed.D.) Ed.D. ADV 35 State N/A Yes N/A APP N/A Philosophy for Children M.Ed. ADV 6 State N/A Yes N/A APP N/A Physical Education MA ADV 19 State NASPE Yes Yes APP REJ Reading MA, Certificate ADV 106 State IRA Yes Yes APP APC Adm & Supervision MA Other 237 State ELCC Yes Yes APP DEF (Associate) School Library
Media Specialist Certificates (2) Other 48 State AECT Yes Yes APP DEF Educational Technology M.Ed. Other 0 State AECT Yes Yes APP DEF Learning Disabilities
Teacher Consultant M.Ed., Certificate Other 58 State CEC Yes Yes APP APP School Counseling MA Other 251 State N/A Yes N/A APP N/A School Psychologist Certificate Other 46 State NASP Yes Yes APP APC Speech Language Specialist MA Other 49 State N/A Yes N/A APP NA Substance Awareness
Counselor MA Other 42 State N/A Yes N/A APP N/A TOTAL -- -- 2,444 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 BA/BS = Bachelor of Arts/Science; PB = Post-Baccalaureate Certificate; MAT = Master of Arts in Teaching; M.Ed. = Master of Education; MA/MS = Master of Arts/Science 2 APP = Approved/Recognized; APC = Approved/Recognized with Conditions; NRC = Not Recognized; REJ = Rejoinder in progress/submitted; DEF = Decision deferred; NA = There is no NCATE-affiliated SPA 3 New Program Montclair State University BOE Report 3 In fall 2004, the unit included 98 professional education faculty. Of these, 75 were full-time in
the CEHS and 23 were full-time at the university but part-time in the unit. The 23 primarily
teach methods courses in the disciplinary departments. There were 102 adjunct faculty and
visiting specialists teaching professional education courses in the CEHS. In addition, there were
38 master’s level graduate assistantships and eight doctoral level graduate assistantships. The
doctoral graduate assistants teach some undergraduate sections of the Philosophical Orientations
to Education course. The master’s level graduate assistants do not teach courses. More than 900
teachers and administrators from the unit’s partner school districts have clinical faculty status
that permits them to serve as on-site education supervisors, teach some methods and other
professional sequence courses, and co-teach student teaching seminars. The unit administration
includes a dean, associate dean, and assistant dean.

Major changes in the unit since the last accreditation visit in 1999 include:
• A new Dean was hired for CEHS in 2001. • The position of Associate Dean was added in 2001. • The position of Technology Coordinator was added in 2001. • The position of Director of Fieldwork was expanded from half-time to full-time in 2001.
The position title changed to Assistant Director of Center of Pedagogy. • An Ed.D. in Pedagogy, with concentrations in Mathematics Education and Philosophy for
Children, was instituted—MSU’s first doctoral program. • A new Children’s Center facility was completed in 2004. • A performance assessment database for initial programs was developed in AY2002-03
using FileMaker Pro software. • Business Education, Home Economics, and Technology Education (Industrial Arts)
programs were suspended.
C. The visit

This was a joint New Jersey Department of Education/NCATE review using only the NCATE
Standards. There was a seven-member BOE team and no State team members. In addition,
there was a State consultant who was a non-voting member of the team. State standards were
used for program approval.

This was a continuing visit at the initial and advanced levels. In New Jersey, institutions must
submit programs for review to the New Jersey Department of Education. The unit has submitted
programs to the New Jersey Department of Education and all have been approved. Based on the
New Jersey/NCATE partnership protocol, the unit must also submit programs to the Specialized
Professional Associations (SPA’s). These are in the process of being reviewed. The status of
those reviews is provided in Table 1 above. There were no changes to the State protocol. Montclair State University BOE Report 4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Montclair State University’s mission statement was revised in 2002 to reflect the institution’s
expanding role in educating New Jersey students, conducting research, and providing service to
the community, the region, and the state. In part, the mission statement of Montclair State
University is:
Montclair State University is committed to serving the educational needs of New
Jersey with programs characterized by academic rigor and currency in the
development of knowledge and its applications…. The University will be
inexorably committed to the maintenance of a learning community that is deeply
and broadly reflective of the diverse population of New Jersey…. All University
programs will develop in students the ability to discover, create, evaluate, apply,
and share knowledge in a climate characterized by tolerance and openness in the
exploration of ideas … [and] will cultivate the ability to think critically, to act
ethically, and to become informed citizen-participants prepared to assume
leadership roles in a democracy. The University will play a role beyond the campus
community, partnering and collaborating at the local, State, national and
international levels to make positive contributions to addressing issues of
importance to society, to enable students to experience their ability to use
knowledge in constructive ways in the world, and to share the rich array of
intellectual and cultural resources of the University with the people of New Jersey.
The mission of the unit is to provide quality programs that will prepare professionals and meet its
goals and professional standards. The unit is committed to preparing competent and responsive
professionals who:
• Are capable of examining their respective disciplines critically and emerge with the
requisite knowledge and skills to be excellent practitioners within their profession. • Know how to make good judgments using critical thinking. • Understand the moral dimensions of their profession. • Assume the responsibility of being stewards of best practice within their
profession. • Understand their role in the enculturation of the young into a political and social
democracy, if teachers.
The conceptual framework, The Portrait of a Teacher, is grounded in a vision of schooling in a
democratic society. It grew out of the unit’s participation in the National Network for
Educational Renewal (NNER) and the Agenda for Education in a Democracy (AED), both based
on the work of John Goodlad. In keeping with the NNER goals, the unit’s programs are guided
by four principles: (a) providing access to knowledge for all children and youth; (b) developing
educators who nurture the well-being of every child; (c) ensuring responsible stewardship of
schools; and (d) fostering in the young the skills, dispositions, and knowledge necessary for
effective participation in a democracy (Goodlad, 1994).
Montclair State University BOE Report 5 The characteristics of The Portrait of a Teacher are:
1. Know the subject matter they teach/the knowledge base of the professional
field they practice. 2. Understand how children and adolescents learn in a variety of contexts. 3. Are culturally responsive. 4. Plan their practice based upon knowledge of the subject matter, students and
their families/communities, and curriculum goals and standards. 5. Understand critical thinking and problem solving, and create and support
learning experiences that promote the development of these skills and
dispositions. 6. Understand principles of democracy and model democratic values and
communication in classrooms and schools. 7. Understand and use multiple forms of assessment to promote the
development of learners and to inform their practice. 8. Create school and classroom communities that are nurturing, caring, safe,
and conducive for learning. 9. Are reflective practitioners who continually engage in inquiry and seek out
opportunities that promote their professional growth. 10. Are skilled at building relationships with school colleagues, students’ families, and community agencies to support students’ learning and well-
being. 11. Speak and write English fluently and communicate clearly.
12. Model dispositions that are consistent with ethical decision-making and stewards of best practice.
The conceptual framework and a corresponding list of standards for initial and advanced
programs articulates the knowledge, skills, and dispositions expected of candidates, based on
INTASC Principles, the NBPTS, and New Jersey Professional Teaching Standards.

The conceptual framework was instrumental in the development of the unit’s assessment system
that is used to assess candidate’s progress through the program.

Decision points for the initial assessment system are:
1. Program Entry (Admission to Teacher Education)
2. Entry to Professional Semester
3. Exit from Professional Semester
4. Program Completion
Decision points for the advanced assessment system are:
1. Program Admission
2. Prior to Culminating Semester
3. Program Completion Montclair State University BOE Report 6 The Portrait of a Teacher was originally developed in 1994 and revised in 1999 and 2003. It
was developed by faculty from the unit and partner schools, and is a set of statements that
reflects the philosophical principles embraced by the unit. While the Portrait focuses
specifically on the educator, the vision it articulates serves as a common foundation for all unit
programs. The twelve components of the Portrait of a Teacher, listed above, have not changed
substantially since the last NCATE visit, but modifications completed in 2003 more clearly
articulate the unit’s commitment to cultural responsiveness. Recent revisions were completed by
unit faculty as well as by faculty of other schools and colleges within the university and
education professionals from PK-12 schools. It was approved by the Teacher Education Policy
Committee that includes unit faculty from education and the arts and sciences, education
professionals from PK-12 schools, and candidates.

Interviews with current initial and advanced candidates, graduates of initial and advanced
programs, PK-12 faculty and administration, and MSU unit and faculty campus-wide, verified an
extensive awareness, understanding, and support of the conceptual framework.

Review of course syllabi confirmed the commitment, awareness, and implementation of the
conceptual framework. A review of instruction practices, field experience activities, and
candidate assessments further documented implementation of the conceptual framework.

Numerous citations within the conceptual framework demonstrated the use of current research.
An extensive bibliography verified that the conceptual framework is based on a recognized
knowledge base.
Montclair State University BOE Report 7 STANDARD 1: CANDIDATE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND DISPOSITIONS Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel know and
demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to
help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional
standards.
Levels: Initial and Advanced

Aggregated unit assessment data were provided for initial and advanced candidates. The
technology used to aggregate initial program data made it possible for the team to review and
validate the unit data presented in the institutional report and in exhibit room documents. There
was some concern about how the unit data presented in the institutional report for advanced
teaching and other school personnel programs were aggregated, but the team determined that this
was a Standard 2 Area for Improvement, rather than Standard 1. Validation of advanced
candidate performance was possible through interviews, follow-up studies, and individual
program data. The team, therefore, has reported unit data for advanced teaching and other school
personnel programs (Tables 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 of this report).

A. Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates

Initial Level

For initial programs, passing the applicable Praxis II assessments is required by the State of New
Jersey for certification. Candidates demonstrate mastery of content knowledge through their
scores on the relevant Praxis II content area exam. The results of the MSU Praxis II content area
exam pass rate for the past three academic years suggest that candidates are well prepared in
their knowledge of content.

Table 2 provides Praxis II trend data for initial programs over the last three years. It shows that
MSU candidates consistently pass at a higher rate than candidates state-wide.
Table 2: MSU and Statewide Praxis II Pass Rates for Past Three Academic Years Pass Rate 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 MSU 98% 100% 100% New Jersey 97% 99% 99%
Two additional key assessments are required of all initial candidates prior to student teaching.
One assessment requires candidates to develop a unit instructional plan in the content area. The
plan is assessed by faculty who teach the methods courses for the specific discipline.
Candidates’ scores (aggregated on the unit’s database), using the unit instructional plan rubric,
show that candidates demonstrate knowledge of content. Another assessment includes a rubric
assessment of candidates’ ability to adapt a lesson for English language learners and students
with disabilities. Candidates’ high scores on this rubric indirectly documents candidates’
knowledge of their subject.
Montclair State University BOE Report 8 Almost 99 percent of all candidates met or exceeded expectations on student teacher evaluation
items related to content knowledge. This included evaluations completed by content area
faculty.

All of the unit’s programs are approved by the State of New Jersey and are aligned with the
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) Principles, and
specialized program association (SPA), State, and institutional standards. SPA approval of
programs, where applicable, is in process. The status of the SPA program reviews is given in
Table 1 above.

Results from follow-up surveys of program completers, graduates, and employers support the
other data findings. All three groups rated candidate preparation at 3.9 on a 5.0 point scale on
knowledge of the subject matter being taught. Employers in a spring 2005 focus group review
and on-site school visits conducted by BOE team members also indicate that candidates know
their subject matter and demonstrate their knowledge through higher levels of critical thinking.
Interviews with cooperating teachers, mentors, school administrators, and others indicate that
initial level candidates are well prepared in their content areas.

As evidenced by assessment data, course syllabi, coursework, candidate work samples, and
interviews there is an emphasis on the expectation of each candidate to emerge as an effective
practitioner who is knowledgeable of subject matter and committed to social awareness and to
the agenda for education in a democracy.

Advanced Level

At the advanced teacher education program level, candidate content knowledge is assessed
through a culminating activity, comprehensive examination, or a written thesis. Data were
provided for these assessments for each of the advanced programs, including the Ed.D. Degree.
The result of these assessments across programs for 2003-04 and 2004-05 shows that 88 percent
met or exceeded expectations.

Program reviews, where applicable, were conducted by the New Jersey Department of
Education. State reviews included a review of content knowledge and all have been approved by
the State. SPA approval of programs, where applicable, is in process. The status of the SPA
program reviews is given in Table 1 above. Advanced teaching programs are aligned with the
National Board of Professional Teaching Standards.

As part of the evaluation of the advanced teacher education programs, the unit administered a
survey to program completers in fall 2004 and spring 2005. The survey was designed to collect
data aligned with the MSU standards for advanced teacher programs. One item on this survey
asked respondents to rate how well prepared they were in their content areas. Survey
respondents rated their overall level of preparation in content knowledge very high, 4.6 on a 5.0
point scale.

Other evidence of content knowledge includes being state-certified in order to be admitted to the
program of study and achieving at least a 3.0 GPA for program completion. Interviews with Montclair State University BOE Report 9 school and university supervisors and mentors, candidates and graduates, further confirmed that
advanced level candidates are prepared in their content areas.
B. Content Knowledge of Other Professional School Personnel
Content knowledge of other professional school personnel is assessed at the program level
through GPA, course specific assessments, fieldwork assessments, and at program completion
with a culminating activity, comprehensive examination, or a written thesis. The result of these
assessments across programs for 2003-04 and 2004-05 is 84 percent met or exceeded
expectations.

The speech language specialist program and the administration and supervision program require
passing a State licensure test. As shown by Table 3, these two programs have had 94 percent or
higher pass rates in the last three years.
Table 3: Other School Personnel Passing Licensure Tests Passing Rates Program 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Speech Language Specialist 100% 96% 96% Administration and Supervision
(Principal) 95% 94% 97%
Follow-up surveys to program completers in fall 2004 and spring 2005 indicate respondents
perceive themselves as well prepared in content knowledge. Candidates rated their content
knowledge at 4.6 on a 5.0 point scale.

Interviews with candidates, graduates, internship supervisors, school administrators, and others
indicate that candidates for other professional school roles know their respective fields and can
explain principles and concepts aligned to professional, State, and institutional standards.

C. Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates

Initial Level

Candidates in initial programs are required to develop an instructional unit plan in their methods
course. The plan must include clear and meaningful learning objectives, be aligned to the New
Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards, incorporate suitable learning materials and activities,
use appropriate media and other technology, and represent content in a way that is relevant and
meaningful to students.

Table 4 on the following page validates the high rate of success of initial teacher education
candidates at entry to (Transition Point 2) and exit from (Transition Point 3) the professional
teaching semester (student teaching). The data were verified on the database system used by the
unit to collect and aggregate assessment data for initial candidates.
Montclair State University BOE Report 10 Table 4: Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Candidates in Initial Teacher Programs Transition Points 2 and 3 Pedagogical Content Knowledge MSU Standard 1b Transition Point % Did Not Meet Expectations % Met Expectations % Exceeded Expectations Transition Point 2: At entry to professional semester
(n=1,244) 5.6 72.3 22.1 Transition Point 3: At exit from professional semester.
Disciplinary program candidates (n=621) 1.5 92.2 6.3 Transition Point 3: At exit from professional semester.
ECEL program candidates (n=329) 1.0 76.0 23.0
Candidates’ ability to apply subject matter knowledge to develop meaningful and engaging
learning experiences for school-aged children is evident in exit data from the professional
semester. Candidate performance in the field experiences and professional semester are assessed
by cooperating teachers and mentors (university supervisors) using a common rubric.
Candidates must also demonstrate their ability to adapt materials, learning activities, and
assessments for an English language learner and a special needs learner. A common rubric is
also used to assess candidate proficiency in adapting lessons to the needs of all learners prior to
exiting student teaching.

Exit surveys of initial program completers and follow-up surveys of graduates and employers
report high average ratings for pedagogical content knowledge of candidates in initial programs.
Group interviews and on-site interviews of cooperating teachers, school administrators, mentors,
and others provide supporting evidence that teacher candidates have a broad knowledge of
instructional strategies and can facilitate student learning by presenting content in clear and
meaningful ways and integrating technology into the learning environment.

Program completer, graduate, and employer survey data for pedagogical content knowledge for
candidates in initial teacher education programs is provided in Table 5.
Table 5: Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Candidates in Initial Teacher Programs (Mean Ratings, 5-point scale) MSU Standard Program Completer Survey (F2003-Spr2005 (n=450) Graduate Survey (Spr2003, Spr2005) (n=302) Employer Survey (Spr2003) (n=20) 1b. Pedagogical content knowledge 4.0 3.7 4.0
Advanced Level

Evidence of pedagogical content knowledge in the advanced teacher education programs is
shown by the candidate holding valid state certification in the content area and a minimum of
three years of teaching experience. Coursework and field experiences enhance existing
pedagogical content knowledge. Pedagogical content knowledge is assessed as part of the final
project (culminating activity, comprehensive examination, or written thesis). Each program
reported a very high passing rate on the final project; many reported a 100 percent passing rate. Montclair State University BOE Report 11
Table 6 is a summary of the results of assessments across all advanced teacher programs in the
unit for 2003-04 and 2004-05. It shows that 89 percent of the advanced candidates met or
exceeded expectations in pedagogical content knowledge.
Table 6: Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Candidates in Advanced Teacher Programs AY 2003-04, 2004-05 Pedagogical Content Knowledge % Did Not Meet Expectations % Met Expectations % Exceeded Expectations 11 62 27
Surveys administered to advanced program completers in fall 2004 and spring 2005 indicate that
respondents perceive themselves as very well prepared in pedagogical content knowledge. They
rated their pedagogical content knowledge at 4.4 on a 5.0 point scale.

Interviews of school and university supervisors, school administrators, candidates, and graduates
provided supporting evidence that advanced teacher candidates have a good knowledge of
instructional strategies related to their content area.

D. Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates

Initial Level

Performance assessments are embedded in required courses, field experiences, and student
teaching. All professional education courses are aligned to MSU teacher education standards.
Common rubrics are used to assess the instructional unit plan, classroom management report,
and lesson plan adaptations for an English language learner and a student with disabilities.
Through performance and standards-aligned assessments, teacher candidates demonstrate
proficiency in professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills.

Table 7 on the following page summarizes the unit’s assessment results of candidates’
professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. At Transition Point 3 (exit from student
teaching) at least 98 percent of the initial candidates met or exceeded professional and
pedagogical knowledge and skills outcomes.

As a whole, candidates perform well. The data indicate that candidates perform less well on
using multiple forms of assessments. Due to this finding, the unit plans to include a module
focused on multiple forms of student assessment in the new professional education sequence
which is under development. This is an example of data-driven decision-making for initial
programs occurring between the unit and program levels.
Montclair State University BOE Report 12 Table 7: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills of Initial Teacher Candidates Transition Points 2 and 3, Fall 2002 – Spring 2005 Transition Point 2: At Entry to Professional Semester. All programs (n=1,244) Transition Point 3: At Exit from Professional Semester. Disciplinary Programs (n=621) Transition Point 3: At Exit from Professional Semester. ECEL Programs (n=329) MSU
Standard % Did Not Meet Expect % Met Expect % Exceeded Expect % Did Not Meet Expect % Met Expect % Exceeded Expect % Did Not Meet Expect % Met Expect % Exceeded Expect 2. Knowledge
of how
students learn 5.0 77.7 17.3 1.8 88.8 9.4 1.2 75.9 22.9 3a-f.
Culturally
responsive
teaching 6.4 75.0 18.8 1.3 85.4 13.3 1.0 74.3 24.7 4. Planning
instruction 6.3 75.0 18.8 1.3 85.4 13.3 1.4 70.2 28.4 5. Teaching
for critical
thinking 3.6 69.5 26.8 0.9 77.9 21.2 1.0 54.0 45.0 6. Using
democratic
classroom
practices 4.2 75.5 24.3 0.8 74.7 24.5 1.0 49.7 49.3 7. Using
multiple
forms of
assessment 12.1 68.5 19.3 2.3 85.2 12.5 1.6 74.3 24.1 8a-d.
Creating a
learning
community 3.3 74.7 22.0 0.5 83.4 16.1 1.0 59/9 39.1 9. Reflecting
on
instructional
practice 0.8 46.2 53.0 1.1 67.7 31.2 0.8 60.5 38.7 10. Building
relationships
to support
student
learning 1.1 40.6 58.3 0.2 56.4 43.4 0.6 62.0 37.4
As shown by the data in Table 8 on the following page, surveys of program completers and
follow-up surveys of graduates and employers, teacher candidates can apply professional and
pedagogical knowledge and skills, aligned to State and institutional standards, to facilitate
learning. This was also confirmed through exhibits and interviews with candidates, graduates,
cooperating teachers, mentors, school administrators, and others.
Montclair State University BOE Report 13 Table 8: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Candidates in Initial Teacher Programs (Mean Ratings, 5-point scale) MSU Standard Program Completer Survey (F2003-Spr2005 (n=450) Graduate Survey (Spr2003, Spr2005) (n=302) Employer Survey (Spr2003) (n=20) 2. Knowledge of how students learn 4.1 3.9 4.2 3a-f. Culturally responsive teaching 3.9 3.7 3.9 4. Planning instruction 3.9 3.7 4.0 5. Teaching for critical thinking 4.0 3.8 4.0 6. Using democratic classroom practices 4.0 3.7 4.1 7. Using multiple forms of assessment 3.8 3.6 3.8 8a-d. Creating a learning community 4.0 3.8 4.2 9. Reflecting on instructional practice 4.1 4.0 4.1 10. Building relationships to support student learning 3.7 3.5 3.9
Advanced Level

Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills are evidenced in the advanced teacher
education programs by the candidate holding valid state certification and a minimum of three
years of teaching experience. Coursework and field experiences enhance existing professional
and pedagogical knowledge and skills. Professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills are
assessed as part of the final project (culminating activity, comprehensive examination, or written
thesis). Each program reported a very high passing rate on the final project; many reported a 100
percent passing rate.

Surveys administered to advanced program completers in fall 2004 and spring 2005 indicate that
respondents perceive themselves as very well prepared in professional and pedagogical
knowledge and skills. Overall, they rated their professional and pedagogical knowledge and
skills at a 4.3 on a 5.0 point scale.

As part of their coursework, advanced teaching candidates are assessed to determine if they meet
the agreed upon MSU standards in the area of professional and pedagogical knowledge and
skills. This is also done as part of their final project (culminating activity, comprehensive exam,
or thesis). The composite results of these assessments for 2003-04 and 2004-05 are shown in
Table 9 on the following page. Table 9 shows that at least 91 percent of the advanced
candidates met or exceeded the standards that related to professional and pedagogical knowledge
and skills.
Montclair State University BOE Report 14 Table 9: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills of Candidates in Advanced Teacher Programs, 2003-04, 2004-05 Professional & Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills (MSU Advanced Teacher Standards 3-8)
Standard % Did Not Meet Expectations % Met Expectations % Exceeded Expectations 3. Culturally Responsive Teaching 9 65 26 4. Student Learning 3 57 40 5. Critical Thinking 9 60 31 6. Democratic Practice 5 68 27 7. Reflection 8 49 43 8. Collaboration 4 57 39 Total for all Standards 6 60 34
Interviews of school and university supervisors, school administrators, candidates, and graduates
provide supporting evidence that advanced teacher candidates have a good understanding of
professional and pedagogical skills.

E. Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other Professional School Personnel

Professional knowledge and skills for other professional school personnel is assessed at the
program level through GPA, course specific assessments, fieldwork assessments, and at program
completion with a culminating activity, comprehensive examination, or a written thesis. Each
program reported a very high passing rate on this final project; many reported a 100 percent
passing rate.

Exhibits and interviews with candidates, graduates, internship supervisors, school administrators,
and others indicate that candidates for other professional school roles know their respective
fields and can explain principles and concepts aligned to professional, State, and institutional
standards.

Surveys administered to advanced program completers, including other school personnel, in fall
2004 and spring 2005 indicate that respondents perceive themselves as very well prepared in
professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. Overall, they rated their professional and
pedagogical knowledge and skills at a 4.3 on a 5.0 point scale.

As part of their coursework, other school personnel candidates are assessed to determine if they
meet the agreed upon MSU standards in this area of professional and pedagogical knowledge and
skills. This is also done as part of their final project (culminating activity, comprehensive exam,
or thesis). The composite results of these assessments for 2003-04 and 2004-05 are shown in
Table 10. Table 10 on the following page shows that at least 84 percent of the other school
personnel candidates met or exceeded the standards that related to professional and pedagogical
knowledge and skills.
Montclair State University BOE Report 15 Table 10: Professional Knowledge and Skills of Candidates in Programs for Other Professional School Personnel 2003-04, 2004-05 Professional Knowledge and Skills (MSU Standards for Programs for OPSP 2-5)
Standard % Did Not Meet Expectations % Met Expectations % Exceeded Expectations 2. Support for Student Learning 16 59 25 3. Culturally Responsive Practices 16 59 25 4. Reflection 14 62 24 5. Collaboration 16 64 20 Total for all Standards 15 61 24
Interviews of school and university supervisors, school administrators, candidates, and graduates
provide supporting evidence that other school personnel candidates have a good understanding of
professional and pedagogical skills.

F. Dispositions for All Candidates

Initial Level

The dispositions expected of candidates are the same across all programs and levels. They are
embedded throughout the MSU standards.

Candidates are introduced to the Portrait of a T</i>eacher in the initial field experience. The
Portrait of a Teacher is the MSU vision of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions of good
teachers. This vision permeates all aspects of the unit and programs and was evident in exhibits
and interviews.

Dispositions are first assessed at program entry from four sources – letters of recommendation,
previous experiences, a written essay commenting on the Portrait of a Teacher, and admission
interview questions.

Low ratings are rarely used for program rejection. Instead, candidates are provisionally admitted
and required to successfully complete a learning experience or course related to diversity,
writing, oral communication, or critical thinking before being granted full program admission.
The unit policy is that a candidate selects himself/herself into a program designed to promote a
specific set of values.

Dispositions are also assessed at two other transition points in the initial program assessment
system. All dispositional data is entered into the assessment database each semester. Table11 on
the following page summarizes the unit’s assessment results of candidates’ disposition across all
programs. At Transition Point 3 (exit from student teaching) at least 94 percent of the initial
candidates met or exceeded disposition outcomes.
Montclair State University BOE Report 16 Table 11: Dispositions of Initial Teacher Candidates, Fall 2002 – Spring 2005 At Exit from Professional Semester. Disciplinary Programs (n=621) At Exit from Professional Semester. ECEL Programs (n=329) MSU Standard % Did Not Meet Expect % Met Expect % Exceeded Expect % Did Not Meet Expect % Met Expect % Exceeded Expect 12a. Belief in educability of all children 1.5 82.5 16.0 0.4 63.8 35.8 12b. Respect for cultural differences 1.5 82.5 16.0 0.4 58.7 40.9 12c. Belief all children bring strengths to learning 2.1 81.7 16.2 1.0 57.9 41.9 12d. Seeing student errors as opportunity for learning 18.6 74.7 6.8 0.8 57.2 41.9 12e. Commitment to using assessment in service of learner 2.4 84.4 13.1 1.6 73.0 25.4 12f. Appreciation of multiple ways of knowing 1.5 82.5 16.0 0.2 53.7 46.4 12g. Commitment to democratic values 1.5 82.5 16.0 0.2 53.7 46.4 12h. Commitment to reflection 1.8 85.9 12.3 1.0 61.2 37.8 12i. Commitment to ethical responsibilities of educators 12.2 73.4 14.3 6.0 71.1 22.9 12j. Commitment to serving as agents of change 16.9 76.8 6.3 0.4 83.4 16.2
The CEHS assessment committee is currently using this data to discuss and plan programmatic
changes including increased field experiences in middle and secondary schools.

Advanced Level (including Other School personnel)

Advanced program (including teacher and other school personnel) dispositions are embedded
throughout the MSU standards in the same way as initial programs. Thus, assessments of
dispositions are reflected in the results presented above for the various MSU standards. In
addition, the team viewed culminating experiences for each of the advanced programs. These
included rubrics which assessed candidate dispositions. All culminating experiences are
correlated with the MSU standards related to dispositions. Each advanced program reported a
very high passing rate on the culminating experiences; many reported a 100 percent passing rate.

Most importantly, in interviews with advanced candidates and graduates, it was clear that
disposition expectations were understood and demonstrated. School and university supervisors
and school administrators further verified that advanced candidates possess appropriate
dispositions. Although data for advanced candidates were not aggregated as for initial
candidates, review of assessments, review of candidate work, interviews of faculty and
supervisions, and interviews of candidates and graduates convinced the team that advanced
candidates do demonstrate appropriate dispositions.

G. Student Learning for Teacher Candidates

Initial Level

A number of courses taken prior to student teaching focus candidates’ attention on how to teach
for student learning. Candidates explore the relationship between critical thinking and learning
and learn the role of questioning in the development of critical thinking skills.
Montclair State University BOE Report 17 In methods courses, candidates move beyond individual lesson plans to the development of a
unit plan that includes both formal and informal student assessments. Candidates are given a
class profile for the unit plan. The class profile is used to plan for lesson objectives that are
meaningful and based on differing developmental levels and prior experience. Candidates make
adaptations in lessons and assessments as well as reflect on the effectiveness of their own
teaching. The class profile includes racial/ethnic, gender, the number of English language
learners and their linguistic backgrounds, the number of students with disabilities and what the
special needs are. As shown by Table 12 at least 97 percent of the initial candidates met or
exceeded expectations of abilities to promote student learning at Transition Point 3 (exit from
student teaching).
Table 12: Initial Teacher Candidates’ Ability to Promote Student Learning Transition Points 2 and 3, Fall 2002 – Spring 2005 Transition Point 2: At Entry to Professional Semester All programs (n=1,244) Transition Point 3: At Exit from Professional Semester Disciplinary Programs (n=621) Transition Point 3: At Exit from Professional Semester ECEL Programs (n=329) MSU Standard % Did Not Meet Expect % Met Expect % Exceeded Expect % Did Not Meet Expect % Met Expect % Exceeded Expect % Did Not Meet Expect % Met Expect % Exceeded Expect 3.f. Using knowledge of students’ lives to design
and carry out instruction 6.6 78.0 15.4 1.3 85.4 13.3 1.0 72.2 26.8 4. Planning instr based on subject matter, students,
families, communities,
and curr goals 6.3 75.0 18.8 1.3 85.4 13.3 1.4 70.2 28.4 5. Promoting development of students’ critical thinking 3.6 69.5 26.8 0.9 79.9 21.2 1.0 54.0 45.0 7. Using multiple forms of assessment 12.1 68.5 19.3 2.3 85.2 12.5 1.6 74.3 24.1
As candidates progress in their programs, they are given opportunities to apply their developing
skills in planning and teaching for student learning. Student teaching provides candidates with
daily practice developing instructional activities for student learning, monitoring and analyzing
student learning, and making adaptations as needed. The common rubrics used to assess field
experiences and student teaching provide an in-depth look at candidates’ ability to promote
student learning and call for candidate reflection.

Table 13 on the following page presents evidence of candidates’ knowledge and skills relative to
student learning derived from program evaluation survey responses from program completers,
program graduates, and employers of graduates. As the table shows, program completers,
graduates and employers rated initial candidates high on abilities to promote student learning.
Montclair State University BOE Report 18 Table 13: Initial Teacher Candidates’ Ability to Promote Student Learning (Mean Ratings, 5-Point Scale) MSU Standard Program Completer Survey (F2003-Spr2005 (n=450) Graduate Survey (Spr2003, Spr2005) (n=302) Employer Survey (Spr2003) (n=20) 3.f. Using knowledge of students’ lives to design and carry out instruction 3.9 3.7 4.0 4. Planning instruction based on subject matter, standards, families, communities,
and 3.8curricular goals 3.9 3.7 4.0 5. 3.6Promoting development of students’ critical thinking 4.0 3.8 4.0 7. Using multiple forms of assessment 3.8 3.6 3.8
In interviews, initial candidates and graduates demonstrated knowledge of how students learned.
School and university supervisors and school administrators further verified this knowledge.

Advanced Level

Since candidates entering at the advanced level must hold current teacher certification and have
three years of teaching experience, the focus is to support them and improve their teaching so
that all of their students will be successful learners. Assessment data, surveys of advanced
teacher program completers, exhibits, and interviews indicate that overall preparation for
supporting student learning is high.

The results of the relevant assessments for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 across all advanced teacher
programs in the unit are presented in Table 14. Overall, 93 percent of all candidates either met
or exceeded expectations on the two advanced teacher standards that are directly related to
student learning.
Table 14: Student Learning for Candidates in Advanced Teacher Programs AY 2003-04, 2004-05 Student Learning (MSU Advanced Teacher Standards 3-4) Standard % Did Not Meet Expectations % Met Expectations % Exceeded Expectations 3. Culturally Responsive Teaching 9 65 26 4. Student Learning 3 57 40 Total for all Standards 7 63 30
Surveys administered to advanced program completers in fall 2004 and spring 2005 indicate that
respondents perceive themselves as well prepared for supporting student learning with a rating of
4.3 on a 5.0 point scale.

Exhibits, interviews, and surveys of program completers, program graduates, and employers
substantiated that MSU teacher candidates at the advanced level are prepared to plan, assess, and Montclair State University BOE Report 19 analyze student learning as well as make adaptations to instruction in order to provide a positive
effect on learning for all students.

H. Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel

Student learning for other professional school personnel is assessed at the program level through
GPA, course specific assessments, fieldwork assessments, and at program completion by
culminating activity, comprehensive examination, or a written thesis. As shown by Table 15, the
result of assessments relevant to this element across programs for 2003-04 and 2004-05 show
that 84 percent met or exceeded expectations.
Table 15: Student Learning for Candidates in Programs for Other School Professionals AY 2003-04, 2004-05 Student Learning (MSU Standards for Programs for OPSP 2-3)
Standard % Did Not Meet Expectations % Met Expectations % Exceeded Expectations 2. Support for Student Learning 16 59 25 3. Culturally Responsive Practices 16 59 25 Total for all Standards 16 59 25
Surveys administered to other professional school personnel program completers in fall 2004 and
spring 2005 indicate that respondents’ perceive themselves as well prepared for supporting
student learning with a rating of 4.3 on a 5.0 point scale. Exhibits and interviews with candidates, graduates, internship supervisors, school administrators,
and others indicate that candidates for other professional school roles are able to create positive
environments for student learning. They understand and build upon educational environments
that provide for differing developmental levels of students as well as diversity of students,
families, and communities where they work.

Overall Assessment of Standard

Assessment data was collected and reported for initial and advanced programs. These included
Praxis II scores, assessment of student teachers, follow-up surveys, GPA, and other data.
Interviews of candidates, graduates, supervisors, and administrators confirmed that initial and
advanced level candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school
personnel know and demonstrate the content, professional, and pedagogical knowledge, skills,
and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.

Recommendation: Met at the initial and advanced levels

Areas for Improvement: None
Montclair State University BOE Report 20 STANDARD 2. ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATION The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications, the
candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its
programs .
Levels: Initial and Advanced

The technology used to aggregate initial program data allowed the team to review and validate
the unit data presented in the institutional report and in exhibit room documents. There was
some concern about how the unit data presented in the institutional report for advanced teaching
and other school personnel programs were aggregated, and the team determined that this concern
was a Standard 2 Area for Improvement, as described below.

A. Assessment system

The unit’s assessment system for initial and advanced programs, the Performance Assessment
System (PAS), has been evolving over the past five years as the system was designed to address
needs relative to the systematic collection, aggregation, analysis, and summary of data for
monitoring candidates and improving programs. The NCATE Leadership Team facilitated the
development of the PAS and began with the design of the MSU standards matrix. This matrix
guided a review of courses to ensure that the existing curriculum provided opportunities for
candidates to meet the identified learning outcomes aligned with the conceptual framework (The
Portrait of a Teacher [the Portrait]) as well as MSU standards. Faculty from initial and
advanced programs aligned courses with standards and then identified appropriate evidence that
should be used to make decisions about candidates’ proficiencies from admissions through
program completion. Key transition points were identified. Key assessments were described for
both initial and advanced programs. As the unit developed the assessment system, school-based
faculty had opportunities to review and discuss the drafts of the MSU standards matrix on which
the PAS was designed.

For initial and advanced programs, the PAS is consistent with the Portrait. Included in the
Portrait is the idea that candidates and programs use multiple forms of assessment to inform
decisions. According to the Assessment Committee, the Portrait serves as a frame for building
and revising the rubrics used to assess candidate proficiencies. Faculty consistently review the
relationships among the Portrait, unit standards, and assessments. Assessments are integral to
the teaching and learning process for faculty and candidates.

Initial Level

Key assessments are used to monitor candidate performance at four transition points that were
described and illustrated as follows:
• Transition Point 1 is Program Entry. The Admissions Evaluation Scale is used to assess
applicant proficiencies, and ratings are based on transcripts, overall GPA (at least a 2.75 is Montclair State University BOE Report 21 required), GPA in the major, letters of recommendation, essays, test scores (for some
disciplines), portfolio (for some disciplines), and interview. • Transition Point 2 is Entry to the Professional Semester. Several measures are used to
assess candidate performance including the following: Participating in a Community of
Inquiry, Organizing the Classroom for Student Learning, Performance in Field/Clinical
Experience, Unit Plan, and Adapting Instruction for an English Language Learner and a
Student with a Disability. Rubrics for all assessments are used to evaluate the levels at
which candidates meet course embedded standards. • Transition Point 3 is Exit from the Professional Semester. This transition point includes
the student teaching experience where candidates are assessed a minimum of nine times by
a discipline-based mentor, an education mentor, and a cooperating teacher. Candidates
receive comprehensive formative feedback on their performances and a summative
evaluation, the Summarized Record of Student Teaching. • Transition Point 4 is Program Completion. The Center of Pedagogy (CoP) conducts audits
of candidates who have successfully completed transition points 1-3, met the State standard
for passing appropriate Praxis II tests, and have the required minimum GPA of 2.75.
The unit uses multiple assessments to determine candidate progression through each of the
transition points. The unit describes an admissions process (Transition Point 1) where applicants
who do not fully meet academic expectations can be admitted conditionally if they show
sufficient evidence that they will be able to meet established academic standards. These
applicants receive support and assistance through the CoP. Sufficient evidence was presented to
illustrate that the unit assists candidates who do not meet expectations at other transition points.

The unit has a process by which it seeks to ensure assessment procedures are fair, accurate,
consistent, and free of bias at the initial level. The use of standards-based rubrics ensures that
faculty use identical criteria for evaluating candidate performance. Further, each candidate is
assessed by multiple evaluators at each transition point, and decisions are based on aggregated
data from multiple sources at each transition point. Accuracy is assured because the assessments
are aligned with MSU standards and the Portrait and are supported by a current knowledge base.
Also, faculty have in-depth knowledge about the uses of rubrics, were involved in the design of
the rubrics, and have a process for ongoing review and refinement of the rubrics at appropriate
transition points. The rubrics are used consistently, and there is ongoing training provided to
faculty on the use of them. Data show that the key assessments at each transition point
accurately predict candidate success at each subsequent level.

Advanced Level
At the advanced level, the transition points are less well defined and include:
• Transition Point 1 is Program Admission. Assessments include undergraduate GPA
(minimum of 3.0), two letters of recommendation, statement of objectives, score on the
Graduate Record Exam or Miller Analogies Test, and holds a teaching certificate. • Transition Point 2 is The Culminating Semester. Requirements include successful
completion of specified number of courses with a GPA of 3.0, completion of specified Montclair State University BOE Report 22 course-based assessments, and completion of specified practica. In addition, there are
program-based assessments. • Transition Point 3 is Program Completion. Requirements include successful completion of
all required courses with GPA specified by the program, and successful completion of
Comprehensive Examination, Thesis, or Culminating Activity. According to information provided, the unit implemented the process for collecting, analyzing,
aggregating, and summarizing data for the advanced programs in spring, 2005.

Although for advanced programs the process for determining fairness, accuracy, consistency, and
non-bias is not as well defined at the unit level, at the program level these are assured. Use of
rubrics and multiple assessments, involvement of faculty in the development of assessments,
alignment of assessments with MSU standards and the conceptual framework, and support of a
current knowledge base provide satisfactory assurance of fairness, accuracy, consistency, and
non-bias at the advanced program level. The unit indicated that the transition point assessments
accurately predict candidates’ success as well.

Initial and Advanced Levels

The College of Education and Human Services, the Center of Pedagogy, and the Montclair State
University Network for Educational Renewal (MSUNER) Executive and Operations Committees
manage the operations and programs of the unit. The responsibilities and sequence of authority
are defined by the unit.

B. Data collection, analysis, and evaluation

Initial Level

At the initial level, the unit collects data for entry into the assessment database system each
semester for each transition point. The unit surveys (1) program completers at the end of each
semester, (2) graduates at the end of their first or second year of teaching, and (3) employers
every other year. Select employers from partner districts are also contacted via telephone. These
surveys are also aligned with the MSU standards and explanations of improvements based on
these assessments are described in the “Use of data for program improvement” section below.

Course instructors submit to the NCATE co-coordinators the results of their assessments of
individual candidate performance based on rubrics that were developed by the unit. The data are
summarized in reports at the following levels: (1) individual candidate; (2) discipline/program;
and (3) unit. Data have been summarized and analyzed each semester since 2004 using the
current database. When the system was initiated in 2002, it did not exist in its current form.
FileMaker Pro is the information technology used to analyze individual candidate data, and SPSS
is used to analyze survey data. The PAS uses FileMaker Pro to maintain its assessment system at
the initial level.

An outside consultant built the FileMaker Pro database that houses data for initial programs. At
the initial level, the PAS is functional and is maintained using information technologies. The Montclair State University BOE Report 23 unit plans to migrate to a web-based database assessment system as it has determined that the
current system does not afford the level of flexibility necessary to monitor candidates’ progress
through multiple transition points within the various programs.

Advanced Level

For advanced programs, information technologies are not used at the unit level in the
management and maintenance of the assessment system. This created concern about how the
unit data presented in the institutional report for advanced teacher and other school personnel
programs were aggregated. Several program coordinators indicated that they do use databases to
collect and aggregate assessment data, while other program coordinators indicated they used a
“hand” tabulation method. Since the program database information was not obtained until late in
the on-site review, the team was unable to schedule a time to review the program-specific
databases. The team concluded that even if there had been an opportunity to review the program
databases, the concern regarding the lack of use of technology for advanced programs would
have remained. Similar survey data mentioned under initial programs above are collected at the
advanced level, and SPSS are used to analyze these survey data.

Because information technologies are not used by the unit at the advanced program level, there
was insufficient evidence that assessment data are systematically collected, analyzed,
summarized, and shared at the unit level for the purpose of routinely monitoring candidate
performance and for improving programs and unit operations. While there is not a total absence
of collection, analysis, summarization, and sharing of assessment data for advanced programs,
the unit is not sufficiently involved in these processes.

The unit has determined that the FileMaker Pro database that houses data for initial programs
does not afford the level of flexibility necessary to monitor candidates’ progress through multiple
transition points within the various programs. The unit plans to migrate to a web-based database
assessment system that will include both initial and advanced programs.

Initial and Advanced Levels

The unit has a formal method for maintaining candidate complaints and their resolutions.
Candidates present their complaints in writing to the Assistant Director of the Center of
Pedagogy (CoP) who reviews the complaint and, after consultation with relevant individuals,
develops a written response to the candidate which is also placed in the candidate’s file. If the
candidate is dissatisfied with this response, he/she may appeal to the CoP Director. The
candidate can further appeal to the Dean of the College and finally to the Associate Vice
President for Academic Affairs who renders a final decision regarding an unresolved complaint.
All written documents relative to a candidate’s complaint are located in the candidate’s file in the
Center of Pedagogy.
Montclair State University BOE Report 24 C. Use of data for program improvement

Initial Level

The unit routinely uses data to improve initial candidate performance and improve programs and
unit operation as illustrated in the following examples:
• The CoP director convened a task force which outlined recommendations based on its
review of candidate performance assessment data reports and results of graduate and
employer surveys. These recommendations focused on the improvement of candidates’
oral and written communication skills, reflection skills, assessment of student learning
skills, culturally responsive teaching skills, and the ability to work with students’ parents. • Candidates receive feedback on their performance on an ongoing basis. Individual data
reports summarizing Program Entry assessments are used in the advisement process.
During the matriculation stages, candidates receive detailed feedback on their
performance on key course-embedded assessments that is facilitated by the use of rubrics.
Faculty stated that often they ask candidates to self-assess their work using the same
rubrics instructors use. • During student teaching and at the conclusion of the program, candidates receive much
feedback from clinical-based and unit-based faculty. Cooperating teachers discuss their
ratings of candidates’ performance using rubrics. Candidate performance is assessed
formatively during student teaching at least nine times. After each formative assessment,
candidates receive a completed Junior Faculty Progress Report (student teaching)
indicating strengths and challenges. Members of the Assessment Committee stated that
this committee will continue to analyze candidate performance data for the purpose of
improving candidate performance. • As part of the tenure process, all probationary faculty include candidate teaching
evaluations in their dossiers. These faculty provide explanations of their uses of this
feedback to improve their performance. Faculty files provided evidence to illustrate how
tenured faculty use candidate teaching evaluations to improve their practice.
The unit indicated five main strategies that are used to ensure the systematic review and use of
data for program and unit improvement: (1) every semester, the Teacher Education Policy
Committee (TEPC) gets an assessment report summarizing the assessment data for the initial
teacher programs for Transition Points 1-3 for specializations and for the unit, including results
of the survey of program completers; (2) every two years, the TEPC gets the results of the
follow-up survey of program graduates and employers; (3) the CEHS Assessment Committee
receives the results of the performance assessments and surveys for program specializations and
the unit and makes recommendations to other relevant bodies; (4) the NCATE Steering
Committee reviews the same data every semester; and (5) every semester, the results of the
performance assessments are sent to the coordinator of each program for their review and
consideration.

The unit provided specific evidence that data-informed changes occur regularly and
systematically. Examples include: (1) in the Effective Teaching, Productive Learning course,
instructors improved the methods by which candidates are prepared to teach English language Montclair State University BOE Report 25 learners and students with disabilities; (2) the Intermediate Field Experience course was revised
to focus more directly on classroom management issues as a result of findings from program
completer and graduate surveys; (3) a set of specific curricular recommendations were made by
the CEHS Assessment Committee to the Task Force on the Proposed New Professional
Education Sequence; and (4) based on weak oral and written communication skills data, the
CEHS Assessment Committee recommended that separate oral skills and written skills be
included in the admissions assessment.

The unit shares assessment data with candidates through course-embedded assessments, before
student teaching, and during the professional semester. Advisors use the assessment data in
advisement.

Advanced Level

Although data at the advanced level are not aggregated at the unit level using technology, there is
evidence that programs use assessment data for candidates at the program level. Also,
candidates meet with relevant faculty to examine and discuss implications of assessment data.

The five main unit strategies described above for initial programs to ensure the systematic review
of and use of data for program and unit improvement theoretically apply to advanced programs:
(1) every semester, the Teacher Education Policy Committee (TEPC) gets an assessment report
summarizing the assessment data for the advanced programs for Transition Points 1-3 for
specializations and for the unit and receives results of the survey of program completers; (2)
every two years, the TEPC gets the results of the follow-up survey of program graduates and
employers; (3) the CEHS Assessment Committee receives the results of the performance
assessments and the surveys for the program specializations and for the unit and makes
recommendations to other relevant bodies; (4) the NCATE Steering Committee reviews the same
data every semester; and (5) every semester, the results of the performance assessments are sent
to the coordinator of each program for their review and consideration. Although some
components of this process occurred, it was not systematically applied to advanced programs, as
it was for initial programs.

Although the team could not determine that the five main strategies were consistently
implemented as described at the unit level, the process is being applied at the program level and
program changes and improvements are occurring. Examples include:
• When the counseling program began to use a rubric and rating sheet for the
Comprehensive Exam, faculty found that students were not being sufficiently prepared.
They developed a new introductory course and made other course modifications to better
prepare students for the standards-based comprehension exam. The first-time pass rate
has improved. • The Curriculum and Teaching Department is using results of performance assessments
embedded in courses and for the culminating activity to inform the redesign of the
Interdisciplinary M.Ed. program. • An Ed.D. in Pedagogy, with concentrations in Mathematics Education and Philosophy for
Children, was instituted. Montclair State University BOE Report 26 • A College Assessment Committee for advanced and initial programs was formed to
review, analyze, and make recommendations for data generated from the Assessment
System.
The unit shares assessment data with candidates through course-embedded assessments and
during internships.

Overall Assessment of Standard

The unit has an assessment system to manage candidate performance and unit operations for
initial and advanced programs. Sufficient evidence was presented that this system enables the
unit to collect, analyze, summarize, and use data to monitor candidate performance and to make
program and unit improvements at the initial level. Insufficient evidence was provided to
illustrate that the assessment system for advanced programs is managed by the unit through
information technologies. Evidence was provided that databases are used for some advanced
programs and that advanced level program improvements are data-informed. Although advanced
program changes and improvements are occurring and candidate performance is being assessed
at the program level, there was insufficient evidence that these are being systematically
monitored by the unit.

Recommendation: Met at the initial and advanced levels

Areas for Improvement: New
1. At the advanced level, information technologies are not used at the unit level to manage data.

Rationale:
Although some programs are using computer databases, there was insufficient evidence
presented to verify that the assessment system for advanced programs is managed by the unit
through the use of information technologies.

2. At the advanced level, data are not systematically collected, analyzed, and summarized at the unit level to monitor candidate performance and to inform program improvements and unit
operations.
Rationale:
Although some programs are making data-informed decisions, there was insufficient evidence
that the assessment system for advanced programs is used by the unit to monitor candidate
performance and to inform program improvements and unit operations. Although some unit data
were reported, it was not clear how data were aggregated. Montclair State University BOE Report 27 STANDARD 3. FIELD EXPERIENCES AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical
practice so that teacher candidates and other school personnel develop and demonstrate the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
Levels: Initial and Advanced

A. Collaboration between unit and school partners

Initial Level

In the initial program, the faculty in arts and sciences, faculty in education and the clinical
faculty in the partner schools participate in the design, delivery, and evaluation of the unit’s field
and clinical experiences. The Montclair State University Network for Education Renewal
(MSUNER) is the primary vehicle for collaboration between the unit and its 21 school district
partners. This network also includes six professional development schools. Each partner district
provides a district coordinator, who acts as a liaison between the unit and the clinical faculty.
These individuals participate in the dissemination and evaluation activities of MSUNER. There
are currently 900 teachers and administrators who have clinical faculty status with the unit.

The MSUNER Operations Committee (directed by the MSUNER Executive Committee) meets
monthly and is chaired by the director of the MSUNER and composed of representatives from
the tripartite (faculty in arts and sciences, education, and the public schools). This group gives
the districts an opportunity to tell the unit how field-related learning experiences are being
implemented and what kinds of professional development they need. The regular meetings allow
opportunities for the MSUNER to inform the districts about policy and procedural changes and
improvements. Also within the MSUNER is the Assessment Review Committee. It is composed
of five teachers from partner districts, the MSUNER director, and the two NCATE coordinators.
They produced recommendations for the rubric created for the intermediate field course.

Another vehicle for collaboration between partners is the Teacher Education Policy Committee
(TEPC). This is composed of school district representatives and arts and sciences and education
faculty. They approve all policies related to the teacher education program, including field
experiences. The Field Experience Sub-committee of TEPC was appointed in spring 2005 and
charged with the task of coming up with ways to integrate field experiences into the new
professional sequence in disciplinary programs. The Professional Sequence Task Force is
another vehicle for partnership within the tripartite. Beginning in 2001, this group has
redesigned the entire teacher education program for disciplinary programs. The Task Force also
recommended building field-based projects into all courses in the professional sequence.

Student teacher placements are coordinated by the CoP in collaboration with the school partners.
The cooperative teachers are selected by districts and the unit; there is an attempt to form cohort
groups at schools. Ninety-seven percent of all placements are within schools that belong to the
MSUNER. When the placements are not within MSUNER, it is usually because a candidate is in Montclair State University BOE Report 28 a program that can best be fulfilled with a placement outside the network. (e.g., a specific foreign
language).

Candidates can request placement within the unit’s professional development schools (PDS),
which work under a more intensive collaboration with the unit. These schools have a strong
commitment to the CoP vision and agree to have a unit faculty member spend one-quarter of
their time in the school. Candidates in a PDS work exclusively in cohorts so that they become
more integrated into the school. The unit will often conduct clinical seminars on site.

Student teachers are formally assessed nine times throughout their clinical practice. For
secondary and specialist teachers, there are three formal assessments conducted by education
mentors, three conducted by major program mentors, and three conducted by cooperating
teachers. Early childhood and elementary teachers have six observations by their university
mentors and three by their cooperating teachers. In all cases, their actual grades are derived from
all nine observations.

An example of institutional change that grew out of the tripartite partnership was an increase of
fieldwork hours from 30 to 120 during intermediate field practice for candidates in early
childhood and elementary education. Clinical faculty felt that the candidates didn’t have enough
time to develop skills and dispositions adequately in only 30 hours of fieldwork. The unit is now
in the process of duplicating this change within the secondary programs. Another program
change that came from this partnership was an increase in observation time by faculty instructors
for Seminar I, the class that accompanies Clinical I.

Advanced Level

The tripartite is also involved in the design, delivery and evaluation of the unit’s advanced
programs and programs for other school personnel. Many of these programs make use of centers
located on campus. The early childhood special education program conducts a portion of the
fieldwork in the MSU Children’s Center for Early Childhood Education. In this program, the
mentors are collaboratively selected by the Center Co-Director and the candidate’s advisor.
Placements are facilitated by the program coordinator.

The fieldwork for the reading and school psychologist program is in the Literacy Enrichment
Center, which collaborates with the placement of internships. Speech-language specialists
conduct part of their fieldwork in the Communication Disorders Center and, if seeking teacher
certification, do their student teaching with certified clinicians in public schools, who are
collaboratively selected by the unit faculty and district administration.

Candidates in the learning disabilities teacher-consultant (LDT-C) program have a choice of two
150-hour placements. They may choose to take a field placement with a certified practitioner in a
school setting, collaboratively selected by the partners, wherein an MSU faculty member
provides supervision and leads the accompanying seminar. Otherwise, they can take a placement
in the Children’s Center for Early Childhood Inclusion at MSU. Candidates in this program work
under the supervision of a certified LDT-C along with interns from the School of Psychology
and their supervisors. This program is supervised by an MSU faculty member. Montclair State University BOE Report 29
Candidates in the advanced programs of administration and supervision, school counseling,
education technology, and school library media specialists are usually working full-time in a
school. Thus, they generally take internships in their own schools, supervised by MSU faculty
members. If not, the university or internship coordinator sets it up with a school that is identified
as appropriate. A notable example of tripartite collaboration in the design, delivery and evaluation of the unit’s
field experiences is the University Magnet school at Bradford Elementary. Although not a PDS,
it functions much like one, with two candidate cohorts working together through their field
experiences. Clinical seminars are held on site and in the context of the school and its students. B. Design, implementation and evaluation of field experiences and clinical practice

Initial Level Whenever possible, a candidate is assigned to the same cooperating teacher for both fieldwork
semesters and the professional semester. According to those interviewed, the sequential field
and clinical experiences provide candidates with a better understanding of the school and
community culture as well as provide the cooperating teacher the opportunity to serve as a
mentor, model and peer. This strengthens the partnership and enables candidates to enter the
professional semester as “junior faculty members” with confidence.

Table 16 below shows the field experiences and clinical practice required in each initial program.
Please note that the unit is currently phasing in an increase from 30 to 120 hours of intermediate
field experience for disciplinary programs. Table 16: Field Experience and Student Teaching in MSU Initial Teacher Programs Program
Type Field Experiences Student Teaching Total No. of Hors Assessed By: Disciplinary
Programs (1) CURR 200: Initial Field Experience (20 hrs, 1 credit) (2) CURR 410/500*: Inter- mediate Field Experience
(IFE)/Fieldwork in Ed
(FWE) (30 hrs, CURR 410
= 1 credit; CURR 500 =2
credits) (3) CURR 411/511: Student Teaching (16
weeks, 640 hrs, 8
credits) 688 (1) Course instructor
(2) Course
instructor, field
supervisor
(3) Coop teacher,
educ mentor,
disciplinary
mentor Early
Childhood
and
Elementary
(ECEL)
Programs (1) CURR 200: Initial Field Experience (20 hrs, 1 credit) (2) ECEL 410 (early childhood) or 411/510 (elementary):
Clinical Experience I in
Inclusive Classrooms (120
hrs [beg. Fall 2005], 2
credits) (3) ECEL 414 (early childhood) or 415/511
(elementary) Clinical
Experience II in
Inclusive Classrooms
(16 wks, 640 hrs, ECEL
414 & 415 =8 credits;
ECEL 511 = 5 credits) 718 (1) Course instructor
(2) Course
instructor, field
supervisor
(3) Coop teacher,
educ mentor

Comments