Assessment System and Unit Evaluation

Furman University has a comprehensive assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicants for admission to the preparation programs, on candidate and graduate performance, and on unit operations. Information is used to evaluate and improve the Unit and its programs.

The evidence documented in this section indicates that Furman University meets Standard Two.

Element 1: Assessment System Assessment of Candidates

The Program Review Committee of the Teacher Education Program has the primary responsibility for updating and overseeing the implementation of the assessment system. The membership of the Program Review Committee reflects full-time faculty and staff in the initial and advanced certification programs (undergraduate and graduate), as well as the Education Analyst whose duties include data management and analysis. The Program Review Committee has been informed by members’ active participation in state-sponsored training seminars on the Conceptual Framework and Assessment (Dottin series, Diez, et.al. series); participation in AACTE/NCATE pre-conference sessions at the Annual Conference in February 2004, consultation with Dr. Steve Lang and Dr. Judy Wilkerson of the University of South Florida, St. Petersburg; participation in NCATE-sponsored professional development in Accreditation, Accountability and Quality in April ‘04, consultation with Dr. Erskine Dottin (at the spring 2004 NCATE conference and follow-up conference call in late April 2004), and professional readings on performance assessment and portfolio development and management.

 Developed by Professional Community

The Program Review Committee regularly seeks input from the Teacher Education Committee for initial certification programs and from the Graduate Council for continuing and advanced programs. The Teacher Education Committee is comprised of arts/sciences/humanities faculty who are liaisons in their respective subject areas that lead to certification in K-12 or 9-12 grade levels, representatives of the education major, and a student representative. Each year the Teacher Education Committee is asked to review certification requirements and worksheets and review the candidate performance assessment system transition points and criteria pertinent to their program of certification. The Graduate Council is comprised of the Director of Graduate Studies in Education, one education faculty member, the Vice-President of Academic Affairs and Dean, and three additional faculty members outside of education. The Graduate Council met in fall of 2005 to review the new procedures and also met more recently to review the candidate performance assessment system.

Review of assessment instruments was initially conducted by three master teachers, the Teacher to Teacher Coordinator, and two Directors/Coordinators of Personnel from partner districts. Cooperating teachers of senior candidates in elementary, secondary and languages provide input into assessments of candidate performance in the classroom and school during focus-group meetings conducted annually.

The Student Leadership Team, comprised of officers of Kappa Delta Pi, the student Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), and the student chapter of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), participate in review of the assessment system and offer concerns and questions regarding aspects of the Teacher Education Program. Feedback is provided to the Unit Head and NCATE Coordinator, both of whom serve on the Program Review Committee.

 Alignment with the Conceptual Framework

All standards of Furman’s conceptual framework are aligned with the assessment system and are assessed in multiple ways, both internally and externally. The conceptual framework is aligned with INTASC, NBPTS, ADEPT, and SPA standards. Refer to Conceptual Framework Matrix. The assessment system has several key measures that are based on the conceptual framework. The ADEPT evaluations, course evaluations Part B., exit evaluations, employer surveys, and alumni surveys are the major examples.

At the continuing and advanced program levels, the conceptual framework is converted to a survey that asks the candidates to indicate how well the program has prepared them in their chosen field of study. This occurs during the culminating EDFD 199: Masters Seminar.

Integrated Set of Multiple Evaluation Measures

 Throughout this section is clear evidence of a comprehensive and integrated set of multiple evaluation measures. Table 5A shows the relationships between the evaluation measures, databases, and the major use of each data set described by candidate, program, and unit levels. Additionally, refer to the Table of Assessments – Initial and the Table of Assessments – Grad for information on multiple measures used, both internal and external.

Table 5A
Integrated Sets of Evaluation Measures, Levels of Assessment, and Use of Data

Transition Points for Monitoring and Evaluation of Candidate Performance

 Candidate performance is assessed at key transition points that are common to all initial preparation programs – program entry, program continuation, transition to teaching internship, and program completion. Similarly, candidate performance is assessed at key transition points that are common to all continuing and advanced programs. Furthermore, the initial preparation programs all use the same basic set of criteria or evaluation measures with the addition of specific measures unique to each program.

 Table 5B presents the common measures used. Refer to the Elementary, Music, PE, and Secondary/Languages Candidate Performance Assessment Transition Points “At a Glance” for Faculty to see the transition points and exact set of measures per program. It should be noted that an “At a Glance” version for candidates is made available that is identical with the exception of the last column, indicating faculty/staff responsibilities.

Table 5B
Common Assessment Measures Used in Initial Preparation Programs

For continuing and advanced programs, the same criteria or evaluation measures are used for institutional assessments. Specific measures are used within the individual programs. See Table 5C for key transition points within the continuing and advanced programs and common assessment measures used.

Table 5C
Common Assessment Measures Used in Continuing and
Advanced Preparation Programs

Common Scoring Guide to Assess Candidate Performance

Originally based on the generally accepted rubric recommended by McLaughlin and Vogt (1996), the Teacher Education Program has implemented a three-level scoring guide that is used for course assessments as well as other key assessments in the candidate performance assessment system. Significant adaptations were made after two years of initial implementation. In most education courses, grades are based on the three levels, with specific standards-based criteria. For scoring purposes on key assessments a 1, 2, 3 rating has been used in order to have a quantitative output. One relates to “does not meet standard”, "2" to “meets standard”; and "3" to “exceeds standard”. In some cases the term “expectation” is used in place of “standard”. Below are the holistic explanations associated with each level.

Exceeds Standard: well organized and thorough; professional in presentation and appearance; demonstrates high level of critical thought/analysis; imaginative, creative, and/or unique; substantial application to own teaching; goes above and beyond requirements or standards; demonstrates both breadth and depth of understanding. Requirements that exceed expectations demonstrate that the candidate shows awareness of the task or standard, gives explanations and analyses, and connects the requirement to their teaching/learning situation. Reflections demonstrate how the requirement has moral/ethical implications for teaching. Such a performance deserves to earn the grade of A+, A or A- (or a numerical correlate of 3).

Meets Standard: well organized and complete; effectively and clearly presented; demonstrates clear understandings; applies what has been learned to the classroom; clearly shows connections; detailed; thoughtful and supported with ideas. Requirements that meet standard demonstrate that the candidate shows awareness of the task or standard, gives explanations, shows how the requirement applies to their teaching/learning situation. Such a performance deserves the grade of B+, B, B-, C+, or C (or a numerical correlate of 2).

Does Not Meet Standard: missing evidence or information; poorly organized; demonstrates only surface understandings; little evidence of application to their teaching/learning situation; poorly written or difficult to understand. Requirements that do not meet standard demonstrate the candidate shows a lack of awareness of the task and/or implications for teaching. Such a performance deserves the grade of C- or below (or a numerical correlate of 1).

Assessments as Predictors of Candidate Success

Almost every year during the past five years, Furman has made changes to certain aspects of the candidate performance assessment system. Most recently, changes have occurred in the ADEPT evaluations (based on the new pilot system and subsequent new plan submitted to the State Department of Education), the ED 20 field experience evaluation that is being used as part of the program entry transition point, the recommendation information from major departments, and the professional portfolios required in the elementary, secondary, and language certification programs. The candidate performance assessment system has been streamlined, based on recommendations of the Division of Educator Quality and School Leadership of the State Department of Education.

With the continuing evolution of the system and its component assessments, attempting to use assessments to predict candidate success would not be valid or reliable at this point. We are in our second year of collecting data on dispositions and should be able to use that data by the end of the 2006-2007 academic year to predict candidate success in the first year of teaching.

Since the inception of the Teacher to Teacher Program, now in its sixth cohort of induction teachers, we have collected data on retention in teaching. Those data are impressive and indicate that our current average of retention is 93.6 percent. These data may be reviewed in LiveText on site.

Questions to explore in the future are: 1) do candidates who barely meet admission requirements (2.5 GPA, low Praxis I scores, grades in the “C” or “C+” range in ED 11 and/or ED 20, outlying scores on the D 2: Teacher Beliefs Scale, and/or lower ratings on ED 20 field experience evaluation) do as well on future performance assessments, especially those based on classroom teaching, as those who met or exceeded the requirements?; 2) do candidates who score well on the assessments have higher ratings by employers than those who had lower scores?;3) do candidates who score well on ADEPT in the teaching internship also pass the ADEPT during their second year of teaching?; 4) do the number of hours and variety of field experiences relate to candidate success on the PLT exam and ADEPT evaluations?, and 5) what factors specifically relate to Furman Teacher to Teacher candidates’ higher rates of retention in the profession?

Fairness, Accuracy, Consistency and the Elimination of Bias

One of the strengths of being involved in the pilot study on disposition assessment with the University of South Florida and the other institutions, is that data collected each term on D 2s and D3s are scored by Dr. Steve Lang and Dr. Judy Wilkerson, who do not know our candidates and can be objective scorers. Now that we have almost two years of disposition assessment data, our next step is to have a cadre of Furman faculty score the D2 and D3 assessments and compare scores with those conducted by Drs. Lang and Wilkerson. This may entail Dr. Lang consulting with us to help bring greater reliability into our local scoring. In terms of bias, the fact that the pilot institutions vary by size, mission, and diversity of populations (large public, small public, small selective liberal arts, historically black, etc.) has, thus far, not resulted in any significant differences among candidate scores across institutions. Preliminary reliability coefficients for Furman University on D2 measures is .96.

In fall of 2005, all university supervisors of teaching interns and other faculty who supervise practica were trained in ADEPT. Part of the training revolves around viewing videotaped segments of teaching and evaluating them on the 10 performance dimensions, with discussions ensuing about how various faculty evaluated the teaching and what would constitute the set of reliably "correct" responses. In reviewing the ADEPT scores of candidates across programs, it is noted that most university supervisors, cooperating teachers or mentors, and candidates arrive at a consensual score that is within a reliable or consistent range. One exception is in the PE program, where scores tend to be consistently in the “3” or “exceeds standard” range. This indicates a need for that university supervisor to work with other faculty to bring his scoring more in line with others.

During the senior block practicum and fifth year teaching internship, key assessments are graded by a team of supervisors, with “check-ins” to make sure there is consensus on the quality and scoring of teacher work samples, portfolios, and ADEPT evaluations. This permits, again, consistency in scoring of assessments.

Other evidence of fairness, accuracy, consistency and elimination of bias are that candidate performance is monitored at key transition points throughout their program of certification. Additionally, multiple sources of assessment data are used at each transition point to inform decision-making. During the practica and teaching internships, different evaluators - including candidates themselves - make independent judgments about candidate teaching performance, and consensus is sought on the scoring of ADEPT performance standards.

Element 2: Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

Data from candidates, graduates, faculty, and other members of the professional community are based on multiple assessments from both internal and external sources. Data from the measures outlined in the first element of standard two are collected, summarized, and analyzed in a comprehensive way on a regular basis. Additionally, the Unit utilizes information technology to maintain its assessment system through Datatel (the university database system) and is piloting the use of LiveText for selected key assessments, reports, and exhibits. This section will present evidence related to providing regular and comprehensive data to maintain the assessment system, the use of information technology, and recording of complaints and their resolutions.

Providing Regular and Comprehensive Data

The structure for implementing the assessment system and providing regular and comprehensive data pivots on the Unit’s Program Review Committee, which is a standing committee of the Education Department. The Program Review Committee is appointed by the Department Chair (Unit Head) for a minimum of a three-year, renewable term and is comprised of faculty members from undergraduate and graduate program areas, and the Education Analyst. The Department Chair serves in an ex-officio capacity. This committee is responsible for annual review and analysis of the Unit Assessment System data, primarily as it relates to changes that may be indicated by trends noted through longitudinal study (three-five years). Recommendations based on the review and analyses are presented to the Department of Education for consideration and action each fall. The recommendations are forwarded to the Teacher Education Committee or the Graduate Council, specific departments with certification programs, and/or specific faculty members who teach professional education courses, for their consideration. Additionally, the Program Review Committee serves as the NCATE Steering Committee. This committee, for the past four years, has been chaired by the NCATE Coordinator.

The Education Analyst collects and summarizes data, and creates reports and visual displays of data. Additionally, she serves as program auditor for candidates in the initial preparation programs.

As presented in element one, Table 5A shows the relationships between the evaluation measures, databases, and the major use of each data set described by candidate, program, and unit levels. Additionally, refer to the Table of Assessments – Initial and the Table of Assessments – Grad for information on multiple measures used, both internal and external, and their schedule of collection. Refer to the Elementary, Music, PE, and Secondary/Languages Candidate Performance Assessment Transition Points “At a Glance” for Faculty to see the transition points and exact set of measures per program. For the more detailed versions of candidate performance assessment transition points and procedures for evaluation, refer to the Elementary, Secondary/Languages, Music, and PE, Candidate Performance Assessment Systems.

The tracking of candidate performance is managed in Datatel and may be reviewed on site, as it is a secured system. The examples of data summaries and displays that may be referred to are: Undergrad GPA Data, Alumni Survey Results, Employer Survey Results, Praxis I Scores, Praxis II Scores (Biology, Early Childhood, Elementary, English, Languages, Math, Music, PE, School Leadership, Social Studies) Principles of Learning and Teaching Scores, ADEPT Scores for Teaching Interns (Elementary, English, Languages, Math, Music, PE, Social Studies, Science), and ADEPT Scores for Teachers (graduates teaching in their second year).

At the continuing preparation and advanced program level, candidate performance is tracked and managed in Datatel and may be reviewed on site. Summary reports are generated in Datatel at the end of each term and these data summaries are available for review on site. Summary reports include: Grad GPA Data, Admission to Candidacy Data, Program Completion/Degree Audit Data, EDFD 199: Conceptual Framework Survey Data, Praxis II Scores by Concentration area for those submitted (generated annually), and, in the advanced program only, Alumni Survey Results and Employer Survey Results.

 The Use of Information Technology

 Furman University employs the data management system known as Datatel. While the Unit initially planned to use Access, it was determined that Datatel was more efficient and maneuverable for purposes of tracking candidate status and performance. The Unit Head, NCATE Coordinator, Director of Graduate Studies in Education, and the Education Analyst worked with the Computer and Information Services staff to design screens for each transition point in both the initial, and continuing/advanced preparation programs. The database contains screens with files on the following:

• candidates’ GPA for program entry, major GPA, and program completion GPA

• candidates’ basic demographic data

• candidates’ transition point criteria/assessments met, with relevant grades or scores

The key linking field is the candidate student number. The relational database is used to produce displays and reports that can be exported into Excel for additional analysis. The system is also able to produce a profile on each candidate that can be used to identify status in the preparation program, and identify what needs to be completed prior to moving into the next transition point. The Education Analyst is also able to create displays in Excel for support data received from external sources, (e.g. ETS, State Department of Education).

Further, since fall of 2004, we have been piloting the use of LiveText for key assessments that are based within courses (e.g. standards-based lessons and units, portfolios, projects, teacher work samples, reflections) and for exhibits of candidate work to support unit and program standards. Additionally, data on the Teacher to Teacher Program (agendas of meetings, information received during group meetings with school and district personnel, decisions made based on data, retention rates, and samples of candidate reflections and work) are archived in LiveText. The Education Analyst and all education, music education, secondary/language education, and PE faculty have completed Phase I and II LiveText training on-site. Three education faculty, the Education Analyst, and the Administrative Assistant in Graduate Studies have participated in summer LiveText Collaboration Conferences in Chicago. Candidates in initial preparation programs are required to purchase LiveText during their junior or senior year, depending upon when they enroll in specific methods courses that use LiveText applications. LiveText is not currently used consistently or extensively on the graduate level. Depending upon candidate and faculty evaluation of LiveText in terms of “friendliness”, reliability, effectiveness, and efficiency in initial programs, the graduate programs may or may not require masters candidates to purchase the software in the future.

Record of Formal Candidate Complaints

Furman University publishes an annual student handbook, The Helmsman, that presents the official statements of university policies, rules, and regulations that impact student life at Furman. The university procedures for presenting serious complaints are outlined on page 55 of The Helmsman, 2006. Reference is made to the university policies and procedures manual.

Beyond the university procedures, the Unit is prepared to give fair hearing to complaints about the Teacher Education Program, or Graduate Studies programs, or unit operations. While formal complaints are relatively few, they may be intense situations, and therefore are typically referred to the Unit Head. In most cases, the Unit Head requests a third party to be present for those complaints that are verbally presented. Careful documentation occurs regarding the nature of the complaint, the proposed resolution, and the follow-up result. These are kept in confidential files. In other cases, complaints about the Teacher to Teacher Program (e.g. conflicting schedule of Furman vs. school district breaks) are dealt with by the Director of Partnerships. While some are verbal, it is more likely they are communicated via email or letter. In these cases, the Director of Partnerships (or receiving senior block faculty member) communicates with the other senior block faculty and the Unit Head to decide upon a consensual resolution to the complaint. These issues are then put on an agenda for the next year’s planning retreat when program and schedule changes may be made for the upcoming senior cohort.

Element 3: Use of Data for Program Involvement

The Professional Education Unit uses the data and information collected and analyzed as part of the assessment system to make improvements in courses and programs. The data are used regularly and systematically to make decisions and changes, and the data are shared with candidates and faculty.

Regular and Systematic Use of Data

The vehicles in place to use data begin with the Program Review Committee that is charged with data collection, analysis, and oversight of the Unit Assessment System. Trends are examined annually and when they are noted, or qualitative data indicate the need for changes, the Program Review Committee makes recommendations to the Education Department, the Teacher Education Committee or Graduate Council, and/or makes recommendations to departments outside of education that participate in the teaching of professional education courses. This typically occurs at the end of spring term and into the summer. Refer to Program Review Committee Decisions (2002-2004; 2004-2005). Agendas for Program Review Committee meetings may be reviewed on-site.

With information gathered in meetings with school and district personnel involved in Furman’s school/university partnerships as well as candidates in the Teacher to Teacher Program, the block faculty meet regularly to discuss input from those sources in order to identify immediate needs for change or improvement or ones that are to be put on the agenda for the next year’s planning retreat (held each June) for consideration. Decisions that are made are conveyed to the Education Department. Typically they are changes that do not require formal departmental approval.

Recent Data-Based Course, Program, and Unit Improvements

Faculty Retreat with External Consultant

In March of 2004, the Professional Education Unit employed an external consultant to facilitate an all-day retreat pertaining to all programs and the unit. Dawn Huntley, President of Strategic Innovations, first met with the Unit Head, Director of Graduate Studies, and the Director of Partnerships/NCATE Coordinator; conducted follow-up individual interviews with those persons, and conducted a faculty survey to determine issues that most needed to be addressed at the retreat. The results of the survey (The Balancing Act) may be reviewed on-site.

The main focal issues of the retreat were: certification programs that need to be expanded or changed; which certification programs need to be reduced, eliminated, or combined; the Teacher to Teacher Program; priorities for policy change (tenure/promotion/definition of scholarly activity); administrative load; consensus management; and communications. The significant decisions that have been acted upon are: 1) elimination of the graduate program in elementary education; 2) elimination of the graduate middle level programs; 3) suspension of the advanced Reading Program until a full-time literacy expert is employed; 4) elimination of the art and theatre arts certification programs; 5) assessment of the secondary certification programs for continuation or elimination; 6) expansion of the TESOL program to other partner districts besides Greenville; 7) plans for the creation of an undergraduate concentration in TESOL; 8) changes in the fine arts GER and methods requirements; 9) redesign of the elementary literacy courses; 10) getting Greenville County fully on-board with the Teacher to Teacher Program; and 11) implementing a secondary level Teacher to Teacher Program.

Unit changes that have been made include: 1) changing the structure of the Graduate Studies in Education Program, by placing the program under the ultimate responsibility of the Unit Head (previously under the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean); 2) changing job responsibilities of the Director and Assistant Director (newly employed); 3) creating new guidelines and procedures for the implementation of graduate study programs and the communication of these procedures in a newly published Graduate Studies Catalog; and 4) formulating new auditing procedures for the ongoing assessment of graduate studies programs.

Ms. Huntley’s Furman’s 2004 Retreat: Work Summary may be reviewed, as well as the Unit Actions After the Spring Retreat 2004 chart, for more specific information.

Course Changes Made by Faculty Based on Candidate Evaluation

End of course evaluations occur every term. Candidates complete a standard evaluation form that is used throughout the university plus a Part B. evaluation that is specific to education courses and is related to the conceptual framework. Both quantitative and qualitative data result. The data are compiled and made available to department chairs who then distribute them to faculty early in the next term. The course evaluations are used by the Dean, the Faculty Status Committee, and the Unit Head as one measure to determine tenure and promotion, as well as merit salary increases.

For recent course changes made by faculty in response to candidate evaluations, refer to Recent Data-Based Course Changes.

Furthermore, the Teacher to Teacher Program makes annual changes to block courses and practica based on candidate, principal, and cooperating teacher input at meetings throughout the senior year, in addition to end of course evaluation data. These changes are documented in LiveText and may be reviewed on site.

Changes in the Unit Assessment System Based on State Department of Education Recommendations

South Carolina institutions of higher education with teacher preparation programs must submit an annual report to the Division of Educator Quality and Leadership on the unit assessment system (plan, initially, and then changes and data). In 2004 it was recommended that we examine closely the number of transition points and some of the criteria or assessments being required of candidate performance. The result was an evaluation of the need for the “Transition to the Senior Block” for Teacher to Teacher candidates and a resultant decision that - with the implementation of the D 1: Event/ Concerns Report that may be conducted at any time in the program - it was not necessary. In addition, several criteria or assessments were determined to be ineffective, such as the Program Entry requirement of a recommendation documenting and positively evaluating performance of at least 50 hours of independent and supervised work with children/youth (not associated with education field experiences). The 50 hours of work was too loosely defined and could include the teaching of Sunday School, camp counseling, volunteer work, etc. Additionally, the recommendations were not always specific about responsibilities and performance. It was determined that the field experience in ED 20: Human Development offered a more structured opportunity to evaluate candidate dispositions and the ability to relate to children/youth. Therefore, the evaluation of the supervisor in that field experience is now substituted. Further, another criterion was determined to be better left as a course assessment than part of the candidate performance assessment system – reflections on the senior block experience. Additionally, the university supervisor and cooperating teacher or mentor evaluations of candidate teaching were combined to be a three-way consensus based on ADEPT and SPA standards, eliminating two to three separate documents. In the Teacher to Teacher Program, the interview by district personnel directors along with senior block faculty was eliminated as an assessment but continued in the form of an interview with the district personnel director as a required procedure for the program. Music, PE, and languages have added assessments that are required in their respective programs. In other words, the candidate performance assessment system has been streamlined and tailored to specific levels or areas of certification. We find this to be more efficient, but also more effective in assessing candidate performance.

It was further recommended that we strengthen the assessment of unit operations. To do so, we now include a portion of the Furman University Senior Survey to assess functions of quality of academic experience, quality of course instruction, quality of instruction, quality of campus services and facilities, and quality of campus life. Results of the Three Year Senior Survey for certification candidates may be reviewed. Furthermore, the Unit Head meets annually with the Student Leadership Team and hears their input about unit operations as well as programmatic issues. This information may be reviewed as Student Leadership Team Notes.

Changes in Communication by the Unit to Candidates Based on Exit Evaluations

While the Professional Education Unit has taken great strides to communicate with candidates about certification requirements, program requirements, and Teacher to Teacher requirements that differ from traditional programs, exit evaluations by candidates continue to indicate a need for better communication. To that end, the Teacher Education Program has, for the past two years, conducted Orientation sessions in fall and spring terms for those enrolled in ED 11 or ED 20 (introductory courses) and others who may be interested in applying to the program. At these sessions (divided in groups by program level/area), candidates receive verbal and printed information about the certification program of interest. Included are the conceptual framework, the basic steps in the candidate performance assessment system, an application to the program, and specific certification program worksheets. Also, they are given the Teacher Education Program Guide. Refer to the Agenda for Orientation Sessions. Further, candidates in the elementary and secondary/language programs have special required meetings in February and May of the junior year to provide information about the senior year, which is blocked, beginning with an Early Experience in the schools, and which also requires yearlong seminars. Since the Teacher to Teacher Program is complex, we developed a graphic of the senior year and fifth year for candidates. Refer to Elementary Senior and Full Year Graphic and Secondary/Languages Senior and Full Year Graphic. These have been distributed during the winter junior year meeting for the past two years. Refer to Junior Meetings (Fall 2005 and Winter 2006) and Surveys (Elementary and Languages). Each winter term junior year, we also create a cohort conference on First Class (the university email system) for the elementary and the secondary/language junior cohorts. This facilitates communications among faculty and candidates, with all candidates receiving the same information. The conference exchanges may be reviewed on-site.

The music and PE certification programs also have a May meeting with candidates, to prepare them for the Early Experience prior to the official beginning of their senior year. See Agenda for Early Experience Orientation.

One other recent change, is that the Education Analyst will send a letter to candidates who are transitioning to the Early Experience and the teaching internship to indicate their status. This has not been done previously, but is an effort to communicate readiness for the Early Experience and also for the teaching internship based on candidate performance assessment.

Sharing Data with Faculty and Candidates

Sharing Data with Candidates

Candidates are informed at each transition point about their status. At Program Entry, they receive a letter confirming their admission to the Teacher Education Program or a request for a meeting with the Unit Head and their advisor to discuss conditions for admission or concerns related to their admission. Their continuation in the program is based on GPA and resolution of any D 1: Event/Concern Report that may have occurred. Candidate status is audited each term, with notification if there is an issue challenging their continuation in the program. Prior to beginning the Early Experience, candidates will receive a letter (newly implemented spring 06) indicating their status prior to their senior year. In fall of their senior year, candidates meet with their university supervisor to review their performance during the Early Experience, based on their cooperating teacher’s evaluation and goal-setting. Those in the Teacher to Teacher Program meet with the Teacher to Teacher Coordinator prior to beginning their block practicum to review their status, respond to questions, and outline the expectations for practicum and for seeking an induction position for the fifth year, if that is their choice. At the end of the block practicum, candidates meet with their block faculty. Secondary and language candidates meet as a cohort to debrief their experience, offering input into program improvement; to share their self-assessments; and to receive feedback from faculty and peers. Elementary candidates meet individually with block faculty to present their digital portfolio, to receive feedback on their teaching and dispositions, and to offer input into program improvement. At the end of the senior year (transition to the teaching internship) candidates will receive a letter indicating their status (newly implemented spring 2006). At program completion, candidates meet with their university supervisor to receive feedback and confirmation of their completion of the program.

Sharing Data with Faculty

Individual faculty receive their performance evaluation by the Department Chair annually, if untenured, or biennially, if tenured. This occurs both in writing and in a meeting between the Department Chair and faculty member. Additionally, faculty are evaluated by the Status Committee on the same schedule. The Status Committee typically provides feedback by placing individual faculty members in one of four merit categories (which might or might not result in salary increases).

Faculty are apprised of candidate performance at program entry, as candidates who are brought to the Education Department for admission to the Teacher Education Program are discussed and voted upon. It should be noted that faculty liaisons from departments outside of education are invited to admission meetings to be a resource on candidates in their respective programs. The Education Department additionally hears letters of appeal by candidates whose status may be challenged due to grades below “C” in major or certification courses, or who may request to alter the usual sequence of courses. Data on ADEPT performance, GPA at admission and program completion, exit evaluations, alumni and employer survey data, and Praxis II and PLT scores are shared with faculty as a whole at regular department meetings, and individual faculty on a case by case basis by the Education Analyst. For example, if a candidate in a modern language certification program does not pass Praxis II, the Education Analyst notifies the Unit Head, Teacher Education Committee liaison in that department, and the Secondary Coordinator, whose responsibilities include coordinating the language programs as well as secondary certification programs. This typically leads to a meeting with the candidate to seek a plan of action to assist him/her in passing the exam the next time. Also, faculty responsible for a certification program and, consequently for writing the SPA program reviews, are provided candidate performance data in their area. Data are shared with the Teacher Education Committee and the Graduate Council on an annual basis. Information relevant to other standing committees (field experience, internship, and technology) is shared when there is a trend noted that needs attention by the committee for potential program improvement.

Further, faculty are informed of identified concerns, issues, or needs for change in unit operations based on trend data from exit evaluations, alumni survey, and employer surveys, and meetings with candidates, the Student Leadership Team, and professional community. Typically, this occurs in regular department meetings. Since faculty themselves provide data on candidate performance, programs, and unit operations (e.g. spring 04 survey and retreat), they are part of the program and unit improvement process.

With the new organizational structure in the Department of Education and Graduate Studies in Education, systematic reporting on graduate programs, courses, and candidate performance occurs at regular department meetings. In addition, the graduate program is advised by a Graduate Council whose members make up a representative group of the university faculty and whose membership is voted on by the entire faculty. The Director of Graduate Studies is the chair and meets with the Council up to three times each year to apprise the faculty of program needs, changes, or concerns. The Vice President for Academic Affairs is an ex-officio member of the Council. The Graduate Council approves course number or course description changes and recommends to the University faculty concentration changes or changes in the overall program. An annual report of graduate performance, enrollment, and revenue trends is presented to the President and Trustees. An institutional survey report is conducted by the Council of Graduate Schools and the Graduate Record Exam in their annual CGS/GRE Survey of Graduate Enrollment. As a member institution, Furman compiles and submits this information annually. This report is also available on site.