TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY3008 18th StreetLubbock, TX 79409-1074October 27-29, 2013

Transformation Initiative Visit to:

Type of Visit:Continuing visit - Initial Teacher PreparationContinuing visit - Advanced Preparation

NCATE Board of Examiners Team:Dr. Yuhang RongDr. Shirley A. Lefever-DavisDr. Stacey M. Neuharth-PrichettDr. Scott S. SparksMrs. Darlene K. Castelli

State Consultant:N/A

NEA or AFT Representative:N/A

Conf

ident

ial

Board of Examiners Report forTransformation Initiative Pilot Visit

SUMMARY FOR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNIT

Institution:Texas Tech University

Team Recommendations:

Not Applicable (Programs not offered at this level)

Standards Initial Advanced

1. Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions Standard Met Standard Met

2. Assessment System and Unit Evaluation Standard Met Standard Met

3. Field Experiences and Clinical Practice Standard Met Standard Met

4. Diversity Standard Met Standard Met

5. Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development Standard Met Standard Met

6. Unit Governance and Resources Standard Met Standard Met

I. INTRODUCTION

I.1 Brief overview of the institution and the unit.

According to the Institutional Report, originally named Texas Technological College, the institution opened in 1925 with six buildings and an enrollment of 910. By action of the Texas state legislature, Texas Technological College formally became Texas Tech University on September 1, 1969. As a result, the School of Education, along with the Schools of Agricultural Sciences, Arts and Sciences, Business Administration, Engineering, and Home Economics became known as "colleges." Currently, the university is the largest (30,000 plus students) comprehensive public higher education institution in the western two-thirds of Texas. It is classified as a Research University Extensive by the Carnegie Foundation. The university states that its mission as a public research university is to advance "knowledge through innovative and creative teaching, research, and scholarship." The university "is dedicated to student success by preparing learners to be ethical leaders for a diverse and globally competitive workforce. The university is committed to enhancing the cultural and economic development of the state, nation, and world."

The university has clearly acknowledged that the preparation of quality educators is the responsibility of the entire university. The university reports that its educator certification candidates are enrolled in majors throughout the university, general education courses being delivered across the campus, and educator preparation programs being housed in eight of the nine traditional colleges and the Graduate School. For the purposes of the current accreditation review, the College of Education is defined as the unit as well as the coordinating body for partnering educator preparation programs in other colleges (e.g., Arts & Sciences, Human Sciences). The university argues that this designation is a practical one, conforming to administrative realities, including university organization of college-specific records and data. However, a major institutional-wide initiative, Toolbox, now provides more extensive certification-level, not just degree-level data.

The university has been regionally accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

(Confidential) Page 1

2

Listing of Exhibits from the

Institutional Report

I.4 Exhibits

I.4.a

I.4.a (1)

I.4.a (2)

I.4.a (3)

Conceptual Framework

Conceptual framework

Big 12 Reform Initiatives

Big 12 Literature Review

TI

TI.4 Exhibits

TI.4.a

TI.4.a (1)

TI.4.a (2)

TI.4.a (3)

TI.4.a (4)

TI.4.a (5)

TI.4.a (6)

TI.4.a (7)

TI.4.a (8)

TI.4.a (9)

TI.4.a (10)

TI.4.a (11)

TI.4.a (12)

TI.4.a (13)

TI.4.a (14)

TI.4.a (15)

TI.4.a (16)

TI.4.a (17)

Evidence of TI progress

DEC Meeting Minutes

Counselor Education Advisory Group Input

Syllabi and Templates Revision Overview

Calendar for Technology Activities

Technology Committee Report

Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy

Toolbox for Assessment and Management

Teacher Candidate Handbook

Site Coordinator Handbook

Mentor Teacher Handbook

Tech Teach Newsletter

Lubbock ISD Leadership Meeting Agendas

Program Coordinator Meeting Agendas

Initial TI Proposal

Response to the NCATE Reviewers’ TI Questions

TI Proposal Executive Summary

Program Coordinator Contract

Standard 1

1.4Exhibits

1.4.a

1.4.a. (1)

1.4.a. (2)

1.4.a. (3)

1.4.a. (4)

1.4.a. (5)

1.4.a. (6)

1.4.a. (7)

1.4.a. (8)

1.4.a. (9)

1.4.a. (10)

1.4.a. (11)

1.4.a. (12)

1.4.a. (13)

1.4.a. (14)

1.4.a. (15)

1.4.a. (16)

1.4.a. (17)

1.4.a. (18)

1.4.a. (19)

1.4.a. (20)

1.4.a. (21)

1.4.a. (22)

1.4.a. (23)

Evidence of TI-related changes to candidate content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and professional knowledge and skills.

· Big 12 Reform Initiatives

· Big 12 Literature Review

Secondary Education (Initial)

· Dean’s Executive Council Presentation

· Skill and Product Report

· T-Chart

· Website Homepage

· Program Block Scheduling

· Program Assessment Plan

· Syllabi (with Apply and Evaluate lessons included)

· EDSE 4313

· EDSE 4311

· EDSE 4322

· A&E Schedule

· Rubrics

· Professionalism Rubric

· Big 6 TAP Rubric

Counselor Education (Advanced, School Counseling Program)

· Implementing Curricular Reform

· T-Chart

· Assessment Plan

· Syllabi

· EPCE 5355

· EPCE 5354

· EPCE 5094

· Rubrics

· Communication Skills Rubric

· Therapeutic Skills Rubric

1.4.b

1.4.b. (1)

1.4.b. (2)

1.4.b. (3)

Evidence to support correction of areas for improvement, if any

BOE Report

UAB Approval Letter

See Counselor Education exhibits above, 1.4.a. (16) through 1.4.a. (23)

1.4.c

1.4.c (1)

State program review documents and state findings (For program information NOT already available in AIMS)

Texas Education Agency Audit

Principal Survey

Candidate Exit Survey

1.4.d

1.4.d. (1)

1.4.d. (2)

1.4.d. (3)

1.4.d. (4)

1.4.d. (5)

1.4.d. (6)

1.4.d. (7)

1.4.d. (8)

Key assessments and scoring guides used for assessing candidate learning and dispositions

TAP Overview

TAP Rubric

Tripod Overview

TEA Student Teaching Observation Form

Student Teaching Observation Rubric

STAAR performance. (Beginning in spring 2012, the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, STAAR, replaced the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills, TAKS, as a measure of P-12 student performance.)

SPA waiver request to NCATE

SPA waiver approval from NCATE

1.4.e

1.4.e. (1)

1.4.e. (2)

1.4.e. (3)

1.4.e. (4)

1.4.e. (5)

1.4.e. (6)

1.4.e. (7)

Data and summaries of results on key assessments, including proficiencies identified in the unit’s conceptual framework.

TAP Data Preliminary fall 2012

Tripod Data Preliminary Graph

Tripod Data Preliminary

Summary of A and Es EDEL and EDSE

Summary of Mentor Teacher Survey

i3 Data from LISD

Practice Test Data (for program admission) were analyzed

1.4.f

Examples of candidates’ assessment and analysis of P-12 student learning

Examples are not yet available.

1.4.g

1.4.g. (1)

1.4.g. (2)

1.4.g. (3)

1.4.g. (4)

1.4.g. (5)

1.4.g. (6)

1.4.g. (7)

Follow-up studies of graduates and summaries of the results

Graduate Student Survey

Pilot for Graduate Student Analysis (The Dean talking to 30 graduate students.)

TEA Principal Survey (analysis discussed in text of standard)

PACE Data Student Achievement

PACE Candidate Retention

PACE Data Analysis

Candidate Exit Survey

1.4.h

1.4.h. (1)

1.4.h. (2)

1.4.h. (3)

Employer feedback on graduates and summaries of the results

TEA Principal Survey

Counselor Education Advisory Board

Shared Governance Excerpt from Standard 6

1.4.i

1.4.i. (1)

1.4.i. (2)

1.4.i. (3)

Data collected by state and/or national agencies on performance of educator preparation programs and the effectiveness of their graduates in classrooms and schools, including student achievement data, when available

TExES Passing Rate Overall (State Licensure Exam)

TExES Passing Rate by Teaching Fields (State Licensure Exam)

PACE Data P-12 Student Achievement

1.4.j

1.4.j. (1)

1.4.j. (2)

1.4.j. (3)

1.4.j. (4)

Findings of other national accreditation associations related to the preparation of education professionals (e.g., ASHA, NASM, APA, CACREP)

CACREP (Counselor Education)

NASAD (Art Education)

NASM (Music Education)

NAST (Theatre Education)

Standard 2

2.4 Exhibits

2.4.a

2.4.a (1)

2.4.a (2)

2.4.a (3)

2.4.a (4)

2.4.a (5)

2.4.a (6)

2.4.a (7)

2.4.a (8)

Evidence of TI-related changes to the unit’s assessment system including the requirements and key assessments used at transition points.

Transition Point Assessments

Apply & Evaluate (A&E) Overview

EDSE 4322 (A&Es in Appendix A)

A&E Schedule (Secondary)

Internship in Special Education (includes an A&E assignment)

Performance Assessment (PA) Overview

TeachScape for video capture

Program Assessment Plans Excerpts

2.4.b

2.4.b (1)

2.4.b (2)

2.4.b (3)

2.4.b (4)

Evidence to support correction of areas for improvement, if any

UAB Final Approval Letter

UAB Final Accreditation Action Report

BOE Focused Review Report

Focused Review Institutional Report

2.4.c

Procedures for ensuring fairness, accuracy, consistency, and freedom of bias for key assessments of candidate performance and evaluations of program quality and unit operations.

Procedures are discussed in the text of the standard. There are no additional exhibits.

2.4.d

2.4.d (1)

2.4.d (2)

2.4.d (3)

2.4.d (4)

2.4.d (5) 2.4.d (6)

2.4.d (7)

2.4.d (8)

2.4.d (9)

2.4.d (10)

2.4.d (11)

2.4.d (12)

2.4.d (13)

Policies and procedures for data use that demonstrate how data are regularly collected, compiled, aggregated, summarized, analyzed, and used to make improvements.

Mentor teachers’ twice-per-month survey online.

Mentor Teacher Survey Results

Graduate Survey

TExES Several Year Data

Weekly meeting agenda between the mentor teacher and teacher candidate.

Such meetings may include the use of a professionalism rubric to direct discussions.

As warranted, a site coordinator may initiative a professional improvement plan with the teacher candidate.

Site coordinators do regular “walk throughs” of 10-15 minutes. The SC visits with the mentor teacher, and then uses an online form to record data. In addition, twice a semester SCs conduct a more formal observation using a TTU developed and TEA approved observation form and rubric.

Program Assessment Plan Excerpts

Assessment Calendar

Document and Data Repositories (being developed)

2.4.e

2.4.e (1)

2.4.e (2)

2.4.e (3)

2.4.e (4)

2.4.e (5)

Examples of significant changes made to courses, programs, and the unit in response to data gathered from the assessment system

Moved to year- long student teaching

Co-teaching Strategy

Employers helped with trademark outcomes (Counselor Education example)

A&E Activities

Performance Assessment Overview

Hiring of site coordinators (roles and responsibilities)

Standard 3

3.4 Exhibits

3.4.a

3.4.a (1)

3.4.a (2)

3.4.a (3)

3.4.a (4)

3.4.a (5)

3.4.a (6)

3.4.a (7)

3.4.a (8)

Evidence of TI-related changes to field experiences and clinical practices

Co-Teaching Strategy

Apply and Evaluate Overview

Performance Assessment Overview

TAP Overview

Tripod Overview

TeachScape Overview

Memo of Understanding

Professional Improvement Plan for Student Teachers

3.4.b

Evidence to support correction of areas for improvement, if any

Not applicable

3.4.c

3.4.c (1)

3.4.c (2)

3.4.c (3)

Criteria for the selection of clinical faculty, which includes both higher education and P–12 school faculty

Mentor Teacher Application

Mentor Teacher Roles and Responsibilities

Site Coordinator Qualifications and Responsibilities

3.4.d

3.4.d (1)

3.4.d (2)

3.4.d (3)

3.4.d (4)

Documentation of the preparation of clinical faculty for their roles (e.g., orientation and other meetings/trainings)

PDF and Site Coordinator Meeting Agenda

Mentor Teacher Handbook with role descriptions

Site Coordinator Handbook with role descriptions

TAP training

3.4.e

3.4.e (1)

3.4.e (2)

3.4.e (3)

3.4.e (4)

3.4.e (5)

3.4.e (6)

3.4.e (7)

3.4.e (8)

3.4.e (9)

3.4.e (10)

Descriptions of requirements for field experiences and clinical practice in programs for initial and advanced teacher candidates and other school professionals

Mentor Teacher and Candidate Weekly Meeting Agenda

Professional Improvement Plan for Teacher Candidates

Professionalism Rubric

Site Coordinator Walk Through Form

EDSE 4322 (A&E Assignments in Appendix A)

EDSP 3100 (A&E Assignments)

Performance Assessment (PA) Overview for student teachers

P3 Assessments for Advanced Programs (EDLD Example)

EDLD Syllabus

EDLL 4382 Syllabus

3.4.f

3.4.f (1)

3.4.f (2)

3.4.f (3)

Guidelines for student teaching and internships (e.g., handbooks)

Teacher Candidate Handbook

Mentor Teacher Handbook

Site Coordinator Handbook

3.4.g

3.4.g (1)

3.4.g (2)

3.4.g (3)

3.4.g (4)

3.4.g (5)

3.4.g (6)

3.4.g (7)

3.4.g (8)

3.4.g (9)

3.4.g (10)

Assessments and scoring rubrics/criteria used in field experiences and clinical practice for initial and advanced teacher candidates and other school professionals.

TAP Rubric

Tripod Survey Lower Elementary

Tripod Survey Upper Elementary

Tripod Survey Secondary

State Required Student Teaching Observation Form

Principal Survey

Counselor Education Communication Skills Rubric

Counselor Education Therapeutic Skills Rubric

Walk Through Guidelines

Professionalism Rubric

Standard 4

4.4 Exhibits

4.4.a

4.4.a (1)

4.4.a (2)

4.4.a (3)

4.4.a (4)

4.4.a (5)

4.4.a (6)

4.4.a (7)

4.4.a (8)

Evidence of TI-related changes in the area of diversity

Educator Preparation Conceptual Framework

Big 12 Initiatives

Educator Preparation Diversity Plan

Office of Outreach

Technology Committee Report

Recruitment Plan (under development)

i3 Grant Overview

ELPN Grant Overview

4.4.b

Evidence to support correction of areas for improvement, if any.

Not Applicable

4.4.c

4.4.c (1)

4.4.c (2)

4.4.c (3)

4.4.c (4)

Changes in curriculum components and experiences that address diversity proficiencies, if any.

Added EDSE 4323, Teaching Diverse Students in Secondary Classrooms

Added EDSE 4312, Classroom Management and Working with Learners Who have Disabilities in Secondary Classrooms

Revision of courses for elementary and middle level candidates. EDSP 3300

4.4.d

4.4.d (1)

4.4.d (2)

4.4.d (3)

4.4.d (4)

4.4.d (5)

4.4.d (6)

4.4.d (7)

4.4.d (8)

Assessment instruments, scoring guides, and data related to candidates meeting diversity proficiencies, including impact on student learning (These assessments may be included in program review documents or the exhibits for Standard 1. Cross reference as appropriate.)

TAP Overview

TAP Big 6 Rubric

Tripod Perception Surveys

· Lower Elementary

· Upper Elementary

· Secondary

Principal Survey Form

EDSE 3100 (A&E Example)

EDBL 3335 (Example of a course with diversity proficiencies)

4.4.e

4.4.e (1)

4.4.e (2)

Data table on faculty demographics.

Faculty Demographics

Diversity of New Faculty Hires

4.4.f

4.4.f (1)

4.4.f (2)

4.4.f (3)

Data table on candidates demographics.

Diversity of Candidate in Professional Education

Certification Demographics

Certification Test Demographics

4.4.g

4.4.g (1)

Data table on demographics of P-12 students in schools used for clinical practice.

PACE Demographic Data (75 mile radius of TTU)

Standard 5

5.4 Exhibits

5.4.a

5.4.a (1)

5.4.a (2)

5.4.a (3)

5.4.a (4)

5.4.a (5)

5.4.a (6)

Evidence of TI-related changes in the area of faculty qualifications

Site Coordinators (qualifications and duties)

Professional Development Facilitators all have appropriate degrees and teaching experience.

P&T Policy 2012

Hiring new faculty with research agendas that will impact the field.

Faculty training – TAP and TeachScape.

5.4.b

Evidence to support correction of areas for improvement, if any

Not applicable

5.4.c

5.4.c (1)

Data table on faculty qualifications

See faculty data in AIMS

5.4.d

5.4.d (1)

5.4.d (2)

Licensure information on school/clinical faculty (e.g., cooperating/mentor teachers, internships supervisors, etc.) practice)

Site Coordinator qualifications and responsibilities

Mentor teachers are all licensed teachers in the state of Texas.  They are selected by the Site Coordinators who are familiar with the instructional practices of the teachers in their schools.  Site Coordinators work closely with school administrators as they make these selections.

5.4.e

5.4.e (1)

5.4.e (2)

5.4.e (3)

5.4.e (4)

Samples of faculty scholarly activities

Tech Teach/TI Presentations

C&I Scholarly Productivity 2012 (Publications)

EP&L Scholarly Productivity 2012 (Publications)

Scholarly Productivity 2008 to 2012

5.4.f

5.4.f (1)

5.4.f (2)

5.4.f (3)

5.4.f (4)

5.4.f (1)

5.4.f (6)

5.4.f (7)

Sample forms for faculty evaluation and summaries of the results

University website on course and instructor evaluation

University student evaluation form

Results from university evaluations

5.4.g

5.4.g (1)

5.4.g (2)

5.4.g (3)

5.4.g (4)

Description of opportunities for professional development

Professional Development Examples

The university’s Teaching, Learning, and Professional Development Center (TLPDC) provides many opportunities for faculty professional development as evidenced by a schedule of events.

COE website resources for technology assistance and financial assistance

Standard 6

6.4 Exhibits

6.4.a

6.4.a (1)

6.4.a (2)

6.4.a (3)

6.4.a (4)

6.4.a (5)

6.4.a (6)

6.4.a (7)

6.4.a (8)

6.4.a (9)

6.4.a (10)

6.4.a (11)

Evidence of TI-related changes in the area of unit leadership and resources

Site Coordinator job description/contract

Program Coordinator contract with tasks

Program Coordinator Culminating Work Agenda

Promise Neighborhood Grant

Overview of Grant Activity

Overview of Funding

Dean’s Executive Council assignments

Return on Investments Analysis

Lubbock ISD Leadership Meeting Agendas

The COE financial office has been reorganized as evidenced by a menu of services and financial assistance resources available to faculty and staff.

6.4.b

Evidence to support correction of areas for improvement, if any.

The processes to involve part-time faculty members are described in Section 6.2 of this document. There are no additional exhibits.

6.4.c

6.4.c (1)

6.4.c (2)

Organizational chart and/or description of the unit governance structure

Organizational chart

Description of the unit governance structure (update in progress)

6.4.d

6.4.d (1)

6.4.d (2)

Candidate recruitment and admission policies

University Admission Policies

Admission to Educator Preparation Programs (at transition points)

6.4.e

6.4.e (1)

Unit budget

Unit Budget (Analyzed by Expenses)

Overview of Funding Sources

6.4.f

6.4.f (1)

6.4.f (2)

6.4.f (3)

6.4.f (4)

Faculty workload policies and summaries of faculty workloads

OP 32.18: Academic Workload Calculation

OP 32.18.7: Faculty Workload Equivalencies (#7a to #7r)

University Workload Comparisons

Individual Workload

Exhibits in the Original IR

2

Listing of Exhibits from the

Addendum in Response to the Offsite Review

Overview and Conceptual Framework

CF.2 Areas of concern related to the conceptual framework

· The literature review (expanded exhibit) has now been more fully developed.

CF.3 Evidence for the Site Visit Team to validate during the onsite visit

(1)

· The college’s concern is that P-12 student test scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (previous exhibit) exams in the PZPI were below state averages.

· These outcomes are achieved through 12 implementation strategies, known as the Big 12 Initiatives (previous exhibit).

· For teacher candidates, assessment of “measurably best” comes from the TAP rubric (previous exhibit), the Tripod instrument (previous exhibit), and ISD benchmark measures of P-12 student achievement. Student achievement will be measured using the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, STAAR (previous exhibit) and other ISD benchmark data. Some preliminary data (from previous exhibits) are available for TAP, Tripod, and STAAR.

· Assessing the other two outcomes, collaboration and research, depends greatly on the nature of the collaboration and research guidelines. For example, the ELPN assessments (new exhibit) are extensive and specific as per the grant procedures.

· A literature review (expanded exhibit) supporting the CF is organized by the 12 initiatives supporting the three outcomes.

· The Educator Preparation Conceptual Framework also becomes the College of Education’s Strategic Goals, which align well with the university’s strategic priorities, the CAEP/NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations, and the Big Twelve Initiatives. An alignment table (new exhibit) is available for review.

(2)

· The elementary education (new exhibit) blocks of coursework have been coordinated to accommodate students majoring in Early Childhood in the College of Human Sciences.

· The secondary education course, EDSE 3100, Introduction to Teaching (new exhibit) is taken by candidates in the Agricultural Education program.

· There have been meetings with advisors of teacher preparation programs from around campus, including discussion of an implementation schedule. (new exhibit).

Summary of the Transformation Initiative

TI.2 Statement about the evidence

· The College of Education (COE) at Texas Tech University (TTU) is pursuing the Transformative Initiative (TI) Option of NCATE review because it fits well with the reforms occurring in the College.  Tech Teach, the new Teacher Education Program, is the focus of the TI review, with considerable progress made toward its implementation.

TI.4 Evidence for the Site Visit Team to validate during the onsite visit

(3)

· A description of research methodologies (new exhibit), as described in the original Transformation Initiative Proposal, is available for review.

Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions

· However, the unit is extremely pleased and encouraged with the current direction and progress of assessment-related activity. This progress is exemplified and directed by an initial data usage report.

1.6 Evidence for the Site Visit Team to validate during the onsite visit

(3)

· A table indicating these transition point assessments (previous exhibit) is available for review.

· The end-of-program survey (previous exhibit) that is completed when candidates register for the Master’s Comprehensive Exam provides knowledge, skill, and disposition data (new exhibit) for advanced programs. Additionally, programs have Master’s Comprehensive Exam (new exhibit) data, which are often analyzed through rubric scoring. For example, the Educational Leadership Principal Program gains insight into knowledge, skills, and dispositions through an analysis “reflective thinking and decision making” (new exhibit).

· That being said, some older program assessment plans for advanced programs are available for review as follows (all new exhibits):

Principal Certification

Superintendent Certification

Counselor Education (Community Counseling)

Counselor Education (School Counseling)

Special Education (bachelor’s)

Special Education (doctorate)

Special Education (master’s)

· Although candidate assessment is not directly reviewed in the Annual Strategic Planning Reports, they do offer an insight into assessment within the college (all new exhibits).

The College of Education

The Center for the Integration of STEM Education and Research (CISER)

The Center for Research on Leadership in Education

The Burkhart Center for Autism Education and Research

The Virginia Sowell Center for Research and Education n Sensory Disabilities

· The faculty initiated an in-depth review of all current and needed assessment practices. Numerous procedures were modified and instruments developed, some of which may be reviewed online.

A tremendous amount of activity and progress have resulted with numerous assessments plans, rubrics, scope and sequence charts, and the like being developed. Following are some examples of this work (all new exhibits).

· Principal Assessment Plan

· School Counseling Assessment Plan

· Educational Diagnostician Assessment Plan

· Superintendent Assessment Plan

Standard 2: Assessment System and Unit Evaluation

2.4 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard

(1)

· This concern was addressed under Standard 1, 1.6 (2) and (3). A hyperlink to that explanation is available for review (new exhibit), including an expanded table of transition point assessments.

(2)

· The unit does regularly collect entry-level data for initial teaching programs, as indicated in a transition point assessment table (modified from earlier exhibit). Also, GPA data (new exhibit) are available for review.

2.5 Areas of concern related to TI

(1)

· A status report of Tech Teach and a plan for data usage in Tech Teach are available for review.

(2)

· An implementation timeline (new exhibit) for fall 20112 to spring 2015 reveals how transition will occur from traditional to reformed program.

· The graphic of the fall 2013 schedule (new exhibit) shows how this balance between "traditional" and "Tech Teach" is accomplished, as well as how the TEP is collaborating with departments in other colleges around campus.

(3)

· Therefore the unit has a gap of data in the PAPs. That being said, some older program assessment plans are available for review as follows (all new exhibits):

· Elementary Education

· Secondary Education

· Middle Level Education

· Principal Certification

· Superintendent Certification

· Counselor Education (Community Counseling)

· Counselor Education (School Counseling)

· Special Education (bachelor’s)

· Special Education (doctorate)

· Special Education (master’s)

· Bilingual Education

· English as a Second Language

· Additionally, several annual Strategic Planning Assessment Reports (SPAR) provide insight into assessment for the college and for centers in the college (all new exhibits).

· The College of Education

· The Center for the Integration of STEM Education and Research

· The Center for Research on Leadership in Education

· The Burkhart Center for Autism Education and Research

· The Virginia Sowell Center for Research and Education in Sensory Disabilities

(4)

· This concern was addressed under Standard 1, 1.6 (2) and (3).

· The college’s concern is that P-12 student test scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) (previous exhibit) exams in the PZPI are historically below state averages. If this reference to Exhibit 2.3.X is to the transition point assessment table, it has now been modified and expanded.

2.6 Evidence for the Site Visit Team to validate during the onsite visit

(1)

· Several activities focused on identifying signature technology for each program: a calendar for technology activities was established, a technology committee report was presented, and Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy was suggested as a possible tool to accomplish this goal.

· Additional evidence of Committee activity includes the following (all of which are new exhibits):

· A 2012-13 Strategic Plan, with a stated mission to “promote the use of signature technologies among COE faculty and staff to increase the efficiency of college operations and to facilitate effective teaching strategies that result in students acquiring trademark learning outcomes.”

· An Instructional Technology Taxonomy to foster the classification of signature technology competencies and to enhance program skills and outcomes.

· The Trademark Outcomes Assessment Management System (TOMS). This system, utilizing Blackboard (new exhibit) technology, provides a platform to assess student learning outcomes, particularly the 3 phases of graduate programs. A YouTube video at http://youtu.be/dKebEVlD4qg describes how TOMS has been applied to the Educational Diagnostician Program. The associated diagnostician assessment plan provides another example of Technology Committee efforts.

· Additionally, the following meeting agendas and minutes (all new exhibits) provide support of Technology Committee activity.

Meeting agenda 090111, Retreat agenda 090611, Meeting minutes 091611, Meeting minutes 101411, Meeting agenda 101112, Meeting agenda 102512,

Meeting agenda 110812, Meeting agenda with Dean Ridley 032913, and

Meeting agenda 042413

(3)

· The original GES Study Team has now evolved into an ELPN governance structure, which directs the work of the grant. An extensive university, P-12 school, and community-based Advisory Board and a Management Service Domain Team are part of the structure. Community Advisory Board and Management Domain Team meeting agendas and minutes provide an understanding of ELPN work and activities. The associated programs are being assessed through rigorous federal guidelines for such grants. (All documents hyperlinked in this paragraph are new exhibits.)

(4)

· The May 2013 survey of graduate students (new exhibit) concerning program satisfaction is available for review.

(5)

· There is currently only one year of data available from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) Principal Survey (new exhibit). The State of Texas’ Accountability System for Educator Preparation (ASEP) requires principals who supervise first year teachers to complete a survey (previous exhibit)…

(6)

· The combination of employer input and professional standards provide a strong foundation for programs that develop skills, products, and assessments. (All of the following hyperlinks are new exhibits.)

· Middle-level Education

· Secondary Education

· Counselor Education

· Special Education

· Elementary Education

· Language and Literacy Education

· Educational Leadership (Principal)

· An agenda for the May 14, 2013 meeting is attached, as well as notes from the elementary and middle/secondary meetings. Elementary also had an earlier stakeholder’s meeting (all are new exhibits).

Standard 3: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice

3. 5 Areas of concern related to TI

(1)

· As faculty, staff, and finances are no longer needed in the old program, they will be shifted to the new ones. An implementation schedule (new exhibit) is available for review.

3.6 Evidence for the Site Visit Team to validate during the onsite visit

(2)

· An overview of the PODS arrangement (new exhibit) is available, and the student demographics within the PODS available for review.

· The purpose of this course is to provide practical experiences working with students with visual impairments in the classroom and community as indicated by the Student Learning Outcomes in EDSP 5093 (new exhibit)…

(3)

· P3 work requires authentic performance in a context using the P3 rubric developed for each program. For example, Counselor Education’s School Counseling Program has a rubric for communications skills and for essential therapeutic skills. Programs are currently making arrangements for such partnerships. More traditional collaborations also occur. The Educational Leadership faculty members have been active for the past four years with Lubbock ISD personnel developing a Summer Leadership Institute. (An agenda for breakout sessions is available for review.) (The four preceding hyperlinks are previous exhibits.)

(4)

· The Haberman Star pre-screening survey (new exhibit) is being developed to assess the dispositions of teacher candidates…

(5)

· The Counselor Education Field Experiences Handbooks (new exhibits) for practicum and internship experiences are extremely specific about placement for field experiences.

Standard 4: Diversity

4.6 Evidence for the Site Visit Team to validate during the onsite visit

(1)

· From fall 2003 through fall 2012 there have been 80 new faculty hires (previous exhibit).

· The vita of Barbara Allison (new exhibit) professor in Family and Consumer Sciences Education, has numerous publications and presentations focused on diverse and English language learners.

(3)

· An overview of the PODS arrangement (new exhibit) is available, and the student demographics within the PODS available for review.

· The purpose of this course is to provide practical experiences working with students with visual impairments in the classroom and community as indicated by the Student Learning Outcomes in EDSP 5093 (new exhibit)…

(5)

· Similar competencies for advanced programs are also specified for Educational Diagnostician, School Counselor, Principal, and Superintendent (new exhibits).

· Many initial certification courses focus on diversity-related concepts and issues, as noted in the following course syllabi (new exhibits).

· EDEL 2300Schools, Society, and Diversity

· EDSE 2300 Schools, Society, and Diversity

· EDSE 4322Diversity and the Classroom Learning Environment

· EDEL 4360Teaching Social Studies

· EDCI 3361Teaching Social Studies at the Middle Level

· EDSP 3300Exceptional Children and Youth

· EDSP 3205Learning and Special populations.

· Coursework at the advanced level also emphasizes diversity-related concepts and issues (new exhibits).

· EDBL5337Teaching Strategies for ESL and Content- Area Teachers of

· Limited English Proficient students

· EDLD 6341Legal Issues with Special Populations

· EDSE 5305Issues and Reform in American Secondary Schooling

Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

5.6 Evidence for the Site Visit Team to validate during the onsite visit:

(1)

· All programs made a presentation to the Dean’s Executive Council focused on program reforms, which included references to using state and national standards. The following excerpts from those presentations are examples (all are new exhibits):

· Secondary Education: “TEA Requirements,” “College & Career Readiness Standards,” and “Affiliation with National Learned Societies.”

· Counselor Education: “Input from CACREP Standards.”

· Special Education: “All courses are currently aligned with Texas and National Professional Standards (TEA & Council of Exceptional Children).”

· Language Literacy Education: “Sources for Conditions/Context/Skills and Products: NCTE and IRA.”

· The student learning outcomes for EDLD 5392 …

· In a 4/18/13 meeting, the Middle Level program faculty “voted to add TExES (Texas Examinations of Educator Standards)…

· The incorporation of both state and national standards is evidenced in syllabi for EDLL 3354, Reading Processes and Practices at the Middle Level; and EDML 3370, Teaching Mathematics at the Middle Level.

· The first two of six Student Learning Outcomes for EDML 4325, Classroom Management for Middle Level Teachers, focus on state and national standards.

· In social studies methods, EDEL 4360, assignments are based off the state and national standards. 

(2/9)

· Institutional Research’s Data Warehouse (new exhibit) indicates for fall 2012, the College of Education had 93 full-time and 49 part-time faculty members (excluding TAs and GPTIs).

(4)

· Teacher education programs incorporate Apply and Evaluate (A&E) (new exhibit) activities throughout coursework, in which candidates learn knowledge and skills in courses, apply them to field settings, and then evaluate the success of those applications. A&E Schedules (previous exhibit) are developed.

· Instructional competency during student teaching/internship is measured by Performance Assessments (new exhibit) using the TAP Rubric (previous exhibit). An overview of TAP is available for review (pervious exhibit).

· At the beginning and conclusion of student teaching, P-12 students are administered a Tripod Survey. Tripod (previous exhibit) provides information about student attitudes towards their student teacher and that student teacher’s instruction.

· Candidates use video equipment to record lessons and then upload the videos to the TeachScape (previous exhibit) website. .

· Reports from all three programs are available for review: Elementary, Middle Level, and Secondary (new exhibits).

(5)

· Such information is stored in the commercial software Digital Measures, which when queried provides a three-year overview of faculty publications, presentations, and grant activities.

(8)

· Dr. Jian Wang has now been hired for the endowed chair position. His vita and a recent proposal to AERA (new exhibits) have been attached for review.

Standard 6: Unit Governance and Resources

6.5 Evidence for the Site Visit Team to validate during the onsite visit

(1)

· Following is an excerpt from the individual workload table (previous exhibit).

· Name of faculty member and then below are the extra workload equivalencies (#7a to #7r), which are identified in university policy (previous exhibits).

· The workload of COE faculty is consistent with the following college policy (new exhibit), which in turn is consistent with university policies.

· Additionally, the University Workload Comparisons (previous exhibit) for fall 2012 indicate the average workload of COE faculty at 17.35…

(2)

· The attached screen shots of the various levels of the drop box for only two programs, an initial one (Elementary Education—new exhibit) and an advanced one (Educational Leadership—new exhibit) provides a sense of the magnitude of faculty engagement with the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs.

(3)

· An implementation schedule (new exhibit) is available for review.

(4)

· There have been meetings with advisors of teacher preparation programs from around campus, including discussion of an implementation schedule (new exhibit).

· COE personnel met with Arts and Science advisors (new exhibit).

(5)

· The TEC for the past two years has become a forum for input on the TI. (2/20/13 Meeting Minutes, 3/20/13 Meeting Minutes,) (Previous exhibits).

· TTU and ISD personnel were involved with the rigorous four-day TAP training workshops (previous exhibit)…

· An example of a MOU (previous exhibit) is available for review.

· Meeting agendas (previous exhibit) are available for review.

· A sense of employer input may be gained from selected slides from the DEC PowerPoint presentations. (All of the following hyperlinks are new exhibits.)

· Middle-level Education

· Secondary Education

· Special Education

· Elementary Education

· Elementary, middle-level, and secondary personnel have also met with Lubbock ISD “Green Teachers.” An agenda for the May 14, 2013 meeting is attached, as well as notes from the elementary and middle/secondary meetings. Elementary also had an earlier stakeholder’s meeting. (All of these hyperlinks are new exhibits.)

Exhibits in the IR Addendum

10

Schedule Details

Sunday October 27, 2013

1:45 to 2:30

BOE Team

Member(s)

Room 153

Certification Personnel

Donna Brasher (Certification Officer)

Katie Button (Prof. Development Facilitator)

Peggy Johnson (COE Vice Dean)

Connie Watson (Lead Academic Advisor)

S-1

Room 156

EP&L Department Chairperson and Advanced Program Coordinators

Loretta Bradley (Prog. Coord. Counselor Ed.)

Joe Claudet (Prog. Coord. Educ. Leadership)

Janet Froeschle (Assistant Chairperson)

Fred Hartmeister (Chairperson)

Robin Lock (Past Prog. Coord. Special Educ.)

S-2

Room 164

Teacher Education Council

Future Akins-Tillett (Art Education)

Gary Harris (Mathematics)

Elizabeth Isidro (Graduate Student Rep.)

Jan Killian (Music Education)

Jordan Merendino (undergraduate Rep.)

Craig Morton (Provost’s Office Rep.)

Peggie Price (C&I Department Chairperson)

Stephanie Shine (Early Childhood)

S-3

Sunday October 27, 2013

2:45 to 3:30

BOE Team

Member(s)

Room 153

TEP Alumni

Holly Hendrix (Traditional Program)

Mandy Madden (Traditional Program)

Bobbie Pratt (Traditional Program)

S-4

Room 156

Advanced Program Assessments

Jongpil Cheon (Instructional Technology Faculty)

Steve Crooks ( Prog. Coord. Instructional Tech.)

Shane Hammontree (Academics & Data Unit Mngr.)

Robin Lock (Associate Dean)

Glen Mullins (Technology Services Unit Manager)

S-5

Room 164

University Partners

Future Akins-Tillett (Art Education)

Stephanie Borst (Assoc. Dean A&S)

Lou Densmore (Biology)

Jennifer Hughes (Director of TTU Office of Planning and Assessment)

Stacy Johnson (Director of Child Development Research Center)

Randy McBee (History Chairperson)

Craig Morton (Assoc. Director of TTU Office of Planning and Assessment)

Jon Ulmer (Agriculture Education)

S-6

Sunday October 27, 2013

3:45 to 4:30

BOE Team

Member(s)

Room 153

P-12 Mentor Teachers

Wendy Groves (Elementary Level)

Matt Heider (Middle Level)

Ruth Mills (Elementary Level)

Candice Tickle (Elementary Level)

S-7

Room 156

Advanced Program Alumni

Gwen Belk (Counselor Education)

Richard Molina (Educational Leadership)

S-8

Room 164

ELPN and i3 Grants

Zenaida Aguirre-Munoz (Director of Proyecto)

Susan Back (Director of Office of Program Evaluation & Research Support)

Karen Bayer (Principal, Mackenzie Middle School, Lubbock ISD

Michele Cook (ELPN Curriculum Coord.)

Oak-Hee Park (ELPN Management Team for College of Human Sciences)

Amador Vasquez (Lubbock ISD Mathematics Coordinator)

S-9

Monday October 28, 2013

8:30 to 9:15

BOE Team

Member(s)

Room 164

Tech Teach (TI) & i3 Assessments

Doug Hamman (Director of Teacher Education)

Shane Hammontree (Academics & Data Unit Mngr.)

Steve Kirk (Tableau Consultant)

Shirley Matteson (i3 Co-PI)

M-1

Room 207

TEP Program Tech Teach (TEP) Faculty

Jade Cashman (Elementary Educ. Faculty)

Fannie Coward (Secondary Educ. Faculty)

Rene Saldana (Language Literacy Educ. Faculty)

Anna Torres (Bilingual Educ. Faculty)

M-2

Room 203

TEP Site Coordinators

Marcia Briggs (Middle Level)

Jodi Dennis (Secondary Level)

Rose Tamayo-Hoeve (Elementary Level)

Patti Scott (Secondary Level)

Meranda Sierra (Elementary Level)

M-3

Monday October 28, 2013

9:30 to 10:15

BOE Team

Member(s)

Room 164

303

Current TEP Students-Group 1

Into Middle-level, Block 1 class to interview students. (Literacy in the Content Area)

Kenneth Aronhalt

Jessica Baas

Amber Bernal

Daivis Conley

John Gallagher

Madison Hamilton

Emily Padilla

Charles Schoenherr

Alexandra Stiler

Trey Stolp

Stacy Whitteker

Kelsey Wolf

Haley Zitkus

M-4

Room 207

Current TEP Students-Group 2

Kara Boggs (Secondary Education)

Luke Bridges (Secondary Education)

  Samantha Hilbert (Elementary Education)

   Kristi Holly (Elementary Education)

   Reco Howard (Elementary Education)

   Lauren Kern (Elementary Education)

   Emily Mitchmore (Elementary Education)

   Kaylie Richins (Middle Level Education)

M-5

Room 203

Tech Teach

Doug Hamman (Director of Teacher Educ.)

Professional Development Facilitators

Katie Button (All Levels—Dallas Ft. Worth/San Antonio)

Sherre Heider (Middle/Secondary Level)

Stephanie Howard (Elementary Level)

M-6

Monday October 28, 2013

10:30 to 11:15

BOE Team

Member(s)

Room 164

Advanced Program Faculty

Dee Brown (Special Education)

Clint Carpenter (Educational Leadership)

Roseanna Davidson (Special Education)

Janet Froeschle (Counselor Education)

Jerry Parr (Counselor Education)

Valerie Payton (Higher Education)

M-7

Room 207

TEP Program Coordinators

Pam Halsey (Middle Level Education)

Doug Hamman (Secondary Education)

M-8

Room 203

P-12 School Administrators

Vickie Cooper (Lubbock ISD H.S. Asst. Principal)

Nancy Parker (Lubbock ISD E.S. Principal)

Karen Thornton (Lubbock ISD E.S. Principal)

Mike Worth (Lubbock ISD M.S. Principal)

M-9

Monday October 28, 2013

11:30 to 12:15

BOE Team

Member(s)

Room 164

Adv. Candidates-Current

Mohanna Alamohanna (Special Education)

Laura Blakesee (Special Education)

Laura Delcambre (Special Education)

Nicole Noble (Counselor Education)

Phoebe Okungu (Special Education)

Jennifer Peterson (Counselor Education)

Logan Winkelman (Counselor Education)

M-10

Room 207

Research on Transformation Initiative

Fannie Coward (Secondary Educ. Faculty)

Doug Hamman (Director of Teacher Educ.)

Nhung Pham (PhD student, Dr. Wang’s RA)

Jian Wang C&I Faculty, Jones Endowed Chair)

M-11

Room 203

P-12 District Administrators

Joel Castro (LISD Assoc. Superintendent)

Jennifer DeLeon (Educ. Service Center)

Lisa Leach (LISD Asst. Superintendent)

Kala Morrison (Roosevelt ISD Assoc. Superintendent)

Kathy Rollo (LISD Assoc. Superintendent Elementary Schools)

Macy Satterwhite (Asst. Superintendent Lubbock Cooper ISD)

Doyle Vogler (LISD Assoc. Superintendent)

M-12

School Visits

Dunbar College Preparatory Academy:

· George Love (Principal)

· Mike Ruiz (Social Studies teacher)

· Miss Galloway (English Lang Arts Teacher)

· Amanda Banks (College Readiness Advisor)

· Three students (unnamed)

Joan Y. Ervin Elementary

· Margaret Randle (Principal)

Bayless Elementary

· Lisa Davis (Principal)

· Dan Heberly (Asst. Principal)

· Katie Parks (Tech Teach student teacher)

· Mrs. Schaeffer (Mentor teacher)

· Mrs. LeQay (Mentor teacher)

· Rico Howard (Tech Teach Student Teacher)

NCATE/CAEP Reception

Sunday, October 27

Overton Hotel, Horizon B Room

5:30 to 7:00 p.m.

Theme of “Partnerships”

Name

Position

Affiliation

NCATE/CAEP Board of Examiners

Mrs. Darlene K. Castelli

Classroom Teacher

Clayton, Missouri ISD

Dr. Shirley A. Lefever-Davis

Associate Dean

College of EducationWichita State University

Dr. Stacey M. Neuharth-Prichett

Associate Professor

College of EducationThe University of Georgia

Dr. Yuhang Rong

Assistant Dean,

Chairperson BOE Team

Neag School of EducationUniversity of Connecticut

Dr. Scott S. Sparks

Professor

College of EducationOhio University

NCATE/CAEP Staff

Nate Thomas

Accreditation Associate

NCATE/CAEP

College of Education (COE) Personnel

Doug Hamman

Director of Teacher Education

COE

Fred Hartmeister

Chairperson

Department. of Educational Psychology & Leadership

Larry Hovey

Coordinator of Accreditation & Assessment

COE

Peggy Johnson

Vice Dean

COE

Robin Lock

Chairperson

Department of Educational Psychology & Leadership

Peggie Price

Chairperson

Department of Curriculum & Instruction

Scott Ridley

Dean

COE

ELPN, i3, and Proyecto Grant Partners

Zenaida Aguirre-Munoz

Associate Professor

COE/Proyecto Grant

University Partners

Katie Button

Professional Development Facilitator

College of Education

Shirley Matteson

i3 Co-PI

College of Education

Craig Morton

Associate Director

Office of Planning & Assessment

P-12 School Partners

Amy Carroll

Assistant Principal

Dunbar M.S., LISDISD/ELPN

George Love

Principal

Dunbar M.S., Lubbock ISD/ELPN

Margaret and Eddie Randle

Principal

Ervin Elem. S., Lubbock ISD/ELPN

Community Partners

Stephanie Hill

Community resident

Lubbock/ELPN Grant

Vernita Woods-Holmes

LISD Board of Trustees, Principal (ret.)

Lubbock/ELPN Grant

T.J. Paterson

City Councilman, Ret

City of Lubbock

Special Guests

Lawrence Schovanec

Interim Provost and Senior Vice President

Texas Tech University

Participants in the Onsite Interview Sessions

(SACS) since 1928. The educator preparation unit has been continuously accredited by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) since 1963.

The unit has submitted a full listing of all educator preparation programs, including administrative home colleges and enrollments. The unit states that it has received a waiver from Specialized Professional Association (SPA) review for the fall 2013 accreditation cycle; however, SPA standards are incorporated into programs. Some programs have been reviewed by other accrediting bodies. In addition to the College of Education, educator preparation programs are also administered by the Colleges of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (Agriculture Education), Arts and Sciences (content preparation), Business Administration (content preparation), Engineering (content preparation), Human Sciences (Early Childhood Education), Mass Communications, and Visual and Performing Arts (Art and Music Education).

I.2 Summary of state partnership that guided this visit (i.e., joint visit, concurrent visit, or an NCATE-only visit). Were there any deviations from the state protocol?

This is an NCATE/CAEP-only legacy visit. The state was informed of the visit by the unit; however, a state evaluation team did not participate in either the offsite or onsite visit. On behalf of NCATE/CAEP, Nate Thomas participated in the offsite and onsite visits as an observer.

I.3 Programs offered at a branch campus, at an off-campus site, or via distance learning. Describe how the team collected information about those programs (e.g., visited selected sites, talked to faculty and candidates via two-way video, etc.). The unit is in the planning process of implementing online teacher preparation programs at sites in Dallas/Fort Worth, Grand Prairie, Houston, Lamesa, New Caney, and San Antonio. These programs will be in place in the fall 2014. As such, these future programs are not part of the current review.

I.4 Unusual circumstances (e.g., weather conditions, readiness of the unit for the visit, other extenuating circumstances) that affected the visit. (Character Limit: 3,000)

Not applicable.

II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK.

The conceptual framework establishes the shared vision for a unit’s efforts in preparing educators to work effectively in P–12 schools. It provides direction for programs, courses, teaching, candidate performance, scholarship, service, and unit accountability. The conceptual framework is knowledge based, articulated, shared, coherent, consistent with the unit and institutional mission, and continuously evaluated.

II.1 Overview of the unit's conceptual framework and how it is integrated across the unit.

The unit reports that a fundamental shift in developing and articulating its conceptual framework has occurred since the last NCATE review in fall 2006. It is designed to realize a revolutionary transformation in educator preparation. The unit states that the conceptual framework has two facets--one focused on process, and the other on outcomes. The process component includes four thrusts: (1) transforming educator preparation; (2) transforming client/university partnerships; (3) transforming educational research; and (4) transforming reward systems. The second aspect of the conceptual

(Confidential) Page 2

framework focuses on the outcome of transformation. The "Integrated Scholar" model carries three major outcomes: (1) producing measurably best educators in the U. S.; (2) collaborating to foster school/agency/community effectiveness, maximizing college and career readiness, health, and success; and (3) conducting intervention research that advances a measured impact on the community the unit serves. In essence, the unit's conceptual framework focuses on the application of academic theories in real world settings. The unit desires that its approach will add value by collaborating with community stakeholders to develop the human capital potential of all students and especially the historically underserved children living in distressed communities.

The unit has developed 12 initiatives for changing its educator preparation. The current conceptual framework attempts to capture the essence of these 12 initiatives as well as the demands for change. The four thrusts and 12 initiatives have become the strategies for the unit to reach its goal of leading a "revolution." The 12 initiatives, in summary, are:

• Curriculum revision;• Construction of comprehensive data warehouses;• Technology development;• Outcome-based resource allocations;• Teacher preparation program's immersion with partner districts;• Formulation of a Global Exemplar School Study Team;• Development of a communications campaign;• Creation of an Office of Program Evaluation and Research Support;• Revision of academic standards to reflect the unit's reform agenda;• Reforming graduate studies;• Strengthening candidate recruitment; and• Assessment of effectiveness of various centers.

The unit further states that a major governance change has occurred in the implementation of the conceptual framework, by establishing a process of "focused accountability." A major driving force in this process is the dean's Executive Council, which consists of 18 standing members of faculty, staff, and administrators, with other individuals and groups represented as warranted. Specific "homework" was assigned each week with identified lead individuals and due dates. Progress was monitored at each subsequent Executive Council meeting. This focused accountability became a major factor in the implementation of the conceptual framework. Further, the review of faculty contracts reveals that, through the fiscal support from the university provost, the unit's accountability measures allows the dean to allocate performance based compensation for program coordinators.

The unit has established specific assessments associated with each of the outcomes. The unit has indicated that the conceptual framework has become the College of Education's strategic goals, aligned with the university's strategic priorities. The exhibit of the alignment table and interviews with the stakeholders have demonstrated there is buy-in from internal and external constituents of the unit. A number of examples mentioned by the unit strongly suggest the unit faculty's approval and the integration of the conceptual framework in their instructions.

Onsite interviews with faculty, candidates, and school and community partners clearly indicate that there is a passionate buy-in and strong commitment to the revised conceptual framework at both initial and advanced program levels. To them, the "revolution represents a renewed consideration of partners by gaining valuable inputs from the community." It is aimed at "energizing the unit's responsibilities and re-conceptualizing educator preparation." The unit constituents state that the new model is focused on struggling schools, and holds the unit accountable for making a difference on the ground level through conversations about assessments and cultural and capacity building. The conceptual framework clearly reflects the university's mission in "preparing learners to be ethical leaders for a diverse and globally

(Confidential) Page 3

competitive workforce;" and the university "is committed to enhancing the cultural and economic development of the state, nation, and world."

III. The Transformation Initiative

III.1 Summary of the Transformation Initiative

The unit states that its transformation initiative is aligned with the strategic goals reflected in the conceptual framework. According to the unit, the Center for Research, Evaluation and Advancement of Teacher Education (CREATE), a consortium of several university systems in Texas, provides an annual Performance Analysis for Colleges of Education (PACE) report. One portion of the 2012 report considered information about school districts within a 75 miles radius of Texas Tech, which is called the Proximal Zone of Professional Influence (PZPI). The majority of the teachers within the PZPI are graduates of the unit. Data of student learning in the districts served by graduates of the unit's programs suggested P-12 students in these districts were performing below the state average. Although there are many factors involved in the student achievement scores, the resultant P-12 student data has prompted more rigorous and clinically-based teacher preparation. Interviews with the unit's school partners reveal that school administrators were reluctant in hiring graduates of the unit before the implementation of the redesigned teacher preparation program--Tech Teach. They stated many of the unit's graduates were not ready to assume teaching and other professional educator positions in struggling schools. This lack of readiness resulted in these graduates leaving their work in such schools for more affluent districts within one of two years of beginning their teaching induction.

Beginning May 2011, initiatives were proposed to transform the unit in achieving its potential as an institution attuned to 21st century educational needs. The unit reports that these reforms have been undertaken with numerous educational partners; have been intended to impact candidate/client success and school/agency improvements; and have become a means to implement the college's strategic priorities and to meet national standards.

The transformation initiative, Tech Teach, is a clinically intensive, competency-based teacher preparation program aimed at improving P-12 student achievement, increasing teacher candidates' qualifications upon entry into their careers, and fostering within candidates the dispositions important to remain and thrive in the teaching profession. This model will completely replace the unit's teacher preparation programs by the fall of 2014. By then, 1,000 candidates will have participated in the pilot phase of the program.

According to the unit, candidates, and its partners, Tech Teach marks a radical departure from its traditional programs by engaging candidates in activities aimed at developing superior instructional competency and professionalism. The unit reports that the transformed program now focuses on helping candidates learn and apply the skills necessary for fostering P-12 student achievement. The Apply and Evaluate (A & E) Assessment approach has been designed and implemented throughout the program. Clinical experiences, including extended placements throughout the program and a full year of student teaching, focus on supporting candidate growth and transition into careers. Through the use of video-capture technology, candidates receive feedback about instructional competency. The unit expects that through the use of a co-teaching model to gain experience, its candidates will develop the qualifications and skills equal or above that of a second year teacher.

The unit has articulated the TI project's three intended outcomes. First, pre-student teaching field-based candidates and student teachers will contribute measurably to P-12 student learning gains. Second, after two years of teaching, Tech Teach graduates will perform above school districts' average for P-12 student gains. Third, teacher candidates and student teachers will be a desired asset to school administrators and mentor teachers, enhancing the academic success of P-12 students in those schools.

(Confidential) Page 4

Tech Teach has posed the following original research questions:

• What is the relation between teacher candidates' teaching competency and their perceived readiness toteach?• What is the relation between teacher candidates' teaching competency and P-12 students' perception ofclassroom climate?• What is the relation between teacher candidates' teaching competency and P-12 student learning gains?• In what ways do teacher candidates' teaching competencies change over time?

The unit is ahead of schedule in implementing the transformation initiative. Originally, it was planned to be in place for all elementary, middle, and secondary participants by fall 2013. However, the project began its implementation in spring 2013. The other significant milestones include that in fall 2011, the unit conducted relevant professional development in co-teaching and began to utilize the System for Teacher and Student Advancement (TAP) rubric; revised program curriculum to reflect "competency" emphasis; and piloted middle-level implementation. In spring 2012, the unit piloted elementary implementation; continued middle-level pilot implementation; and began to phase in secondary implementation. In the fall 2012, the unit began full implementation of the elementary and middle-level programs and continued to phase in the secondary area subjects. In spring 2013, the unit began full implementation in all level pilots. By the fall of 2014, the approach will replace all traditional delivery of teacher preparation offered by the College of Education, and Human Sciences. The Agriculture Education offered by the College of Agriculture Sciences and Natural Resources, and the art and music education programs offered by the College of Visual and Performing Arts have made modifications to incorporate the video components of student teaching in their programs. However, these programs will not adhere to the extensive clinically-based approach.

III.2 Status of TI Implementation

It is evident that the unit has invested resources to significantly transform its traditional teacher preparation program. Such efforts are evidenced by the revised course syllabi, construction of a year-long student teaching infrastructure with the support of its school partners, extended clinical placements throughout the program, and the support documents and assessment system, the Toolbox. The unit is to be commended for the groundwork that it has done so far for the project.

According to the unit, all components of the TI projects are now in place to be fully implemented. Within the curriculum component, course revisions will be completed in spring 2014. All courses will include A & E assignments. The unit is in the process of standardizing the lesson plan template and has held meetings to review and discuss student performances. In the area of clinical placement, the unit has solidified the early clinical placement of one day per week, and student-teaching blocks of four-days per week for the entire school semester calendar. This transition will be completed in spring 2014 for the current pilot in elementary and middle levels, and secondary component has been fully implemented at the time of visit. The unit has appointed Professional Development Facilitators (PDF) to support the site coordinators.

The unit has established memorandum of agreements with districts of Lubbock, Lubbock-Cooper, Roosevelt, Friendship, Dallas, Fort Worth, and North East to offer co-teaching professional development for mentor teachers and teacher candidates prior to student-teaching semester, conduct monthly mentor-teacher meetings on site, use Teachscape for video capture and some content knowledge assessment. The unit has ensured that all teacher education program faculty are TAP certified. It has contracted Cambridge Education and Scantron for production of Tripod, and Haberman Foundation for Star Teacher Survey. The unit has conducted some pre-tests and Star Teacher Survey. The unit has launched the Apply and Evaluate database and the TAP database.

(Confidential) Page 5

The unit has reported some changes in the transformation initiative implementation. While most are normal adjustments between project proposed ideas and the implementation realities, the BOE team has found that the unit's acknowledgement of the difficulty in analyzing data related to the proposed research questions, as well as the examination of data gathered for other purposes, is worth noting. Analysis originally planned with in-house developed programs did not prove feasible. The unit is now contracting for commercial software, Tableau, which will allow the sophisticated level of data analysis required for the transformation initiative.

Interviews with the unit's partner school principals revealed a need for programs offered outside of the College of Education to review their graduate's successes and to begin to adopt the unit's clinically- and competency-based teacher preparation model. Principals' experiences with graduates from these programs suggested these same graduates lacked understanding and skills working in struggling schools resulting in a need for schools to spending a great deal of time remediating deficits in teaching.

Progress of TI ImplementationThis rubric is intended to provide feedback to an EPP on (1) its capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the TI; (b) the level of broad-based involvement of EPP constituencies in the development and proposed implementation of the TI; and (c) review of the goals and assessment plans that result in a successful TI.

Indicator Undefined Emerging Progressing Well-defined

Capability to initiate the plan

No attention given to personnel, budget and other support need to implement and complete the TI.

While some basic information on budgetary, personnel and other needs are presented, some or all of that support is "soft" and not committed to by the unit. Often vague details are provided about personnel, organization control, and budget needs.

Yearly overall budget with basic descriptions of personnel needs including organizational structure needed to carry out the TI

Very detailed budget information, unit commitment of funds clearly indicated. If individuals not yet identified, detailed job descriptions provided that indicate the specific skills and abilities needed for key personnel. Organizational structure shows clear reporting responsibilities and oversight structures.

Capability to implement and complete the plan

No timetable provided for year by year activities including specific actions, budgetary expenditures and assessment/research processes.

Generalized timetable is provided for year by year activities including specific actions, budgetary expenditures and assessment/research processes.

Detailed timetable is provided for year by year activities including specific actions, budgetary expenditures and assessment/research processes.

Very detailed timetable is provided for year by year activities including specific actions, budgetary expenditures and assessment/research processes. Timetable clearly indicates that the TI can be realistically implemented and completed in five years.

Broad-based unit and stakeholder involvement in development of the plan

TI developed by one individual or a small group of individuals not representative of key stakeholders.

TI developed by one individual or a small group; some attention given to obtaining input from others on and off campus but no real

Process used to develop plan involved key stakeholders.

Process used ensured input from all relevant constituencies in developing the plan.

(Confidential) Page 6

involvement.

Broad-based unit and stakeholder involvement in implementation of the plan

No indication of how relevant stakeholders will be involved in implementation.

Implementation of the plan will involve some stakeholders, but carried out by only a few individuals or a single group on campus.

Implementation of the plan will involve key stakeholders. Some involvement activities may be inconsistent with the plan or superficial in design.

Implementation of the plan involves all key stakeholders, and involves all stakeholders consistently and meaningfully.

Identified goalsfor the TI

Goals not present or those stated are not goals but, rather, processes that will be implemented.

Goals include a mix of process and expectedaccomplishments.

Goals deal with expected accomplishments.

Goals are clearly stated and lead to specific, measurable outcomes.

A plan to assess/researchthe achievement of the goals of the TI

Assessment/research plan not present or in not clear in determining expected outcomes and means of assessment/research

Assessment/research plan present, outcomes are often processes that are to be implemented. Assessment/research of goals not directly related to outcomes.

Assessment/research plan is based on clear outcomes, assessment/research methods are appropriate to outcomes

Assessment/research plan is based on clear outcomes. Assessment/research methods are related to outcomes and are direct measures of those outcomes.

Overall Evaluation of the Progress of the TI

When looked at as a whole the progress of the TI clearly does not meet expectations. While one or more areas may be acceptable, the overall plan is inappropriate.

While the overall proposal shows promise, there are significant areas for improvement that must be addressed in a supplemental proposal before the TI is approved or continues.

While there may be weaknesses in one or more of the components the overall plan is acceptable due to the strength of a number of the components.

All components of the plan are acceptable or exceptional. There are no weaknesses.

Capability to initiate the plan Well-defined

Capability to implement and complete the plan Progressing

Broad-based unit and stakeholder involvement in development of the plan Well-defined

Broad-based unit and stakeholder involvement in implementation of the plan Well-defined

Identified goals for the TI Well-defined

A plan to assess/research the achievement of the goals of the TI Progressing

Overall evaluation of the progress of the TI Progressing

III.3 Statement about TI Findings

This is a unique Transformation Initiative project. This project is aimed at completely redesigning the unit's teacher preparation programs by emphasizing a strong school-based clinical experience. According to the unit, it is not a separate initiative to test out a particular aspect of educator preparation. Rather, it is the transformation of the unit's teacher preparation as a whole. Through the process, the unit will embark on the journey to transform its other educator preparation programs, including those at the advanced level. The redesigned Tech Teach program emphasizes cooperative learning in classrooms, and is focused on cultivating a generation of well-prepared teachers ready to work as teacher leaders in high-need schools. The Apply and Evaluate Assessment approach encourages candidates' learning and growth through questioning, thinking, and problem solving. Tech Teach has capitalized on the unit's other grant funded projects in the Lubbock community (such as the East Lubbock Promise

(Confidential) Page 7

Neighborhood, and the i3 Grant) by garnering strong community support.

Interviews with the unit's faculty and administration have indicated a strong desire to make a difference in the equity of educational opportunities for children in the unit's service area. Interviews with community leaders, including local school principals, business owners, and a former city councilman revealed that they welcome such active engagement from the unit and are supporting the unit's involvement. To them, such involvement is "long overdue." They have expressed optimism that the struggling neighborhood has a brighter future because of such collaboration.

In schools, principals who have worked with Tech Teach candidates have indicated that these candidates are of much higher caliber than those from the unit's traditional preparation programs. They possess a deeper understanding of content and content pedagogical knowledge. The extended time spent in schools have allowed them to have a more realistic comprehension of schooling and teaching. Several principals have commented that they have observed a measurable difference of the Tech Teach candidates, and they will now offer employment opportunities to these candidates before they consider candidates from other colleges and universities. Some principals have stated that the teachers who graduated from the first cohort of Tech Teach have already raised their students' achievement level. In a few isolated cases, such gains were greater than those taught by veteran teachers in their schools.

Further, the school principals have reported that the TAP assessment rubric has allowed a much more involved mentor teacher and candidate professional relationship. Not only are the mentor teachers using the instruments to assess the performance of candidates, but also they are using the same instrument for self-improvement and reflection. As a result, some schools have begun to use the TAP assessment rubric and video capture, as part of their teacher evaluation component.

Interviews with the stakeholders have confirmed that the unit is taking active steps to respond to the broad national criticisms of traditional schools of education. The unit has taken a serious self examination and reflection on its own practices of teaching and learning. Through its redesigned Tech Teach program and its active involvement in the community, it appears to be making a positive statement on the relevance of College of Education in the greater Lubbock community.

Once again, interviews with school principals and local community leaders reveal a strong desire that the unit's other educator preparation programs offered outside of the College of Education transform and adopt a stronger clinically-based approach.

III.4 Recommendations on Further Implementation of the TI

Because all components of Tech Teach are in place, the unit is poised to modify the rest of its teacher preparation programs at the College of Education. The Transformation Initiative has prompted a number of changes to the curriculum and field experiences of candidates. One recommendation to consider would be to continue to document the influence of the transformational initiative on educator preparation programs that are housed in other colleges in the unit. Given the expressed interest in documenting the impact of the Tech Teach initiative, it will be important for the unit to measure and engage in collaborative dialogue with partners in the Colleges of Agriculture Sciences and Natural Resources, Visual and Performing Arts, and Human Sciences to judge the impact of the changes on those specific educator preparation programs (e.g., delivering content courses into a more compact timeline, meeting the needs of all candidates in terms of requisite experiences in specific programs, e.g., music education students having to make choices about ensemble performance or field experience). As these arts and sciences partners are also preparing candidates in their specific field (e.g., degree in biology with education added), it is important for the unit to continue to examine the specific needs of those programs and candidates as they collect and interpret research data on the initiative and document research findings.

(Confidential) Page 8

In addition to fine tuning these operational components, during the further implementation phase of the Transformation Initiative, the unit should focus its efforts to gauge the candidates' instructional competencies; their ability to engage P-12 students through the Tripod instrument, and the candidates and graduate's positive impact on student achievement. As a result of the BOE team's discussion with the unit's Tech Teach leadership and research team, the unit has proposed the following four revised research questions to be addressed in the next four years:

I. What did candidates learn about teaching in Tech Teach?

a. What is the relation between beliefs, knowledge and practice?b. How do PST beliefs, knowledge and practice change in Tech Teach?c. What patterns of teaching practices do candidates develop in the course of a competency-basedprogram?)

II. How do the components of the Tech Teach program influence candidates' teaching?

a. What effect does the accountability measure (TAP rubric) have on candidates' performance in thefield?b. In what ways does a competency-based coursework influence beliefs, knowledge and practice?c. In what ways does intensive field experience (more time, clinical analysis, competency-based)influence beliefs, knowledge and practice?

III. What is the influence of candidates' teaching on K-12 student learning?

a. In what ways does candidates' teaching practices influence K-12 student perception of climate?b. In what ways does candidates' teaching practice influence K-12 student achievement?

IV. How can information from Tech Teach be used to select candidates and sites?

a. What is the influence of student background on candidates' teaching practice?b. What is the influence of school context on candidates' teaching practice?

However, onsite interviews further indicate that, because the unit has recently hired an endowed chair to provide research leadership in the Transformation Initiative, the unit should continue to revisit its designated research questions to address the contributions and proposed modifications to the data collected. Specifically, the previous four questions capture a fraction of the rich data and analyses suggested to be conducted in our interviews with research staff. The BOE team believes that the above revised research questions will give the unit a reasonable understanding of the progress of the Tech Teach program and the performance of its candidates, but the unit should be careful and deliberate in debating the validity and feasibility of these questions. The unit has great potential to provide a rich source of evidence-based outcomes for the field and should be encouraged to reexamine their questions to better address this important contribution. Although there is great interest in quickly moving the reform to scale and to conduct analyses to judge the efficacy of the intervention, a methodical and fully mapped implementation, data collection, and analysis plan would likely serve the unit well in plotting the use of resources, the time to carry out the work, and the expected outcomes from the Transformation Initiative. A more in-depth examination of pilot data is warranted to judge the efficacy of the measurement tools utilized in the pilot phases (e.g., Tripod assessment and its developmental appropriateness for young children; use of the TAP measures and the operationalization of the items within it in analyses). Finally, given the changes to the proposed activities (e.g., elimination of randomized control trials, addition of a qualitative component), a matrix which documents the proposed activities and analyses over the next seven years would also be of great benefit to the unit.

(Confidential) Page 9

Finally, since the unit's advanced programs have also embarked on this transformation initiative journey, the unit should systematically identify detailed and specific research questions to gauge their operational successes and candidate performances.

III.5 Next Steps for Reporting to NCATEIn its annual report to the NCATE, the unit should include narratives on its progress in Tech Teach's operational success. In addition, it should report the progress and findings to address the above-stated research questions. The unit should report its progress on designing the research questions for its advanced programs, and methodologies to answer them. The unit should report on how the transformation initiative at the College of Education is impacting on the other educator preparation programs offered by other colleges at the University, such as Agriculture Education, Art and Music Education.

In the fall 2014, the unit plans to launch its online version of Tech Teach to communities of Dallas/Fort Worth, Grand Prairie, Houston, Lamesa, New Caney, and San Antonio. The unit should include data and information on the progresses of these sites.

Standard 1: Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Professional Dispositions

Candidates preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals know and demonstrate the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions necessary to help all students learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

1.1 Findings related to the areas of concern and evidence to be validated that were cited in the offsite BOE report

Before the unit embarked on Tech Teach as its Transformation Initiative, it collected data on its candidate knowledge, skills, dispositions. A review of such data during the onsite visit indicates that over 90 percent of the unit candidates had demonstrated the required content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and skills, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills, and professional dispositions to help student learn. However, interviews with unit faculty, staff, administrators, and partners indicate that the assessments were designed to measure curricular requirements of traditional educator preparation programs. A careful review of the student achievement data in the unit's service area has raised questions of how well the unit was preparing candidates for 21st century classrooms and for struggling schools. The unit's Transformation Initiative is aimed at completely redesigning all of its initial and advanced programs.

The unit's teacher education program includes 13 initial teacher preparation programs. They are bachelor's degree programs in early childhood education, elementary, middle, secondary (6-12) programs in art, biology, chemistry, English, history and government, mathematics; and P-12 endorsements in art, music and physical education/health, and agriculture. Advanced programs include the master's degree for licensed teachers as well as programs for other school professionals and the doctoral degrees.

The IR Addendum provided clarification that the Transformative Initiative (TI) is focusing on Tech Teach but also includes all advanced certification programs and graduate degree programs. During the onsite visit, the unit clearly indicated the implementation of the TI was in response to data from the

(Confidential) Page 10

PACE report showing that student achievement in the Proximal Zone of Professional Influence (PZPI) was lower than state averages. This data was used as a basis for program change for the college.

The resulting program changes and data collection on new assessments began implementation in fall 2013. Transition point assessments with some corresponding data for all programs (including advanced) were provided in the IR Addendum via a modified exhibit titled Transition point assessments. In addition, a data usage report included with the addendum outlined the assessments being implemented for the undergraduate programs. Programs not offered by the College of Education (Art, Music and Agriculture) also collect data to ensure candidates in these programs exhibit qualifications that match those of Tech Teach candidates. Interviews with principals confirm that Agriculture education candidates are sometimes placed in public schools and when they are, they perform well.

A concern noted in the Offsite Report was a lack of assessment data from fall 2012 onward for advanced programs. According to the IR Addendum, fall 2012 data onward were not captured because the college was