Wayne State University

College of Education: Executive Summary

2017 Accreditation of the Initial Certification Program

March 29, 2017

Introduction

The Initial Certification Program in the College of Education is seeking Accreditation from the Council of Accreditation for Educator Preparation (CAEP). CAEP certifies educator preparation program through evidence-based accreditation in order to support continuous improvement in P-12 classroom teaching and learning. We are currently accredited through the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC).  The Program has submitted a Self-Study Report which provides evidence consistent with the 5 standards of CAEP. Data is presented from Fall 2015 through Winter 2017. The process has included feedback from the 5- member CAEP group and an addendum of points of clarification and further documentation. The CAEP team will visit the College on April 9-11, 2017.

Key Stakeholders

The CAEP On-Site visit will consist of meeting with focus groups to gain perspective from all stakeholders involved in the initial certification program. This includes but is not limited to the following: WSU Provost; COE Dean; Assistant Dean of Teacher Education and Academic Services; Director of Office of Clinical Experiences and Office of Accreditation; the Accreditation Advisory Committee; Program Coordinators; Undergraduate, Graduate and Post-Bachelor Students; Completers; Faculty, Clinical Educators; Clinical Partners; and Academic Officers.

The On-Site Visit

On Monday, April 10, 2017, the CAEP review team has asked to meet with the Key Stakeholders in order to obtain further insight in the Self-Study Report submitted August 2016. From 9 am – 6 pm, concurrent focus groups will be conducted throughout the College of Education with the groups presented as Key Stakeholders. The following pages will provide key topics of discussion by Standard and focus group assignments.

Conclusion

The College of Education (COE) mission is to prepare "The Effective Urban Educator: Reflective, Innovative, and Committed to Diversity", which is the driving force behind its commitment to excellence, inclusion, and social justice. Faculty, Staff, and students are eager to provide the CAEP team any information requested to showcase the achievement of our teacher education program.  If you have any questions regarding accreditation and our On-Site visit, please contact the Director of Accreditation at the following information below. For immediate assistance during the On-Site Visit, please contact the TED main phone number at (313) 577-0902.

We thank you for your support and participation in this important showcase of the COE's Initial Certification Program.

Chavon Jameel, PhD

Wayne State University

Director of Accreditation

Phone: (313) 577-0353

Email: al8046@wayne.edu

 

Standard 1. Content and Pedagogical Knowledge

The provider ensures that candidates develop a deep understanding of the critical concepts and principles of their discipline and, by completion, are able to use discipline-specific practices flexibly to advance the learning of all students toward attainment of college- and career-readiness standards.

On-Site Visit Focus Groups: Accreditation Advisory Committee, Mentor Teachers, Clinical Instructional Coaches, Undergraduate, Graduate and Post-Bachelor Teacher Candidates

Substandard

STANDARD 1.1: Demonstrate InTASC Competency (Teaching Standards)

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

1.1 Sources of Evidence include the following: Lesson Plan, Case Study, Formal Observation, and MTTC Scores.

  • InTASC Standards
    • Category 1: The Learner & Learning
    • Category 2: Content Knowledge
    • Category 3: Instructional practice
    • Category 4: Professional Responsibility
Substandard

STANDARD 1.2: Candidates' Use of Research and Evidence

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

1.2 Sources of Evidence include the following: Case Study, Self-Study with Digital Video, E-Portfolio

Substandard

STANDARD 1.3: Content and State Standards Related to Teacher Preparation

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

1.3 Sources of Evidence include the following: State of MI EPI Score Report, State of Michigan Tests –PRE and MTTC Content Specific Scores, TED/Program Review

  • MTTC Scores
Substandard

STANDARD 1.4: P-12 College and Career Ready Standards

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

1.4 Sources of Evidence include the following: Lesson Plan, Formal Observation

  • Discussion of National Standards: Science, Language Arts, Common Core, NCSS, etc.
Substandard

STANDARD 1.5: Technology

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

1.5 Sources of Evidence include the following: Formal Observation, Lesson Plan, Self-Study with Digital Video, E-Portfolio, Technology Rubric

  • Technology Assessment Plan

Conclusion

Multiple data sources provided evidence that completers meet the requirements of CAEP standard 1: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge and its sub-standards. Each of the 5 sub-standards were addressed using evidence from multiple assessments as listed above.  The mean scores for all completers for all assessments were at or above the target score of 85% proficiency as reported in Fall 2015, Winter 2016 and Fall 2016. Program area faculty reviewed disaggregated data to address strengths, weaknesses, and trends.

Standard 2. Clinical Partnerships and Practice

The provider ensures that effective partnerships and high-quality clinical practice are central to preparation so that candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions necessary to demonstrate positive impact on all P-12 students' learning and development.

On-Site Visit Focus Groups: Mentor Teachers, Student Teachers, Office of Clinical Experiences, Clinical Instructional Coaches, Visit to Partner Schools

Substandard

STANDARD 2.1: Partnerships for Clinical Preparation

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

2.1 Sources of Evidence include the following: Partnership and Placement Lists, Memorandum of Understanding, OCE Advisory Board Meeting Minutes

  • Partnering school districts include Dearborn Public Schools, Ferndale Public Schools, University Preparatory Academy (UPrep), Wayne State Early Childhood Centers, and Van Dyke Public Schools
  • Memorandum of Understanding Terms and Enactment
Substandard

STANDARD 2.2: Clinical Educators

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

2.2 Sources of Evidence include the following: Selection Process of Mentor Teachers, Professional Development Dates and Agendas, Field Instructors' SET Scores

  • Professional Development for Clinical Instructional Coaches and Mentor Teachers
  • Standards of Practice for Field Placement
Substandard

STANDARD 2.3: Clinical Experiences

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

2.3 Sources of Evidence include the following: Formal Evaluations, E-Portfolios, Capstone Conversation, EPI Performance Scores

  • Standards of Practice for student teachers
  • Coaching conversations and informal observation practices
  • Formal Clinical observations

Conclusion

 The College of Education's Office of Clinical Experiences (OCE) is charged with building clinical partnerships and providing extensive clinical practice for teacher candidates. The evidence provided demonstrates the proficiency in which teacher candidates are prepared to become educators through school partnerships and their placement with mentor teachers in P-12 classrooms. School partners and OCE work together to provide high quality clinical experiences that will prepare candidates for their future classroom. 

Standard 3. Candidate Quality, Recruitment, and Selectivity


The provider demonstrates that the quality of candidates is a continuing and purposeful part of its responsibility from recruitment, at admission, through the progression of courses and clinical experiences, and to decisions that completers are prepared to teach effectively and are recommended for certification. The provider demonstrates that development of candidate quality is the goal of educator preparation in all phases of the program. This process is ultimately determined by a program's meeting of Standard 4.

On-Site Visit Focus Groups: Academic Services, Accreditation Advisory Committee, Assistant Dean of Teacher Education

Substandard

STANDARD 3.1: Plan for Recruitment of Diverse Candidates Who Meet Employment Needs

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

3.1 Sources of Evidence include the following: Recruitment Activities and Goals, Application and Acceptance Rates, OCE Professional Development, Teach DETROIT, Morris Hood

  • Recruiting process and multiple ways to reach diverse population
Substandard

STANDARD 3.2:  Admission Standards Indicate That Candidates Have High Academic Achievement and Ability

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

3.2 Sources of Evidence include the following: Admission Requirements, GPA Data, Average ACT/SAT Scores

  • Discussion of ACT/SAT scores
  • Strategic Plan to implement ACT/SAT requirement
Substandard

STANDARD 3.3: Additional Selectivity Factors: Non-Academic Measures

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

3.3 Sources of Evidence include the following: Action Plan, Certification Audit

  • Plan for implementing Disposition Monitoring
Substandard

STANDARD 3.4: Selectivity During Preparation

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

3.4 Sources of Evidence include the following: E-Portfolio, Advising via Plan of Work, Level 1 and Level 2 Entry Comparison

  • Process of Monitoring Candidate Performance throughout program
Substandard

STANDARD 3.5: Selection at Completion—Completer Has High Standard of Knowledge

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

3.5 Sources of Evidence include the following: MTTC Scores, Certification Audit, Formal Observation

  • Process of Recommending Candidates for State License
Substandard

STANDARD 3.6: Selection at Completion—Completer Has Understanding of Profession Expectations

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

3.6 Sources of Evidence include the following: Student Teaching Formal Evaluations

  • InTASC Standards Category 4: Professional Responsibility
  • Student Teaching Proficiency Requirements

Conclusion

Wayne State's College of Education (COE) ensures teacher candidate quality by taking ownership of the recruitment, admission, and progression of pre-student and student teachers. The evidence details that teacher candidate quality is a priority of the COE through all phases of preparation and initial certification. This process is a holistic approach in order for the COE to meet the needs of and represent the community and its diverse population.

Standard 4. Program Impact

The provider demonstrates the impact of its completers on P-12 student learning and development, classroom instruction, and schools, and the satisfaction of its completers with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation.

On-Site Visit Focus Groups: Accreditation Advisory Committee, TED 7000 faculty, WSU Provost, COE Dean, Partner School Administration and Alumni

Substandard

STANDARD 4.1: Impact on P-12 Student Learning and Development

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

4.1 Sources of Evidence include the following: Completer Case Study, Completer Test Scores

  • TED 7000 Coursework and Case Study
Substandard

STANDARD 4.2: Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

4.2 Sources of Evidence include the following: Completer Survey, 1 – 5 years out after graduation and certification

  • Winter 2017 Collection of Completer's Observation Scores
Substandard

STANDARD 4.3: Satisfaction of Employers

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

4.3 Sources of Evidence include the following: Case Study, Employer Survey 1 –5 years out after graduation and certification

  • Principal Survey
Substandard

STANDARD 4.4: Satisfaction of Completers

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

4.4 Sources of Evidence include the following: MDE EPI Composite Scores, MDE MACTE Survey

  • State of Michigan survey to completers

Conclusion

This standard is included as part of our selected improvement plan. The program will continue to request feedback and support from the teacher education faculty as we work to offer assurance of program impact on P-12 learners.  We expect the College's data manager to send surveys and report results to the Accreditation Advisory team at the end of each school year for analysis and recommendations.  We anticipate full implementation will take place over the next three years and that the first data results will be made available in May 2017. 

Standard 5. Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement

The provider maintains a quality assurance system comprised of valid data from multiple measures, including evidence of candidates' and completers' positive impact on P-12 student learning and development. The provider supports continuous improvement that is sustained and evidence-based, and that evaluates the effectiveness of its completers. The provider uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhance program elements and capacity, and test innovations to improve completers' impact on P-12 student learning and development.

On-Site Visit Focus Groups: Accreditation Advisory Committee, Assistant Dean of Teacher Education, Program Coordinators, Representatives from School Partners, and Faculty

Substandard

STANDARD 5.1: Quality and Strategic Evaluation – Monitoring Candidate Progress, Completer Achievements & Provider Operational Effectiveness

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

5.1 Sources of Evidence include the following: Complete List of Changes - 1-2015 – 2-2017, Evidence Matrix of all Sources aligned to CAEP, Decision Making Cycle of COE Initial Cert Program, List of Stakeholders Description and Responsibilities

  • Process for Monitoring and Improving program
Substandard

STANDARD 5.2: Quality and Strategic Evaluation: Validity and Reliability

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

5.2 Sources of Evidence include the following: Faculty and Student Assessment Survey, Quantitative Comparative Analysis, Timeline of Revision Dates and Procedures

  • Validation of Assessments and Data Collection process
Substandard

STANDARD 5.3: Continuous Improvement – Systematic Monitoring with Goals and Standards

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

5.3 Sources of Evidence include the following: All Revisions to Assessments, Advisory Team Decisions, Action Plans/Task Lists

  • A review of Program Goals and Standards of Practice
Substandard

STANDARD 5.4: Continuous Improvement: Measures of Completer Impact

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

5.4 Sources of Evidence include the following: Documentation of Results from Monitoring and Using CAEP Annual Reporting Standards

  • Process of implementing Completer and Principal Surveys
Substandard

STANDARD 5.5: Continuous Improvement: Stakeholder Involvement

Program Evidence On-site Visit: Key Topics of Discussion

5.5 Sources of Evidence include the following Office of Clinical Experience Meetings, Content Area Faculty Meetings, Requests for program changes through the State of Michigan

  • How alumni, Partner Schools, and District Representatives are involved in program decision-making

Conclusion

The WSU College of Education employs multiple measures that offers program quality assurance and is committed to continuous improvement. The program reviews and revises the assessments we collect as data of candidate preparedness and systematically monitors candidates as they progress through the certification program. In addition to the Accreditation Advisory Committee which is made up of faculty, teacher education administrators and local school district representatives, the Office of Clinical Experiences has established multiple partnerships in the Metropolitan Detroit area who not only help develop clinical practice for our candidates, they participate with us in professional development to improve the clinical components of our program.