2019-11-20 Practitioner Prep Programs

Home , Briar Cliff University, Clarke University, Mathias Loras

Iowa State Board of Education

Executive Summary

November 20, 2019

Agenda Item: Clarke University Practitioner Preparation Program Approval

State Board Priority: Improving Teacher and Leader Preparation

State Board Role/Authority: The State Board of Education sets standards and approves practitioner preparation programs based on those standards. Iowa Code section 256.7(3) and 281 Iowa Administrative rule 79.5.

Presenter(s): Kris Kilibarda, Consultant Bureau of Leading, Teaching, Learning Services

Attachment(s): One

Recommendation: It is recommended that the State Board award full approval to the Clarke University practitioner preparation program through the next review scheduled for the 2025-2026 academic year. It is recommended that endorsements 5-12 American Government (157), 5-12 All Social Studies (186), and 5-12 Business (115) are approved only for candidates who are currently enrolled in the Clarke University teacher education program.

Background: Clarke University provides teacher preparation programs on their Dubuque campus. The attached report is a summary of the program review and on-site visit in fall 2018 under 281 Iowa Administrative Code chapter 79. Clarke University has met all Chapter 79 standards without condition; therefore, the Department recommends the State Board grant full approval to the Clarke University practitioner preparation program.

Clarke University

Iowa Department of Education Team Report

Preliminary Review: September 12, 2018

Site Visit: November 4-8, 2018

Final Report: November 28, 2018

Presented to the State Board of Education on November 20, 2019

Review Team Members:

Ms. Jamie Boeckman, Iowa State University Ms. Jan Collinson, Upper Iowa University Dr. Kris Kilibarda, Iowa Department of Education Dr. Susie Lubbers, Morningside College Dr. Gabriela Olivares, University of Northern Iowa Dr. Jennifer Rasmussen, Mt Mercy University Dr. Carole Richardson, Iowa Department of Education

In addition to all findings, this report provides a summary of resolutions of compliance concerns only. See the attached appendix (beginning on page 25) for the complete Clarke University responses to recommendations and concerns. Names have been redacted in recommendations and compliance concerns. Note that several exhibits were provided by Clarke to support their response. These exhibits are not included in this report but are available upon request.

Background

Clarke University is a Catholic, coeducational, liberal arts university that traces its foundation to 1843 when Mary Frances Clarke and the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (BVMs) opened St. Mary’s Academy in Dubuque, IA. Clarke was originally intended to be a “female academy” and was not only the first college for women in Iowa, but also one of the first women's colleges west of the Mississippi River. Clarke became co-educational in 1979.

The university has been accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association since 1918. In that same year, the Education Department was accredited by the Iowa Department of Public Instruction. To reflect the broad spectrum of leaners and the growing number of graduate programs, on August 1, 2010, Clarke College officially became Clarke University.

Clarke has approximately 1,039 students of which approximately 130 are students in the education department. The education department offers endorsements in elementary education, reading, special education, and many secondary areas. The core of the education program is the Professional Development School (PDS). The structure of the Clarke PDS partnership allows students to take methods courses and complete clinical experiences on-site at local schools. Education majors complete one to four PDS semesters, depending on endorsements; and each PDS is taught by two professors in residence.

Clarke University also offers a 4+1 program which is designed for students who desire to complete their undergraduate degree and proceed directly into a one-year, practicum-based master’s degree through the institution. In addition, the Early Access program offers eligible students the ability to complete graduate credit while in their undergraduate degree program if they meet rigorous eligibility requirements.

Acknowledgements

Team members would like to express their gratitude to the Clarke University community for their hospitality and assistance in facilitating the team’s work. The tasks associated with the review process necessitate intense focus by reviewers during a concentrated period of time. Everyone we encountered graciously responded to our questions and requests for materials. We interacted with a wide variety of individuals who demonstrated enthusiasm, professionalism, and dedication to this program.

The team expresses its appreciation for the work of all involved with a special thank you to those whose roles were integral in the success of this visit. Some of those people are:

Sr. Joanne Burrows, President Dr. Susan Burns, Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Paula Schmidt, Dean for the College of Professional and Graduate Studies Dr. Ann Adkins, Education Department Chair Dr. Becky Bodish, Education Department Faculty Ms. Lisa Dursky, Education Department Faculty Dr. Angela Fay, Education Department Faculty Ms. Beth Putnam, Education Department Faculty Dr. Ellen Spencer, Education Department Faculty Ms. Cathy Stierman, Education Department Faculty Ms. Jo Ann Rust, Education Office Manager

GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES

281—79.10(256) Governance and resources standard. Governance and resources adequately support the preparation of practitioner candidates to meet professional, state and institutional standards in accordance with the following provisions. 79.10(1) A clearly understood governance structure provides guidance and support for all educator preparation programs in the unit. 79.10(2) The professional education unit has primary responsibility for all educator preparation programs offered by the institution through any delivery model. 79.10(3) The unit’s conceptual framework establishes the shared vision for the unit and provides the foundation for all components of the educator preparation programs. 79.10(4) The unit demonstrates alignment of unit standards with current national professional standards for educator preparation. Teacher preparation must align with InTASC standards. Leadership preparation programs must align with ISSL standards. 79.10(5) The unit provides evidence of ongoing collaboration with appropriate stakeholders. There is an active advisory committee that is involved semiannually in providing input for program evaluation and continuous improvement. 79.10(6) When a unit is a part of a college or university, there is ongoing collaboration with the appropriate departments of the institution, especially regarding content knowledge. 79.10(7) The institution provides resources and support necessary for the delivery of quality preparation program(s). The resources and support include the following: a. Financial resources; facilities; appropriate educational materials, equipment and library services; and commitment to a work climate, policies, and faculty/staff assignments which promote/support best practices in teaching, scholarship and service; b. Resources to support professional development opportunities; c. Resources to support technological and instructional needs to enhance candidate learning; d. Resources to support quality clinical experiences for all educator candidates; and e. Commitment of sufficient administrative, clerical, and technical staff. 79.10(8) The unit has a clearly articulated appeals process, aligned with the institutional policy, for decisions impacting candidates. This process is communicated to all candidates and faculty. 79.10(9) The use of part-time faculty and graduate students in teaching roles is purposeful and is managed to ensure integrity, quality, and continuity of all programs. 79.10(10) Resources are equitable for all program components, regardless of delivery model or location.

Initial Team Finding: Met

Met Pending Conditions Noted X

Not Met

Commendations/Strengths: ● There is evidence of strong, ongoing collaboration with stakeholders. Classroom teachers in the Professional Development Schools (PDS) indicate they have a high

level of involvement with Clarke faculty in identifying instructional units/activities and in providing feedback to candidates and/or the faculty.

● There is evidence from all stakeholder groups (University administration, content faculty, candidates, local administrators, alumni) that the unit is held in high regard. Data suggest faculty modeling best practices, relationship-building, and the PDS structure as program highlights. Evidence of high regard include a former department chair being named the Dean for the College of Professional Studies and faculty members serving on key institutional task forces such as strategic planning and core revision.

● Restructuring to a College of Arts and Sciences and a College of Professional Studies has raised the identity and visibility of the professional programs as well as increased the efficiency of high-level communications/decisions (i.e. schedules, resource allocation) with the undergraduate and graduate components of the unit. The institution has clearly recognized the importance of the unit’s voice to be represented in both colleges. A unit member serves on the curriculum committee of the Arts and Science Department and any curricular changes that are brought forth to the Arts and Sciences curriculum committee that have a potential impact on the unit are brought to the unit for review prior to submission to the committee.

● The institutional mission and Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM) Core Values guide the unit’s work as evidenced in a focus on candidate dispositions and in place-based learning.

● The collaborative agreements for library/media resources with the University of Dubuque was identified as a strength by staff, instructors and the Library Director.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.) 1. 79.10(1) In interviews with faculty, candidates and student teachers, there were concerns expressed about communication between the unit and art/music content areas. Art and music candidates and faculty indicate that candidates don’t clearly see themselves as part of the unit. The team recommends the unit evaluate policies for communication with art and music programs and make adjustments as indicated.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.10(3) The conceptual framework, underlying research, and PDS mission statement have not been updated since 2011. In addition, the team does not find evidence of how the faculty defines and determines the best practices upon which to base the unit’s instructional and programmatic decisions. These should be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure all faculty and candidates are not just experiencing the framework through practical aspects at the PDS but that there is a deep understanding and support for the theoretical basis and that that basis is grounded in the most current research. The team suggests looking at not only research on professional development schools but also on place-based learning and experiential learning when reviewing/revising the framework. The team requires the unit develop and implement a plan for reviewing and revising the conceptual framework, underlying research and PDS mission statement to ensure all members of the unit have consensus regarding the central tenets of the TEP.

Resolution of Concern #1: The unit is undergoing a focused and purposeful examination of the conceptual framework. This examination includes analyzing and revising each component of the framework and bringing in an outside expert in professional development schools (PDS) to facilitate the examination and identification of both historical and current best practices regarding place-based learning. Additionally, the unit developed a policy and procedure to annually review the conceptual framework and to engage in an in-depth review every three years. The team considers this standard MET.

Resolution of Concern #2: The unit, in collaboration with the institution, has updated polices and made changes to the governance and resources structures to ensure the sustainability of a high-quality teacher education program. These include: ● The unit received permission to hire a new, half-time staff member in fall, 2019. This staff member will serve as the licensure officer and will be responsible for maintaining/updating curriculum exhibits, arranging non-PDS clinicals, and managing student teaching placements. The half-time allocation is an overall increase of three credit-hours of load for these duties. In addition, this staff member will receive a stipend for work that is completed in the summer. This new position will allow the faculty member who was previously responsible for this role to engage in other faculty duties. ● A faculty member has been identified as the unit assessment coordinator and the institution has granted release time for this position. ● The unit re-examined the PDS sequence and scheduling. This examination led to an annual rotation of some PDS experiences which will allow two faculty members to assist with other courses. The team considers this standard MET.

NOTE: The Iowa Department of Education consultants will conduct a follow up visit one year from the time of Board action to ensure plans were properly implemented.

Sources of Information: Interviews with:

President, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Vice President for Business and Finance, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Dean of the College of Professional Studies, Director of Admissions, Teacher Advisory Board, local administrators, adjunct faculty, alumni, content faculty from arts and sciences, unit faculty, Library Director

Review of: ● Unit Handbooks ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X

Met Pending Conditions Noted

Not Met

DIVERSITY

281—79.11(256) Diversity standard. The environment and experiences provided for practitioner candidates support candidate growth in knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help all students learn in accordance with the following provisions. 79.11(1) The institution and unit work to establish a climate that promotes and supports diversity. 79.11(2) The institution’s and unit’s plans, policies, and practices document their efforts in establishing and maintaining a diverse faculty and student body.

Initial Team Finding: Met X

Met Pending Conditions Noted

Not Met

● The team finds evidence of participation in city-wide initiatives focused on cultural awareness and appreciation through Inclusive Dubuque efforts and collaborative partnerships with other local universities.

● The team finds the institution recognized a need to enhance the campus diversity climate and provided both required and optional professional development sessions to faculty and staff focused on the support of underrepresented populations on campus.

● The team finds the institution is working to increase diversity on campus through the use of scholarship funds to recruit students from underrepresented groups.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

3. 79.11(2): While university policies are in place to promote the recruitment of diverse students, the team finds little evidence of existing student diversity within the TEP unit. The team recommends that efforts to promote the TEP program and attract underrepresented populations continue at both the university and unit levels.

Concerns:

None.

Sources of Information: Interviews with: ● Director of Admissions, Registrar, Vice President for Student Life, TEP faculty, staff, alumni Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Student records ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students

Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X

Met Pending Conditions Noted

Not Met

FACULTY

281—79.12(256) Faculty standard. Faculty qualifications and performance shall facilitate the professional development of practitioner candidates in accordance with the following provisions. 79.12(1) The unit defines the roles and requirements for faculty members by position. The unit describes how roles and requirements are determined. 79.12(2) The unit documents the alignment of teaching duties for each faculty member with that member’s preparation, knowledge, experiences and skills. 79.12(3) The unit holds faculty members accountable for teaching prowess. This accountability includes evaluation and indicators for continuous improvement. 79.12(4) The unit holds faculty members accountable for professional growth to meet the academic needs of the unit. 79.12(5) Faculty members collaborate with: a. Colleagues in the unit; b. Colleagues across the institution; c. Colleagues in PK-12 schools/agencies/learning settings. Faculty members engage in professional education and maintain ongoing involvement in activities in preschool and elementary, middle, or secondary schools. For faculty members engaged in teacher preparation, activities shall include at least 40 hours of teaching at the appropriate grade level(s) during a period not exceeding five years in duration.

Initial Team Finding: Met

Met Pending Conditions Noted X

Not Met

Commendations/Strengths: ● Clarke Teacher Education Program has extremely strong faculty. Area administrators indicate they depend on Clarke faculty to provide their teachers with professional learning regarding best practices. TEP faculty are knowledgeable, demonstrate compassion and dedication, and are committed to remaining current in their fields.

● The faculty and the relationships they have built within the unit, with the students, and within the PDS community are exceptional strengths for the program.

● Collaboration within the PDS is a strength and a factor in the success of that model. The students refer to the instructors almost as one unit rather than two individuals. Each instructor knows what is going on at all times, both in the University classroom and in the classrooms where students are placed for clinical experiences.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.12(2) The team finds evidence that a faculty member (ES) has an endorsement in Special Education but has limited experience in teaching special education at the K-8 level. The faculty member is listed under special education in the organizational chart and currently teaches or co-teaches courses in special education. The team recommends she looks for opportunities to gain additional teaching experience, specifically at the K-8 level. In addition, the team finds that one faculty member (CS) has minimal knowledge, preparation and experiences aligned with the course she is co-teaching, EDUC 362 Adolescent Literacy. The team recommends the unit reviews the co-teaching structure for this course.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.12(5)c. The team does not find documented evidence that all part-time faculty members are maintaining recent and ongoing collaboration with colleagues in PK-12 schools. The team requires the unit to ensure all faculty complete 40 hours of team teaching within five years. Team teaching activities should include active engagement in the teaching, learning, and assessment process with P-12 students.

Resolution of Concern #1: The unit developed an Education Department Faculty Policy and Procedure Handbook which articulates the unit’s expectations and timelines associated with the 40-hour requirements for all full and part-time faculty members. The unit also developed and is implementing a plan for all faculty to be held accountable for annual progress on meeting the 40-hour requirement. The team considers this standard MET.

NOTE: The Iowa Department of Education consultants will conduct a follow up visit one year from the time of Board action to ensure plans were properly implemented.

Sources of Information: Interviews with:

● Candidates ● Unit Faculty ● Adjunct Faculty Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Student records ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X

Met Pending Conditions Noted

Not Met

ASSESSMENT

281—79.13(256) Assessment system and unit evaluation standard. The unit’s assessment system shall appropriately monitor individual candidate performance and use that data in concert with other information to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs in accordance with the following provisions. 79.13(1) The unit has a clearly defined, cohesive assessment system. 79.13(2) The assessment system is based on unit standards. 79.13(3) The assessment system includes both individual candidate assessment and comprehensive unit assessment. 79.13(4) Candidate assessment includes clear criteria for: a. Entrance into the program (for teacher education, this includes a pre-professional skills test offered by a nationally recognized testing service. Institutions must deny admission to any candidate who does not successfully meet the institution’s passing score requirement). b. Continuation in the program with clearly defined checkpoints/gates. c. Admission to clinical experiences (for teacher education, this includes specific criteria for admission to student teaching). d. Program completion (for teacher education, this includes testing described in Iowa Code section 256.16; see sub rule 79.15(5) for required teacher candidate assessment). 79.13(5) Individual candidate assessment includes all of the following: a. Measures used for candidate assessment are fair, reliable, and valid. b. Candidates are assessed on their demonstration/attainment of unit standards. c. Multiple measures are used for assessment of the candidate on each unit standard. d. Candidates are assessed on unit standards at different developmental stages. e. Candidates are provided with formative feedback on their progress toward attainment of unit standards. f. Candidates use the provided formative assessment data to reflect upon and guide their

development/growth toward attainment of unit standards. g. Candidates are assessed at the same level of performance across programs, regardless of the place or manner in which the program is delivered. 79.13(6) Comprehensive unit assessment includes all of the following: a. Individual candidate assessment data on unit standards, as described in sub rule 79.13(5), are analyzed. b. The aggregated assessment data are analyzed to evaluate programs. c. Findings from the evaluation of aggregated assessment data are used to make program improvements. d. Evaluation data are shared with stakeholders. e. The collection, aggregation, analysis, and evaluation of assessment data described in this sub rule take place on a regular cycle. 79.13(7) The unit shall conduct a survey of graduates and their employers to ensure that the graduates are well-prepared, and the data shall be used for program improvement. 79.13(8) The unit regularly reviews, evaluates, and revises the assessment system. 79.13(9) The unit annually reports to the department such data as is required by the state and federal governments.

Initial Team Finding: Met

Met Pending Conditions Noted X

Not Met

● The team finds the unit is collecting a large amount of data. However, the data is not being used systematically to inform program decisions nor individual candidate assessment.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

2. 79.13(5)f The team finds that candidates are given many opportunities to reflect on artifacts that demonstrate their understanding of unit (InTASC) standards in a

candidate-developed portfolio. The team finds, however, that candidates are unsure of the purpose of the portfolio process. The team recommends that the unit continue to include multiple opportunities for reflection. However, the team recommends that the unit review and re-evaluate the purpose of the candidate portfolio to ensure it is a meaningful form of feedback for candidates. This may be in addition to or incorporated as a part of a more systematic performance- based candidate assessment system.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.) 1. 79.13(1) Evidence indicates a lack of a clearly defined, cohesive assessment system used by faculty, staff and students for the teacher education program. The following statements describe evidence or lack of evidence to articulate this concern: ● 79.13(5)a The team did not find evidence of methods used to determine if student assessment measures/tools are fair, reliable, and valid. The team requires the unit develop and implement methods of determining all assessment measures are valid, fair and reliable. ● 79.13(5)b The team found evidence that candidates are evaluated on understanding of unit standards, but did not find evidence that candidates are assessed on their demonstration of unit standards. The team requires the unit develop and implement assessments that are performance-based and aligned with unit standards. ● 79.13(5)e The team did not find evidence that candidates are provided with formative feedback on their progress toward attainment of unit standards. The team requires the unit develop and implement performance-based assessments that provide meaningful feedback to candidates to guide their development of proficiency on unit standards. ● 79.13(6)e The team did not find evidence that the unit systematically aggregates, analyzes and evaluates assessment data to make program improvements. The team requires the unit to develop and implement policies for regularly collecting, aggregating and evaluating candidate performance data for continuous program improvement. ● 79.13(8) The team did not find evidence that the unit regularly reviews, evaluates, and revises the assessment system. The team requires the unit develop and implement a regular routine for reviewing and evaluating its assessment system and to make revisions as needed.

2. 79.13(4) The criteria for program admission and progression are clear, however, the team finds evidence that the unit does not have and/or does not always follow or communicate standardized policies and procedures. For example, there is an option for candidates to enroll in PDS for one semester on a contract. However, there was no evidence of clear, documented policy/procedure for how and why candidates are placed on contract. There is also evidence from faculty/student interviews that at least some candidates have been allowed to be on a contract for more than one semester. The team requires the unit develop, communicate, implement and monitor consistent policies for teacher education program admission and progression.

Resolution of Concern #1: The unit has implemented several steps to improve their assessment system: ● A unit faculty member has been identified to serve as the new assessment coordinator and this unit member will receive release time for this role. ● The unit developed and began implementing a new assessment policy and procedures at all PDS locations and in all methods courses. The new policy both formalizes and streamlines the assessment process and provides an avenue that allows the education department to aggregate and systemize feedback across PDS sites. In addition, to ensure there is consistent and systematic feedback, the same assessment tools are being used across all PDS and in all methods courses. ● The unit has developed an assessment plan that includes multiple opportunities, in clinical experiences and methods courses, for candidates to demonstrate progress toward meeting unit/InTASC standards. In the newly developed system, candidates receive and use performance-based feedback at various times as they progress through the program. ● The unit has developed and is implementing policies to regularly review candidate performance data, to use candidate performance data in making programmatic decisions, and to review and revise the assessment system. The team considers this standard MET.

Resolution of Concern #2: The unit has developed and is implementing a policy for initiating and monitoring student contracts. This policy is included in the new Education Department Faculty Policy and Procedures Handbook and has been communicated to all faculty and candidates. The unit chair will be responsible for ensuring all student contracts are documented and are compliant with the unit’s written policy.

The team considers this standard MET.

NOTE: The Iowa Department of Education consultants will conduct a follow up visit one year from the time of Board action to ensure plans were properly implemented.

Sources of Information: Interviews with: ● Candidates ● Unit Faculty ● Adjunct Faculty Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Student records ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X

Met Pending Conditions Noted

Not Met

TEACHER EDUCATION CLINICAL PRACTICE

281—79.14(256) Teacher preparation clinical practice standard. The unit and its school partners shall provide field experiences and student teaching opportunities that assist candidates in becoming successful teachers in accordance with the following provisions. 79.14(1) The unit ensures that clinical experiences occurring in all locations are well- sequenced, supervised by appropriately qualified personnel, monitored by the unit, and integrated into the unit standards. These expectations are shared with teacher candidates, college/university supervisors, and cooperating teachers. 79.14(2) PK-12 school partners and the unit share responsibility for selecting, preparing, evaluating, supporting, and retaining both: a. High‐quality college/university supervisors, and b. High-quality cooperating teachers. 79.14(3) Cooperating teachers and college/university supervisors share responsibility for evaluating the teacher candidates’ achievement of unit standards. Clinical experiences are structured to have multiple performance‐based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates’ attainment of unit standards. 79.14(4) Teacher candidates experience clinical practices in multiple settings that include diverse groups and diverse learning needs. 79.14(5) Teacher candidates admitted to a teacher preparation program must complete a

minimum of 80 hours of pre-student teaching field experiences, with at least 10 hours occurring prior to acceptance into the program. 79.14(6) Pre-student teaching field experiences support learning in context and include all of the following: a. High-quality instructional programs for PK-12 students in a state-approved school or educational facility. b. Opportunities for teacher candidates to observe and be observed by others and to engage in discussion and reflection on clinical practice. c. The active engagement of teacher candidates in planning, instruction, and assessment. 79.14(7) The unit is responsible for ensuring that the student teaching experience for initial licensure: a. Includes a full-time experience for a minimum of 14 consecutive weeks in duration during the teacher candidate’s final year of the teacher preparation program. b. Takes place in the classroom of a cooperating teacher who is appropriately licensed in the subject area and grade level endorsement for which the teacher candidate is being prepared. c. Includes prescribed minimum expectations and responsibilities, including ethical behavior, for the teacher candidate. d. Involves the teacher candidate in communication and interaction with parents or guardians of students in the teacher candidate’s classroom. e. Requires the teacher candidate to become knowledgeable about the Iowa teaching standards and to experience a mock evaluation, which shall not be used as an assessment tool by the unit, performed by the cooperating teacher or a person who holds an Iowa evaluator license. f. Requires collaborative involvement of the teacher candidate, cooperating teacher, and college/university supervisor in candidate growth. This collaborative involvement includes biweekly supervisor observations with feedback. g. Requires the teacher candidate to bear primary responsibility for planning, instruction, and assessment within the classroom for a minimum of two weeks (ten school days). h. Includes a written evaluation procedure, after which the completed evaluation form is included in the teacher candidate’s permanent record. 79.14(8) The unit annually offers one or more workshops for cooperating teachers to define the objectives of the student teaching experience, review the responsibilities of the cooperating teacher, and provide the cooperating teacher other information and assistance the unit deems necessary. The duration of the workshop shall be equivalent to one day. 79.14(9) The institution enters into a written contract with the cooperating school or district providing clinical experiences, including field experiences and student teaching.

Initial Team Finding: Met X

Met Pending Conditions Noted

Not Met

Commendations/Strengths: ● The team concludes that the Professional Development School model used by the Clarke TEP could serve as an exemplar for the field of teacher preparation in the 17

region, as well as in the larger professional community. The unit should consider avenues for capitalizing on the success of this model to identify Clarke as a premier teacher education program.

● The solid implementation of clinical experiences within the PDS model is an especially strong component of the Clarke TEP.

● The program provides an extraordinary number of engaging and authentic teaching opportunities to pre-service teachers.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

2. 79.14(3) The team finds no evidence that the feedback/assessment used in clinical experiences indicates increasing expectations as students move along in their program. The team recommends the unit evaluate the expectations of candidate performance in clinical experiences are make any needed adjustments to support a developmental sequence of candidate growth and expectations.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

None.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: ● Students, Unit faculty, Content Area Faculty, Principals Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Student records ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X

Met Pending Conditions Noted

Not Met

TEACHER EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS

19 classroom management addressing high-risk behaviors including, but not limited to, behaviors related to substance abuse. 79.15(3) Each teacher candidate demonstrates competency in literacy, to include reading theory, knowledge, strategies, and approaches; and integrating literacy instruction into content areas. The teacher candidate demonstrates competency in making appropriate accommodations for students who struggle with literacy. Demonstrated competency shall address the needs of all students, including but not limited to, students with disabilities; students who are at risk of academic failure; students who have been identified as gifted and talented or limited English proficient; and students with dyslexia, whether or not such students have been identified as children requiring special education under Iowa Code chapter 256B. Literacy instruction shall include evidence-based best practices, determined by research, including that identified by the Iowa reading research center. 79.15(4) Each unit defines unit standards (aligned with InTASC standards) and embeds them in courses and field experiences. 79.15(5) Each teacher candidate demonstrates competency in all of the following professional core curricula: a. Learner development. The teacher understands how learners grow and develop, recognizing that patterns of learning and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas, and designs and implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences. b. Learning differences. The teacher uses understanding of individual differences and diverse cultures and communities to ensure inclusive learning environments that enable each learner to meet high standards. c. Learning environments. The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative learning, and that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation. d. Content knowledge. The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and creates learning experiences that make the discipline accessible and meaningful for learners to assure mastery of the content. e. Application of content. The teacher understands how to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues. f. Assessment. The teacher understands and uses multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own growth, to monitor learner progress, and to guide the teacher’s and learner’s decision making. g. Planning for instruction. The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross- disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as well as knowledge of learners and the community context. h. Instructional strategies. The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop deep understanding of content areas and their connections, and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways. i. Professional learning and ethical practice. The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning and uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (learners, families, other professionals, and the community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each learner. j. Leadership and collaboration. The teacher seeks appropriate leadership roles and opportunities to take responsibility for student learning, to collaborate with learners, families, colleagues, other school professionals, and community members to ensure learner growth, and to advance the profession. k. Technology. The teacher candidate effectively integrates technology into instruction to support student learning.

l. Methods of teaching. The teacher candidate understands and uses methods of teaching that have an emphasis on the subject and grade-level endorsement desired. 79.15(6) Each teacher candidate must either meet or exceed a score above the 25th percentile nationally on subject assessments designed by a nationally recognized testing service that measure pedagogy and knowledge of at least one subject area as approved by the director of the department of education, or the teacher candidate must meet or exceed the equivalent of a score above the 25th percentile nationally on an alternate assessment also approved by the director. That alternate assessment must be a valid and reliable subject-area- specific, performance-based assessment for preservice teacher candidates that is centered on student learning. 79.15(7) Each teacher candidate must complete a 30-semester-hour teaching major which must minimally include the requirements for at least one of the basic endorsement areas, special education teaching endorsements, or secondary level occupational endorsements. Additionally, each elementary teacher candidate must also complete a field of specialization in a single discipline or a formal interdisciplinary program of at least 12 semester hours. Each teacher candidate meets all requirements established by the board of educational examiners for any endorsement for which the teacher candidate is recommended. 79.15(8) Each teacher candidate demonstrates competency in content coursework directly related to the Iowa Core. 79.15(9) Programs shall submit curriculum exhibit sheets for approval by the board of educational examiners and the department.

Initial Team Finding: Met X

Met Pending Conditions Noted

Not Met

● Elementary and secondary candidates who participate in PDS receive strong preparation in the instruction of literacy. Multiple opportunities to teach literacy lessons are provided.

● Candidates demonstrate solid awareness of InTASC standards, which are infused throughout the professional core curriculum, especially in the PDS integrated coursework. Candidates report that the connection between theory and practice is important to their development and perceive this as a strength of the program.

● Those candidates who select the edTPA as their program completion assessment indicate they receive strong support as they prepare for the edTPA. Faculty and

candidates value the Professional Learning Community (PLC) process used throughout the program which is focused on the rubrics used to score edTPA Portfolios.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

3. 79.15(2) The team did not find evidence that candidates were well-prepared to teach students who are gifted and talented, English language learners or students identified as at risk. Student teachers indicated that they had observed students with these needs, but did not report that they had been provided with specific strategies to meet their needs. The initial response to the team’s feedback indicated that these topics were addressed in two of the elementary PDS experiences. However, this is not consistently received by all candidates in the program. The team recommends the unit evaluate curriculum and make adjustments as needed to ensure all candidates are well prepared to meet the needs of students who are talented and gifted, English language learners or students identified as at risk.

6. 79.15(4) The team notes that while there is a curriculum map included in the artifacts, the document is dated 2013. It is recommended that the unit update this document to reflect current practice. Additionally, many courses on the matrix are connected to every InTASC standard. The team recommends the unit consider identifying a sequence that emphasizes priority standards aligned with courses.

8. 79.15(5) The team noted that while the PDS experiences were well-organized and planned individually, additional articulation among PDS experiences may strengthen the program. Students reported that they moved through the PDS sites in varying sequences and described differing experiences related to this sequence. Faculty reported that they had different expectations for students who were in their first, second or third PDS experience. It was not clear how these expectations were defined, communicated and/or monitored to assure that students make adequate progress toward competency prior to student teaching.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

None.

NOTE:

Clarke University’s curriculum exhibits submitted as a component of this review are approved, with the exception of curriculum exhibits for endorsements in 5-12 American Government (157), 5-12 All Social Studies (186), and 5-12 Business (115). Candidates currently enrolled in these three endorsements under previously approved curriculum exhibits are authorized to complete the program of study and be recommended for licensure. No new candidates may be admitted into these endorsement programs until updated endorsements are approved.

Sources of Information: Interviews with: ● Advisory Council members, candidates, unit faculty Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Academic Catalog ● Advising Guides ● Student records ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X

Met Pending Conditions Noted

Not Met

Appendix: Clarke University Response to Team Report

Clarke University

Response to the Team Report: May 13, 2019

Presented to: Dr. Kris Kilibarda, Iowa Department of Education

Preliminary Review: September 12, 2018

Site Visit: November 4-8, 2018

Final Report: November 28, 2018

Acknowledgements

The team expresses its appreciation for the work of all involved with a special thank you to those whose roles were integral in the success of this visit. Some of those people are:

GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES

Initial Team Finding: Met

Met Pending Conditions X Noted

Not Met

Commendations/Strengths: ● There is evidence of strong, ongoing collaboration with stakeholders. Classroom teachers in the Professional Development Schools (PDS) indicate they have a high level of involvement with Clarke faculty in identifying instructional units/activities and in providing feedback to candidates and/or the faculty. ● There is evidence from all stakeholder groups (University administration, content faculty, candidates, local administrators, alumni) that the unit is held in high regard. Data suggest faculty modeling best practices, relationship-building, and the PDS structure as program highlights. Evidence of high regard include a former department chair being named the Dean for the College of Professional Studies and faculty members serving on key institutional task forces such as strategic planning and core revision. ● Restructuring to a College of Arts and Sciences and a College of Professional Studies has raised the identity and visibility of the professional programs as well as increased the efficiency of high-level communications/decisions (i.e. schedules, resource allocation) with the undergraduate and graduate components of the unit. The institution has clearly recognized the importance of the unit’s voice to be represented in both colleges. A unit member serves on the curriculum committee of the Arts and Science Department and any curricular changes that are brought forth to the Arts and Sciences curriculum committee that have a potential impact on the unit are brought to the unit for review prior to submission to the committee. ● The institutional mission and Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM) Core Values guide the unit’s work as evidenced in a focus on candidate dispositions and in place-based learning. ● The collaborative agreements for library/media resources with the University of Dubuque was identified as a strength by staff, instructors and the Library Director.

evaluate policies for communication with art and music programs and make adjustments as indicated. Clarke Response: Art and music students complete the required core education courses along with other students in the department. Due to the differences in clinical placements and content load between their programs, it is easy to see how students might feel disconnected. As a department we work very hard to keep art and music education students informed of happenings in the Education Department. As seen in the organizational chart included in the original report, the licensure officer, department chair and office manager share communication duties with the art and music programs. The licensure officer is most commonly the vehicle for communication, as the responsibilities associated with this position include overseeing field placements and the fulfillment of licensing requirements. As a result, of the institution’s restructuring, both Art and Music share a department chair which will make communication easier. The office manager does include art and music education students in all email communications with the Education students. Students in art and music are invited to take part in the Teachers for Tomorrow student organization that is sponsored by the department. Advising art and music education students is shared between the Education Department and an advisor in the student’s major area. Members of the Art and Music Departments are also represented on the Educational Advisory Committee. Links: Education Department Organizational chart (from IR 2017-2018) Education Department Organizational chart (for 2019-2020)

2. 79.10(2): The team finds evidence that the unit does not have and/or does not always follow standardized policies and procedures. It is also not clear how policies/procedures are communicated within the unit and with candidates. Data suggest this communication is typically through face-to-face communication or informal emails and not through a formal policy or communication channel. The team recommends the unit develop written policies, and communicate and monitor policies consistently throughout the teacher education program. Clarke Response: Through the accreditation process, the Education Department faculty re- evaluated current procedures in this area. Though there are some documented policies, it was discovered that there is not a formal/central location where this information is contained. Because the department has some longevity among faculty, policies and procedures have been communicated orally, through email, or other informal methods as initially discovered by the team. To remedy this, the department is collecting current policies, reorganizing, and recording departmental policies in a new handbook for all faculty to follow. The new handbook is titled “Education Faculty Policies and Procedures Handbook.” Many of the practices and structures being recorded in the policy and procedures handbook are current practice, but not officially recorded anywhere. It should be noted that this is a work in progress that will continue as the policies and procedures are articulated and will be purposefully recorded in this new handbook. Currently, catalog policies are in place for general academic

information in the Academic Catalog. No unit policies will override university policies.

Below is an example of a policy that has always been in place, however, not documented. Please find a complete listing, to date, of the handbook here.

Example of a documented procedure that will take place at the beginning of the academic year for both faculty and students regarding the Teacher Education Handbook:

Faculty: All faculty regardless of status (full-time, part-time, and adjunct) will be given an updated copy of the Education Department Teacher Education Handbook within the first two weeks of the fall semester. This disbursement can be electronic as necessary. For full-time faculty, time shall be allotted at initial department meetings each fall to review, revise, and update current policies and practices.

Students: Students will receive a copy of the Education Department Teacher Education Handbook in their first education class (EDUC 100 Introduction to Reflective Teaching). Information contained there within will be covered with students ensuring they are privy to all departmental policies and procedures of the Education Department. Once students have covered the material with course instructor they will be required to sign receipt of the handbook and this form is contained in their permanent file. Receipt of handbook form can be found here.

3. 79.10 (5) It is not clear what data the advisory committee uses to inform its work nor is it clear how input from the advisory committee is used by the unit. The team recommends the unit establishes policy for ensuring there is appropriate, varied stakeholder representation and for establishing term limits so a variety of stakeholder voices are heard. Clarke Response: Topics to be discussed are identified by the department and the chair and brought to the Advisory Council for their practical knowledge and application. Though their feedback has been brought back to the department in the past, there has not been a formal process for doing so. This information will be added to the department meeting agenda following each Advisory Council Meeting so that Education faculty can reflect on and (if necessary and appropriate) act upon it.

With the spring meeting of the Advisory Council on May 2, 2019, the following topics were addressed and the above concerns were covered: a. A review of the purpose of the Advisory Council and the ways in which each group (TEP members, on-campus and district stakeholders) can benefit from the association.

b. A discussion of the current members’ perspectives on term limits. Specifically, the group was asked to reflect on the benefits and concerns that may arise. c. Elicited from the group advice on the ways the TEP might be more inclusive of those who make up the membership so that a variety of groups are included.

As of the fall 2019 semester the unit has designated two faculty members to oversee all aspects of the Education Department’s Advisory Council. They are reviewing all aspects of the council's purpose and will focus on collecting data that will inform the unit’s future work. Link: Advisory Council Agenda (May 2, 2019) Advisory Council Minutes (May 2, 2019)

4. 79.10(7) Several faculty/staff who have left the unit have not been replaced. This has created an increased workload for the remaining faculty/staff. Additionally, new faculty who are hired are not initially assigned advisees or committees which significantly increases the assignments and advisee load of veteran faculty. The team recommends the unit evaluate the capacity of the faculty and staff and consider adjustments to assignments and/or programming to ensure sustainability of a quality educator preparation program. Clarke Response: Given the decline in student numbers, this adjustment to the number of faculty in the department is appropriate. Loads for full-time faculty for the next academic year are outlined in a grid on a document linked below. As can be seen, most individuals are within the 24 credit limit for an academic year which has been established by the institution.

All faculty are, and will continue to be, within the 24 hour credit load per academic year beginning the fall 2019. Link: Faculty load chart 2019-2020

5. 79.10 (7) The unit has access to instructional materials at the PDS but it is not clear the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) has the most up-to-date resources. The team recommends the unit evaluate the utility of the IRC. If the unit determines that the IRC is still relevant, the team recommends the unit maintains current resources and determines how to best staff and use this space moving forward. Clarke Response: The faculty member who receives credit for overseeing the IRC each semester (Dr. Krystal Kooiker) will consult the Education Department at each education faculty meeting. This will no longer be a rotating position. For consistency and continuity, Dr. Kooiker will, every semester, receive load and oversee the IRC. She will provide updates about the IRC for the faculty as well as ask for requests from the faculty. She will seek feedback from the department as to how best to utilize the space for the students. Funding (currently $1800 per fiscal year) is

included in the department’s budget to make this possible. The unit believes this is an adequate amount of funding for the IRC to remain up-to-date with resources.

6. 79.10 (7) There have been significant changes at the institutional and unit levels. In addition, the University is in the midst of expedited program review and revision of general education core requirements. There is evidence all of these components have impacted the work climate. The team recommends the unit analyzes the impact of these changes and develop strategies to enhance unit cohesion in the face of these challenges. Clarke Response: Many of the changes have already had a positive effect on the department. With the restructuring of the university into two distinct colleges – Arts and Sciences and Graduate and Professional Studies (of which Education is a part), there is a greater understanding of the unique needs of Education and any program which is accredited by an outside body. This understanding is supported further by the appointment of Dr. Paula Schmidt – former chair of the Education Department – as the dean of our college.

The impact of the changes in the general education program (Compass) on our majors has been examined and – as courses are approved to meet specific Compass requirements– it will be necessary to review how those align with state requirements in order to properly advise students who are just entering the program. These changes will not impact those students who are already admitted to the program. This provides some time for the unit to more closely examine the implications of the changes for our majors which can be done beginning in the fall of 2019. The revised Compass Program requires fewer hours than the previous general education curriculum, which should provide a positive impact for students pursuing a degree in Education.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

ensure all members of the unit have consensus regarding the central tenets of the TEP. Clarke Response: Addressing this concern in this particular standard will be long-term and ongoing. Additionally, the process will necessitate focused and purposeful examination of the different aspects of the requirements requested by the accreditation team. With one new faculty member joining the department in the fall of 2018 and three additional members joining the department in the fall of 2019, this will aid us in examining our practices through the new perspectives based on additional areas of expertise.

The following outlines the planned steps the department will take to update the conceptual framework: This task is of reviewing and updating information related to the framework began in the fall of 2019. The unit recognizes that this is of prime importance as the framework should clearly define the guiding principles of the TEP. Specifically, the department will begin by reviewing each section of the three-part Venn diagram to confirm that each is still relevant. If the unit finds that it is still relevant, the unit will research all areas included in the Venn diagram to make certain current research continues to support the framework. If the unit discovers current research no longer supports parts of the framework it will be revised by all faculty within the unit.

In August 2019, the unit invited the person responsible for the structure of Clarke’s PDS, Dr. Michele Vosberg to lead professional development on Professional Development Schools. Michele spent the day working through what it means to be a PDS, nationally and at Clarke. She reviewed the research that demonstrates the effectiveness of place-based experiences for future teachers. For some faculty this was a review of concepts and understandings while the new faculty (half of the department) was able to learn from Michele and veteran faculty what being a part of a PDS is all about. The retreat started with the history of PDS, moved to where Clarke’s PDS is today, and ended with where the unit would like it to go into the future.

As the team suggests, in addition to information on PDSs, there will be an effort to include information on place-based and experiential learning as well. There will also be a more explicit explanation as to how “Best Practices” is defined and described by the unit. Moving forward, the unit will review the framework together and share with students at the beginning of each semester.

This work will be done every other week (opposite week of faculty meetings) to ensure adequate time given to the review of the framework. The unit will meet for a minimum of one hour each time until the process is completed. Expected completion of the updated framework is December 2019.

Moving forward a review of the new framework will take place each semester, with an in-depth review of the framework every three years.

2. 79.10(7) Through interviews with faculty, there is a question about the resource allocation for the support of all administrative duties. For example, nine credits of load is assigned for the total responsibilities of serving as licensure officer, updating curriculum exhibits, establishing and evaluating all components of clinical (non-PDS) and student teaching placements, and hiring/training/supporting content methods instructors and student teaching supervisors. The team requires the unit evaluate its resource allocation and adjust accordingly to ensure a sustainable high quality teacher education program. Clarke Response: There are several planned changes related to the allocation of duties within the department. These include: The duties of licensure officer, curriculum exhibits, arranging non-PDS clinicals, as well as student teaching placements will now be assigned to an individual who will work only in this capacity. An individual has already been hired to serve in this capacity who began her duties in the summer of 2019. This position receives a six credit hour load per semester for a total of 12 credit hours over the course of the academic year. This is an increase of three credit hours for the position - previously a three credit load in the fall and a six credit load in the spring (for a total of nine credits). This is an increase of three credit hours per academic year. Additionally, there will be a stipend offered for work during the summer. Please see the link below for verification of this position from the Dean of the unit. Link: Verification of Licensure and Placement Officer

At the university level, there is a proposal created by FAPC (Faculty Advocacy and Policy Committee) that addresses reallocating load credit so that faculty who advise a large number of students or take on duties beyond the teaching load already assigned to them will have credit load for these extra duties. Specifically, the part of the proposal that passed Faculty Senate included workload compensation for tutorials and independent studies, for courses with 36 or more students, and for those faculty that have excessive advising duties. This was implemented in the fall of 2019.

In order to provide some teaching load relief for the faculty, the scheduling of the PDS experience will be examined on an ongoing basis. For instance, there will be no Table Mound Special Education PDS offered in the spring of 2020 as there are not enough students to warrant the courses be offered. This will allow two faculty members to assist with other courses.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: ● President, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Vice President for Business and Finance, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Dean of the College of

Professional Studies, Director of Admissions, Teacher Advisory Board, local administrators, adjunct faculty, alumni, content faculty from arts and sciences, unit faculty, Library Director Review of: ● Unit Handbooks ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met

Met Pending Conditions

Noted

Not Met

DIVERSITY

Initial Team Finding: Met X

Met Pending Conditions

Noted

Not Met

Commendations/Strengths: ● Embedded within the University’s core values and mission, the team finds evidence of campus-wide efforts focused on producing graduates with an awareness and appreciation related to global service and social justice. ● The team finds evidence of participation in city-wide initiatives focused on cultural awareness and appreciation through Inclusive Dubuque efforts and collaborative partnerships with other local universities. ● The team finds the institution recognized a need to enhance the campus diversity climate and provided both required and optional professional development sessions to faculty and staff focused on the support of underrepresented populations on campus. ● The team finds the institution is working to increase diversity on campus through the use of scholarship funds to recruit students from underrepresented groups.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.11(1): The team finds that general social-emotional supports of diverse populations are the responsibility of select student organizations, including the B.L.A.C.K Student Union, and LGBTQIA+. The team recommends the institution and the unit explore additional options for supporting the needs of diverse students. Clarke Response: The team did not have the opportunity to visit with the Assistant Director of Engagement and Intercultural Programs. As outlined in the job description for this campus staff position (linked here), the focus of the job is to “support cultural awareness and marginalized populations through programming, educational efforts and advising student organizations.” Specific tasks related to supporting students representing marginalized populations assigned to the person who holds the position are highlighted in the job’s description. Additionally, the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee accepts recommendations from the Vice-President of Student Life and uses the results of the Campus Climate Survey to determine other issues of diversity needing to be addressed.

2. 79.11(2): While university policies are in place to promote the hiring of diverse faculty and staff, the team finds little evidence of existing diversity within the TEP unit or campus as a whole. The team recommends that the institution and the unit seek avenues for increasing the diversity of faculty and staff. Clarke Response: The Admissions team has represented Clarke University at a number of college fairs with the goal of recruiting students of diversity. These include two different National Hispanic College Fairs in the fall and will be attending a Women’s Conference in the spring. Additionally, they will attend a college fair specifically for the Noble Network of Charter Schools (Chicago) which has a student body which is 89% low income and 98% minority (see Noble Charter Schools website).

For faculty and staff positions, the university recruits on a national level. This at least ensures that information is available to a larger, more diverse audience. Additionally, the Clarke University Recruitment Guidelines were updated in May of 2018. These guidelines address the issue of inclusion and diversity. The document is linked here (see highlights in Section E).

With the increase in diversity in the student population it is expected that the TEP will begin to mirror the demographics of the campus as a whole. This will be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure the TEP’s demographics mirror the increased diversity at the university level.

Concerns:

None.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: ● Director of Admissions, Registrar, Vice President for Student Life, TEP faculty, staff, alumni Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Student records ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met

Met Pending Conditions

Noted

Not Met

FACULTY

Initial Team Finding: Met

Met Pending Conditions X Noted

Not Met

demonstrate compassion and dedication, and are committed to remaining current in their fields. ● The faculty and the relationships they have built within the unit, with the students, and within the PDS community are exceptional strengths for the program. ● Collaboration within the PDS is a strength and a factor in the success of that model. The students refer to the instructors almost as one unit rather than two individuals. Each instructor knows what is going on at all times, both in the university classroom and in the classrooms where students are placed for clinical experiences.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.12(2) The team finds evidence that one faculty member (ES) has an endorsement in Special Education, but has limited experience in teaching special education at the K-8 level. The faculty member is listed under special education in the organizational chart and currently teaches or co-teaches courses in special education. The team recommends she looks for opportunities to gain additional teaching experience, specifically at the K-8 level. In addition, the team finds that one faculty member (CS) has minimal knowledge, preparation and experiences aligned with the course she is co-teaching, EDUC 362 Adolescent Literacy. The team recommends the unit reviews the co-teaching structure for this course. Clarke Response: a) ES has made arrangements to co-plan and co-teach with a Dubuque Community School District teacher who has both Strategist I and II endorsements. She will work with students in K-8 special education classrooms in one local elementary school in order to gain additional experience and knowledge in special education. She will begin in the fall of 2019 and continue throughout the school year. ES will work with the Dubuque Community School District (DCSD) teacher until she has completed 40 hours. If these hours are not completed by the end of the 2019-2020 academic year, she will continue into the next academic year until all hours are completed. She will keep a detailed log of hours and activities with contact information available for her mentor teacher. b) The course EDUC 362 Adolescent Literacy is one of the classes taught at the Mazzuchelli Middle School Professional Development School. This block of courses is being offered in the fall of 2019. This course will be taught by a new faculty member, KK who has the necessary credentials. Her CV is linked here.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

hours of team teaching within five years. Team teaching activities should include active engagement in the teaching, learning, and assessment process with P-12 students.

Clarke Response: The 40 hour team teaching requirement had been communicated to all full time and adjunct faculty when the policy was initiated by the Iowa Department of Education. Admittedly, the department did not do the required on-going follow-up that was needed. Now each faculty member will be required to track his/her own hours. Each faculty member is required to complete a minimum of 4 hours per semester that will be reported to the office manager at the end of each semester. Please view the new log of hours here. This requirement can also be located in the Education Department Faculty Policy and Procedure Handbook found here.

The office manager will track the information on a spreadsheet which will be shared with the chair and licensure officer each semester. The chair will contact any faculty who have not completed hours that year and remind them of the obligation and ask for a plan to complete the required hours. This is our long term plan for making sure all faculty are meeting the standard.

In order to be in compliance within the next three years, all Clarke faculty (full- time and part-time) will be asked to complete a minimum of 12-15 hours per year. The chair will follow-up with each faculty member at the end of each semester. In an attempt to stay in compliance, the licensure officer and chair will inform all new faculty of the need to meet this requirement prior to employment within the department.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: ● Candidates ● Unit Faculty ● Adjunct Faculty Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Student records ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met

Met Pending Conditions

Noted

Not Met

ASSESSMENT

Initial Team Finding: Met

Met Pending Conditions Noted X

Not Met

Commendations/Strengths: ● The team finds that students are given copious feedback on their teaching at the PDS sites since faculty informally observe students teaching daily and formally observe students teaching weekly. ● The team finds the unit is collecting a large amount of data. However, the data is not being used systematically to inform program decisions nor individual candidate assessment.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.13(5)e The team finds candidates are receiving frequent feedback on performance in the PDS experiences, but this is provided informally. The team recommends that the unit develop mechanisms and policies for systematizing this feedback so that this valuable data will be available as part of the larger system of candidate and unit evaluation. Clarke Response: This past spring, the department worked on the development of a new assessment system. Many aspects of the revised system were based on recommendations from the state accreditation team. The unit has begun using the new assessment system in the fall of 2019. Students in each PDS will be assessed using the same assessment tools. These tools will consist of the following components: ● Formal Observation aggregated data ● InTASC Course Outcome Matrix ● Oral Interview/Presentation

All three of these artifacts will be evaluated by each of the methods instructors at the end of each of the methods courses. All three of the instruments will be evaluated using the InTASC Standards scoring rubric, which may be found here. Links: Clarke Education Department Assessment Policy Course Outcome Matrix

2. 79.13(5)f The team finds that candidates are given many opportunities to reflect on artifacts that demonstrate their understanding of unit (InTASC) standards in a candidate-developed portfolio. The team finds, however, that candidates are unsure of the purpose of the portfolio process. The team recommends that the unit continue to include multiple opportunities for reflection. However, the team recommends that the unit review and re-evaluate the purpose of the candidate portfolio to ensure it is a meaningful form of feedback for candidates. This may be in addition to or incorporated as a part of a more systematic performance- based candidate assessment system. Clarke Response: As part of the new assessment system, each semester the students will be required to participate in an oral presentation in which they connect their teaching experiences (including planning, instruction, and assessment) to the InTASC standards. Additionally, they will complete a Course Outcome Matrix in which the goals of the course and the InTASC standards are aligned. The purpose of these elements of the assessment system will be explicitly communicated to the students. The students will be able to draw upon the information shared in these assessments to create their Phase II and III portfolios. (Phase I is completed before students’ progress to PDS/methods experiences.) The purpose of each assessment piece will be explicitly communicated to the students during their coursework and tracking of scores will facilitate a student’s ability to note their progress in developing competency in the standard. Additionally, with the new assessment system the unit will have more opportunities to discuss and reflect on their progress with candidates at the end of each semester. This should allow the unit and the candidate the necessary feedback for growth and improvement.

3. 79.13(4)b It is clear how Phase I, II, and III are aligned to dispositional performance, however the team did not find evidence of clear alignment to candidates’ performance on unit standards. The team recommends that the unit evaluate the criteria for Phase I, II and III progressions and make adjustments as needed to provide the most effective information for admission and progression in the program. Clarke Response: The unit evaluates the InTASC Teaching standards at each of the Portfolio Phase reviews to provide departmental information as well as candidate information toward program completion. In the fall of 2019, the unit is assessing each pre-service teacher through the three assessments (Course Matrix, Formal Observations, and Oral Interviews) by evaluating their growth in relation to the InTASC Standards. Link: Course Matrix

PDS Formal Observation Form

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.13(1) Evidence indicates a lack of a clearly defined, cohesive assessment system used by faculty, staff and students for the teacher education program. The following statements describe evidence or lack of evidence to articulate this concern: ● 79.13(5)a The team did not find evidence of methods used to determine if student assessment measures/tools are fair, reliable, and valid. The team requires the unit develop and implement methods of determining all assessment measures are valid, fair and reliable. Clarke Response: The unit will use the InTASC Standards to assess pre-service teachers from the time they enter the program until completion. Artifacts will be presented in candidates’ portfolios at the intermediate (at the end of all methods courses) and professional levels (at the end of the program). Teacher candidates will be assessed thoroughly on the InTASC Standards at the end of every PDS block/methods/practicum using three assessment tools. (Course Matrix, Formal Observation Form, and Oral Interviews/Final Presentation).

● 79.13(5)b The team found evidence that candidates are evaluated on understanding of unit standards, but did not find evidence that candidates are assessed on their demonstration of unit standards. The team requires the unit develop and implement assessments that are performance-based and aligned with unit standards. Clarke Response: The unit will make a conscientious effort to share the assessment tools with students at the beginning of every semester. The methods’ faculty will share with students how they are meeting the InTASC Standards throughout the semester as ongoing formative feedback. All information gathered on the Assessment Score Worksheet will be shared with the students at the end of the semester and used as a tool to discuss further strengths and challenges for each teacher candidate.

It should be noted that this document is designed to record data that is based on a students’ teaching experiences (observation data) as well as evidence that a student is developing competency in meeting the unit’s standards (InTASC Standards). Collecting and recording these data will allow for continual evaluation of pre-service teachers’ progress throughout all of their methods, practicums, and student teaching placements.

● 79.13(5)e The team did not find evidence that candidates are provided with formative feedback on their progress toward attainment of unit standards. The

team requires the unit develop and implement performance-based assessments that provide meaningful feedback to candidates to guide their development of proficiency on unit standards. Clarke Response: The PDS experiences are intentionally designed to be widely varied so students leave with a vast skill set. The IR team found: “Though feedback at each PDS site is provided consistently and abundantly, there is not a policy for providing systematic and consistent feedback across the PDS locations.” Please view the link here for the Clarke Education Department Assessment Policy.

Faculty are using all of the same assessment tools across all PDS and methods courses. The new policy below streamlines the process and provides an avenue that allows the education department to aggregate and systemize feedback across PDS sites. In order to provide consistent and systematic feedback, above and beyond informal measures in each PDS setting, instructors are required to utilize the following tools:

1. All methods instructors will assess teaching performance by using the observation form that is directly linked to the InTASC Standards (link) 2. All methods instructors will assess teacher candidates using the Course Outcome Matrix Form (found here) 3. All methods instructors will assess teacher candidates by assessing their ability to orally articulate the InTASC Standards. 4. The three tools mentioned above will be evaluated using the InTASC Standards grading rubric (found here). 5. Clinical Disposition Form (link) 6. All methods instructors will have teacher candidates use the edTPA-based lesson plan template (link) at ALL PDS sites (though there may be some modifications due to the focus of lessons at the PDS). Feedback methods per PDS vary due to the differences in the nature of content covered at each location though the assessment will be based on the same lesson plan template.

● 79.13(6)e The team did not find evidence that the unit systematically aggregates, analyzes and evaluates assessment data to make program improvements. The team requires the unit to develop and implement policies for regularly collecting, aggregating and evaluating candidate performance data for continuous program improvement. Clarke Response: The unit currently does this by reviewing InTASC Standards data gathered during portfolio reviews and by analyzing data collected from students who complete the edTPA.

As of fall 2019, the unit has an Assessment Coordinator for the Education Department. This person oversees, collects, analyzes, and disseminates to the appropriate stakeholders all forms of data related to candidate progression

through the program and will receive a two credit load for these duties. These data will be drawn from: ● Praxis II and edTPA scores ● Cooperating teacher data ● Supervising teaching data ● Student teacher data ● InTASC Standards at all intervals including each methods course and portfolio reviews (new fall 2019)

Data collected through the use of the new assessment policy will be stored and analyzed using Campus Labs. The Assessment Coordinator has had several meetings with the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment to find ways to further systematically aggregate, analyze, and evaluate assessment data to make program improvements.

● 79.13(8) The team did not find evidence that the unit regularly reviews, evaluates, and revises the assessment system. The team requires the unit develop and implement a regular routine for reviewing and evaluating its assessment system and to make revisions as needed. Clarke Response: The unit will meet one time per month to review and discuss the Assessment Coordinator’s findings and use it to inform future practices in the Education Department. As part of this process, ongoing evaluation of the assessment system will occur. A review of the new assessment system after the first semester of use will be especially critical as the policy may need to be revised to ensure that it is capturing essential data the unit set out to acquire. Therefore, a review will be scheduled in January of 2020, prior to the spring semester beginning with the entire unit.

After the initial review of the assessment policy the unit will set meetings to review changes made to the assessment system several times this year and next. The unit will make changes/adjustments as needed and review how the system is working each year we progress through a full cycle with the students.

The team requires the unit develop and document policies, standards alignment, action steps and timelines for implementation of a coherent assessment system. The plan should address resources for oversight/management of an assessment system, mechanisms for data collection, aggregation and analysis, development of valid and reliable measure of candidate performance, policy for evaluating data for program improvement, policy for reviewing the effectiveness of the assessment system. Clarke Response: The assessment coordinator will oversee the new assessment process along with the chair. Together the unit has developed a new policy that is currently in use fall 2019. It has been discussed at several department meetings and has been discussed with all students currently taking a PDS or methods course.

The assessment coordinator will work with all faculty to teach them how to upload assessment data into Campus Labs. The coordinator is also the person responsible for making sure all data is put into Campus Labs. The chair, assessment coordinator and all faculty will review data after the coordinator has evaluated, aggregated, and analyzed all of the data points from each student in a PDS or methods course. The assessment coordinator will also work with the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment at the university level to further analyze data and review the effectiveness of the assessment policy put into place. Link: Assessment Policy

3. 79.13(4) The criteria for program admission and progression are clear, however, the team finds evidence that the unit does not have and/or does not always follow or communicate standardized policies and procedures. For example, there is an option for candidates to enroll in PDS for one semester on a contract. However, there was no evidence of clear, documented policy/procedure for how and why candidates are placed on contract. There is also evidence from faculty/student interviews that at least some candidates have been allowed to be on a contract for more than one semester. The team requires the unit develop, communicate, implement and monitor consistent policies for teacher education program admission and progression.

Clarke Response: PDS (or methods course) contracts are done on a case-by-case basis. A formal policy has been developed and will be recorded in the new Education Department Faculty Policy and Procedures Handbook. This will ensure consistency across all methods courses for all students. Link: Education Department Faculty Policy and Procedures Handbook

Clarke Education Department Policy on Student Contracts:

Students who complete all of the requirements of the Phase I review, which include a GPA of 2.75 or higher and passing Praxis Core scores, will be admitted to the Education Department. Therefore, these students do not need to be on contract and may proceed to upper and methods level coursework.

Students who have either not met the required GPA or Praxis CORE score(s), but are in a position to reasonably achieve these within the upcoming semester, may be allowed to enter a PDS under contract. “Reasonable” is defined as being a mutually agreed upon standard as defined by the department faculty based upon student’s previous performance. Only one of the two conditions - GPA or Praxis- must be deficient, but not both. Students deficient in both areas will not be allowed to progress to a PDS until such time as one or both conditions have been met. The contract will be drawn up by the department head and signed by the student, department head and the education academic advisor. A copy of the contract will be kept in the student’s permanent

department folder. The contract must include the conditions and/or actions necessary to alleviate the discrepancies.

Contracts will be allowed only one time per student. If student is unable to raise their GPA to at least 2.75 or pass Praxis Core, they may take other coursework outside of Education, but may not until the requirement for admittance to the program has been met.

The chair will monitor which students do not meet the requirements for acceptance into the department. The chair will issue the contract, have the method’s instructor sign the contract along with the student’s advisor and the chair of the department. Students may only be on contract one time. If they do not meet the admission requirements, they are not allowed to move forward with additional upper level education coursework. If, at the end of the semester, the student has not met the conditions of the contract, the student may not move on to upper level course work, take another methods or PDS course, or student teach.

Sources of Information:

Final Recommendation: Met

Met Pending Conditions

Noted

Not Met

TEACHER EDUCATION CLINICAL PRACTICE Initial Team Finding: Met X

Met Pending Conditions

Noted

Not Met

Commendations/Strengths: ● The team concludes that the Professional Development School model used by the Clarke TEP could serve as an exemplar for the field of teacher preparation in the region, as well as in the larger professional community. The unit should consider avenues for capitalizing on the success of this model to identify Clarke as a premier teacher education program. ● The solid implementation of clinical experiences within the PDS model is an especially strong component of the Clarke TEP. ● The program provides an extraordinary number of engaging and authentic teaching opportunities to pre-service teachers.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.14(1) The team noted that while the PDS experiences were well-organized and planned individually, additional articulation among PDS experiences may strengthen the program. Students reported that they moved through the PDS sites in varying sequences and described differing experiences related to this sequence. Faculty reported that they had different expectations for students who were in their first, second or third PDS experience. It is not clear how these expectations are defined, communicated and/or monitored to assure that students make adequate progress toward competency prior to student teaching. The team recommends the unit evaluate sequence of learning and expectations in clinical experiences, and make adjusts to support developmental candidate progress. Clarke Response: Changes in the ways the students are assessed throughout their time in the PDS blocks and methods courses will address the need for different expectations within the PDS (or methods) settings. New assessment procedures for the students were implemented in the fall of 2019 at all PDS locations and methods courses are outlined in sections 79.13(5)e, 79.13(4)b, and 79.13(5)e (pages 15 and 16).

Changes in the ways the students are assessed throughout their time in the methods courses/PDS blocks will address the need for different expectations within the methods and PDS settings. New assessment procedures for the students was implemented in the fall of 2019 at all PDS locations are outlined in sections 79.13(5)e, 79.13(4)b, and 79.13(5)e (pages 15 and 16).

3. 79.14(6b) The team finds evidence that secondary teaching majors may not experience clinical settings (including student teaching) representing a range of 5-12 grade levels. Interviews with candidates and graduates indicated that it is possible to complete all field experiences in a middle school placement. The team recommends the unit evaluate the clinical experiences of secondary level candidates and make any adjustments necessary to ensure adequate preparation for teaching at the high school level. Clarke Response: It is highly unlikely that a student would complete all field experiences in a middle school. All students complete at least 20 hours of observation for EDUC 200 Foundations of Education, and this is generally completed at Washington Middle School. All students also complete 10-20 hours of observation for EDUC 202 Introduction to Exceptionalities B-21/EDSP 200 Foundations of Special Education. This is typically done at Lawther Academy or Prescott Elementary.

Elementary education majors complete EDUC 330 Clinical: Literacy and EDUC 334 Clinical: Interdisciplinary as part of their PDS experiences. EDUC 330 takes place at Fulton Elementary and EDUC 334 at St. Anthony Elementary. Elementary students have the option of completing a reading or special education PDS. The reading experience includes EDUC 420 Advanced Practicum and Instruction in Reading and occurs at St. Anthony Elementary. The special education experience includes EDSP 400 Special Education Practicum and is housed at Table Mound Elementary.

Secondary education majors take EDUC 360 Teaching in the Middle and Secondary School as part of their middle school methods at Mazzuchelli Middle School. All secondary students also complete EDUC 351 Special Secondary and Curriculum Methods which takes place in a local high school.

4. 79.14(6c) The team finds no evidence that the secondary content area field experiences offer uniformity across the disciplines (i.e. no standardization in the number of hours of observation, actual teaching, lesson plans, etc.) The team recommends the unit evaluate the clinical experiences of secondary level candidates and make any adjustments necessary to ensure equitable preparation for all secondary candidates. Clarke Response: Plans have been developed for a secondary PDS at Hempstead Senior High School (to be implemented in the future) in order to create a more uniform experience. Until that time, there is a set of materials given to each secondary methods instructor, Secondary Methods Observation Instructions, Lesson Plan Template & Evaluations. This resource outlines the responsibilities of the

cooperating teacher and student, includes a log to be kept by the student, a list of suggested activities, the lesson plan template, and evaluation forms to be completed by the cooperating teacher and student. A copy of the log and evaluations are kept in each student’s permanent folder. In addition, during the summer of 2019, the chair held an adjunct workshop for all those involved in teaching methods courses. The chair reviewed all documents listed above and explained the new assessment policy that they are also required to follow.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

None.

Sources of Information:

Final Recommendation: Met

Met Pending Conditions

Noted

Not Met

TEACHER EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS

Initial Team Finding: Met X

Met Pending Conditions Noted

Not Met

Commendations/Strengths: ● The team finds that candidates, especially at the elementary level, are well- prepared to work with students with disabilities. Students reported that their experiences with interventions within the Special Education focused PDS were very significant in the development of their knowledge and confidence. ● Elementary and secondary candidates who participate in PDS receive strong preparation in the instruction of literacy. Multiple opportunities to teach literacy lessons are provided. ● Candidates demonstrate solid awareness of InTASC standards, which are infused throughout the professional core curriculum, especially in the PDS integrated coursework. Candidates report that the connection between theory and practice is important to their development and perceive this as a strength of the program. ● Those candidates who select the edTPA as their program completion assessment indicate they receive strong support as they prepare for the edTPA. Faculty and candidates value the Professional Learning Community (PLC) process used throughout the program which is focused on the rubrics used to score edTPA Portfolios.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.15(general) The team found student teachers and graduates to be knowledgeable and well-prepared for classroom teaching. This is supported by interviews with graduates, student teachers and administrators who have received graduates as practicing teachers. However, a review of syllabi and artifacts did not reflect an intentional sequence of instruction that candidates receive throughout the program. It is recommended that the unit works to document the instructional sequence for the purposes of consistency. Clarke Response: While there is still variance in the exact sequence of classes, there is a general sequence of courses. No matter the program, the students begin with two foundational courses: EDUC 100 Introduction to Reflective Teaching and EDUC 200 Foundations of Education. Other courses typically taken at this beginning level are EDUC 202 Introduction to Exceptionalities B-21 (cross listed as EDSP 200 Foundations of Special Education), EDUC 119 Multicultural Education, and EDUC 125 Educational Psychology. While EDUC 119 and EDUC 125 are at times taken later in a student’s program, this can be an advantage for all students as it brings different levels of understanding to class discussions. The sequence of classes is often determined by a student’s need for Compass (general education) classes. With the implementation of the new Compass requirements in the fall of 2019, we anticipate that it may be easier to establish specific sequences for Education majors.

2. 79.15(2) The team did not find evidence that secondary education candidates had a similar level of preparation as elementary candidates to work with students with disabilities. Several students interviewed expressed a desire for additional knowledge in this area. The team recommends the unit evaluate curriculum and make adjustments as needed to ensure all candidates are well prepared to meet the needs of students with disabilities. Clarke Response: We have discussed this finding in departmental meetings and the ways in which we can enhance or increase student experiences in working with students having special needs and from diverse populations. At this time, this requirement is being met and even exceeded in many instances. We are not, however, content at leaving it as is. We will continue exploring this area and our associated options. Currently this is how we are addressing this matter:

All Clarke University students (including education majors) must meet a diversity requirement. Some experiences students can choose to meet this requirement involve working with students that have emotional/behavioral or academic challenges. An example of an experience in which students might participate include a mission trip to The David School (Kentucky) which is offered every year or volunteering at local organizations that serve diverse populations.

Additionally, all candidates are required to take EDUC 119 Multicultural Education. The focus of this course is to enhance students’ understanding and appreciation of diverse populations. Coursework is also designed to help them meet the learning needs of students from various backgrounds. As seen in the EDUC 119 Multicultural Education syllabus (linked here), all diverse groups listed in table 32 of the original report (linked here) are addressed in this course. In addition to classroom learning, students in this course are required to complete volunteer hours in local agencies that serve diverse populations.

Furthermore, all candidates take a course in which they directly work with students with special needs and special education teachers over a 5-6 week period on a co-created project. (Clarke student/Lawther Academy student). This project takes place in EDSP 200 Foundations of Special Education while secondary education and K-8/5-12 majors have the same experience in EDUC 202 Introduction to Exceptionalities B-21 (cross-listed courses). Teaching diverse students is also covered in these courses. These courses include a required 20- hour practicum experience that takes place at Washington Middle School in special education settings, co-taught settings, or in inclusive general education settings for secondary education majors needing a placement in a specific content area. Dubuque Community School District is an inclusive district; regardless of placement and/or grade level, students gain exposure to and/or have experiences with diverse student populations and/or students with special needs.

3. 79.15(2) The team did not find evidence that candidates were well-prepared to teach students who are gifted and talented, English language learners or students 50

identified as at risk. Student teachers indicated that they had observed students with these needs, but did not report that they had been provided with specific strategies to meet their needs. The initial response to the team’s feedback indicated that these topics were addressed in two of the elementary PDS experiences. However, this is not consistently received by all candidates in the program. The team recommends the unit evaluate curriculum and make adjustments as needed to ensure all candidates are well prepared to meet the needs of students who are talented and gifted, English language learners or students identified as at risk. Clarke Response: In EDUC 125 Educational Psychology all Education students (including music and art k-12) receive instruction in meeting the needs of students fitting the designated categories. Students who are seeking a middle school endorsement and participate in the Mazzuchelli PDS are required to differentiate their lesson plans to meet the needs of all learners. For students who are seeking an Elementary endorsement, this is incorporated into EDUC 332 Developmental Reading.

All education majors must also take EDSP 200: Foundations of Special Education or EDUC 202: Introduction to Exceptionalities B-21 (these courses are cross-listed) where they obtain knowledge regarding students that are considered at risk, English language learners and talented and gift.

In the fall of 2019, the instructors of these courses will be more intentional in how this information is presented and help the students understand the importance of this content. Connections between the course content and the students’ PDS experiences will be explicitly made.

Links: EDUC 125 Educational Psychology Syllabus EDUC 332 Developmental Reading Syllabus EDSP 200: Foundations of Special Education/EDUC 202: Introduction to Exceptionalities B-21 Syllabus

4. 79.15(2) The team did not find evidence that candidates are receiving specific instruction specific to working with students with dyslexia. The initial response to the team’s feedback indicated that education students complete the dyslexia training offered through the Iowa Reading Research Center, however this requirement is not listed in the course syllabi that were reviewed or on advising guides. If this training is the avenue through which candidates are prepared to meet the needs of students with dyslexia, it is recommended that a system be implemented for tracking this requirement either within a course or through advising. Clarke Response: The requirement for the dyslexia training has been officially added to the course syllabi for EDUC 332 Developmental Reading (elementary certification) and EDUC 357 Reading in the Content Area (Art and Music certification) this semester (spring 2019) and will be added to EDUC 362 Adolescent Literacy when the course is next taught (fall 2019). All students, therefore, will have a

requirement built into their coursework take part in the dyslexia training offered by the Iowa Reading Research Center. Links: EDUC 332 Developmental Reading Syllabus EDUC 357 Reading in the Content Area

5. 79.15(3) The team notes that Art and Music candidates have not received adequate preparation for teaching literacy. There have been steps taken to add a course EDUC 357 Content Area Reading which will be taken by candidates in these endorsements in the future. The team recommends the unit implement this plan and monitor to evaluate effectiveness. Clarke Response: As can be referenced in Clarke University’s Academic Catalog from at least 2011, EDUC 357 Reading in the Content Area has been required for students who are seeking K-12 endorsements in Art and Music (previously this included PE as well). Evidence of effectiveness can be monitored through the implementation of reading strategies in the preservice teachers’ lesson plans which they create as part of course requirements. Link: Academic Catalog (2011-2012) – see “K-12 Education” pages 156-157

7. 79.15(5) The team did not find consistent evidence for how candidates gain skill in the use of technology for instruction. Some students reported that they were able to receive training on the specific technology used in their PDS sites, while others reported that this was not available to them. The team recommends the unit evaluate curriculum and make adjustments as needed to ensure all candidates are well prepared to use technology to enhance the teaching-learning process. Clarke Response: Because students’ experiences in teaching with technology is embedded within their methods courses, it has not been well-documented. To address this issue, the unit has added to the Time and Activity Logs a section that lists experiences in teaching with technology. This will provide a record of and on-going documentation of how students have incorporated technology into their lessons. Link: Time and Activity Log

sites in varying sequences and described differing experiences related to this sequence. Faculty reported that they had different expectations for students who were in their first, second or third PDS experience. It was not clear how these expectations were defined, communicated and/or monitored to assure that students make adequate progress toward competency prior to student teaching. Clarke Response: Changes in the ways the students are assessed throughout their time in the blocks will address the need for different expectations within the PDS settings. New assessment procedures for the students to be implemented in the fall of 2019 at all PDS locations are outlined in sections 79.13(5)e, 79.13(4)b, and 79.13(5)e (pages 15 and 16).

9. 79.15(7) The team finds that most elementary candidates, and many secondary candidates, complete multiple teaching endorsements. Students reported this as a strength of the program and appreciated the various PDS experiences. Some students and content-area faculty reported that there is pressure to complete multiple endorsements and that this limited the opportunities for choice among the Compass courses and/or options to complete minor coursework outside of the education department. The team recommends the unit review advising practices and evaluate the effectiveness of policies encouraging candidates to seek multiple endorsements. Clarke Response: Per portion of your response stating: “Some students and content-area faculty reported that there is pressure to complete multiple endorsements and that this limited the opportunities for choice among the Compass courses and/or options to complete minor coursework outside of the education department.”

The department contends the following:

We also feel that students completing multiple endorsements within the 4-4.5 years of their time at Clarke is a strength as well. It prepares our students for the competitive areas in which they will be looking for work upon graduation. For example the Dubuque Community School District reported having 10 times more applicants than positions open during the 2018-19 school year hiring period, yet all of our students have jobs.

At Clarke Elementary Education majors are required to be endorsed in at least one area. There is no pressure beyond that requirement for students to obtain more endorsements, however, if a student desires other endorsements they work closely with their advisor to map out appropriate 4-year plans that details their schedule every semester for the duration of their time at Clarke.

Secondary education students at Clarke are required to complete the middle school endorsement. The rationale behind this is that we currently do not have a secondary PDS, so this experience provides practice in literacy strategies and classroom management that are transferable to older students. When a secondary PDS is in place, the department will revisit the requirement for the middle school endorsement.

Regarding choice for students in Compass (general education curriculum), the state requirements coupled with Clarke University requirements limit our student’s choices as many options offered through Compass do not meet all of the state requirements. This has been an ongoing concern for students desiring more options. The revised Compass program (which will be implemented in the fall of 2019) requires fewer credit hours overall; this should provide more choice for future Education students.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

None.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: ● Advisory Council members, candidates, unit faculty Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Academic Catalog ● Advising Guides ● Student records ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met

Met Pending Conditions

Noted

Not Met

Iowa State Board of Education

Executive Summary

November 20, 2019

Agenda Item: Loras College Practitioner Preparation Program Approval

State Board Priority: Improving Teacher and Leader Preparation

Presenter(s): Lawrence R. Bice, Administrative Consultant Bureau of Leading, Teaching, Learning Services

Attachment(s): One

Recommendation: It is recommended that the State Board award full approval to the Loras College practitioner preparation programs through the next review scheduled for the 2025-2026 academic year.

Background: Loras College provides teacher and professional school counselor preparation programs on their Dubuque campus. The attached report is a summary of the program review and on-site visit in fall 2018 under 281 Iowa Administrative Code chapter 79. Loras College has met all Chapter 79 standards without condition; therefore, the Department recommends the State Board grant full approval to the Loras College practitioner preparation programs. Loras College

Iowa Department of Education Team Report

Preliminary Review: August 9, 2018

Site Visit: September 30 – October 4, 2018

Final Report: November 16, 2018

Presented to the State Board of Education on: November 20, 2019

Review Team Members:

Dr. Lawrence Bice, Iowa Department of Education Dr. Mary Donegan-Ritter, University of Northern Iowa Dr. Theresa Engle, Briar Cliff University Ms. Angela Hunter, Buena Vista University Dr. Nancy Langguth, University of Iowa Dr. Carole Richardson, Iowa Department of Education Dr. Kari Vogelgesang, University of Iowa

In addition to all findings, this report provides a summary of resolutions of compliance concerns only. See the attached appendix (beginning on page 29) for the complete, unedited Loras College Program response to recommendations and concerns. Names have been redacted in compliance concerns. Note that a number of exhibits were provided by Loras to support their response. These exhibits are not included in this report but are available upon request.

1 Loras College Final Report October 2018 Background

Founded in 1839, Loras College is the oldest college in Iowa and the second oldest Catholic college west of the Mississippi River. Originally named St. Raphael Seminary by its founder, the Most Rev. Mathias Loras, first bishop of Dubuque, the frontier college sought to train young men to the priesthood and provide higher education to the citizens of the region. Loras College (so renamed in 1939) has a long history of blending liberal arts education with professional studies. Loras became coeducational in the fall of 1971.

Loras College was first accredited in 1917, and in 1970 received approval from its accrediting body to offer Master of Arts degrees.

Loras is primarily an undergraduate institution offering over 40 majors in the areas of Business, Engineering, Communication, Social Work, Social and Human Services, STEM, numerous special programs, interdisciplinary minors, and an interdisciplinary, themes-based general education curriculum.

The Loras education department offers endorsements in elementary education, many secondary programs, special education, reading and school counseling. Loras has approximately 1500 full and part time students, with about 170 in the education department.

2 Loras College Final Report October 2018

Acknowledgements

Team members would like to express their gratitude to the Loras College community for their hospitality and assistance in facilitating the team’s work. The tasks associated with the review process necessitate intense focus by reviewers during a concentrated period of time. Everyone we encountered graciously responded to our questions and requests for materials. We interacted with a wide variety of individuals who demonstrated enthusiasm, professionalism, and dedication to this program.

The team expresses its appreciation for the work of all involved with a special thank you to those whose roles were integral in the success of this visit. Some of those people are:

Dr. David Salyer, Director, Teacher Education Program Dr. Kimberly Tuescher, Director, Professional School Counselor Program Dr. Mary Ellen Carroll, Senior Vice President Dr. Donna Heald, Vice President for Academic Affairs James Collins, President Unit Department Faculty and Staff

3 Loras College Final Report October 2018 GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

4 Loras College Final Report October 2018 Commendations/Strengths:

• The team finds a strong alignment to InTASC standards which is evident within course syllabi and through student conversations. Student portfolios demonstrate an understanding of how these standards connect with classroom practices.

• The team finds the appeals process is appropriate for the student needs and well conveyed for student understanding.

• Team found administration to be very supportive for the Teacher Education Program. The education major is the second largest on campus. The recent addition of the School Counseling program has become the largest graduate program on campus.

• The mission and goals of the Teacher Education Program are well aligned with the institution mission and goals.

• Students consistently commended the program for the availability of faculty support, and the beneficial relationships between students and faculty.

• The team finds that donor awards are often available to support program initiatives. Previous grants have provided for literacy materials and iPads within local districts.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.10(5) Now that it is established by completing a cohort, the team recommends that the School Counseling Program thoughtfully consider whether the combined Teacher Education Program/School Counseling Program advisory committee affords each of these programs targeted input for program evaluation and continuous improvement.

2. 79.10(5) The team found advisory minutes were available for review, yet it is not evident that information gathered from members is used to inform program practices. When surveyed, advisory committee members indicated they receive program updates from the unit, but no program or candidate assessment data is shared with them for informed advice. The team recommends the unit gather and share relevant data with the advisory committee to inform their advice.

3. 79.10(6) The team found a disconnect in collaboration between the education department and the music department. Music education students consistently commented that advising between the two departments is not well coordinated. Music education students also described a lack of engagement with the education department. The team recommends the unit initiate collaboration among faculty 5 Loras College Final Report October 2018 of the two departments to review program expectations and identify better practices for communicating those requirements and other useful information with students.

4. 79.10(7)a The team identified issues regarding faculty load. The current load arrangement does not allow the faculty to review, reflect on and evaluate the program for continuous improvement. The team recommends the unit examine and adjust faculty load to allow full time faculty to complete all requirements of a continuously improving, state approved program.

5. 79.10(7)c Students commented that program information available on the Loras website is outdated. The team recommends that online resources be reviewed and updated as necessary with current information.

6. 79.10(10) Students, primarily athletes and those with evening jobs, commented they often struggle to maintain a balance between athletics/work and academics. Many courses are only offered in the evening (in particular, some literacy, all Special Education and Early Childhood) causing students who expected a daytime program to choose between athletics and/or work and class attendance. The team recommends the unit and institution examine and adjust course offerings to better accommodate all students.

7. 79.10(10) Students expressed concerns regarding inconsistent monitoring and application of requirements on student progress through checkpoint completion. Additionally, students commented that the communication of program requirements was not consistent among various faculty advisers. The team recommends the unit provide guidance for faculty advisors to ensure requirements are reviewed and addressed in a timely and consistent manner.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.10(7)a The team found evidence that curricular resource needs are not adequate. Course consumables and supportive literature were two areas not being provided by the institution. The curriculum library is outdated and under- utilized by faculty and students. The team requires the unit to develop a plan to support curriculum resources and needs, such as current PK-12 curriculum resources, children and young adult literature, and consumables for course needs.

2. 79.10(7)a The team found insufficient human resources allotted to the work required of a state-approved teacher education program. This concern is manifested in three areas:

• There are a number of management responsibilities that require resources applied to them to operate an approved program. Current gaps include

6 Loras College Final Report October 2018 adjunct faculty and college supervisor evaluations, managing program evaluation, and planning for continuous program improvement.

• The team found a lack of faculty leadership specific to the endorsement areas of special education and early childhood inclusive education. The most recent review of the ECSE endorsement was completed by faculty and staff who do not hold licensure in this area. Courses are offered exclusively by adjunct faculty with no program faculty expertise or oversight. This has led to a lack of unit oversight of the curriculum, assessments and evaluation of preparation in these endorsements. Further, there is no evidence that the ECE/SE adjunct faculty meet on a regular basis for program planning and improvement.

• The team finds that administrative assistant resources are not adequate for a state-approved program that recently added counselor preparation. Gaps were found within the following tasks: consistent advising specific to requirements and checkpoints from all faculty, consistent documentation of field experience placements with student files and other tracking systems, effective communication regarding course and field experience requirements, timely placements arranged by college staff, etc.

The team requires the unit and institution to examine and adjust human resources to provide adequate resources for program oversight and operations.

Resolution of Concern #1: The unit has submitted a budget to the institution that will provide additional resources to improve materials for all programs incrementally over the next three years. The institution has approved a $10 course fee for the curriculum and instruction in science course to offset the cost of consumable supplies, Additionally, the unit is collaborating with the Director of the Library to upgrade children’s and young adult literature. The team considers this standard MET.

Resolution of Concern #2: The unit, in collaboration with the institution, has updated polices and made changes to the governance and resources structures. • Management functions have been reallocated to a number of faculty. In particular, the unit has added the position of assessment coordinator, and the institution has granted release time for this position. • The unit has filled a full-time faculty position to oversee and provide instruction for special education. Because of a lack of expertise, the unit has ended the early childhood special education endorsement. • In the fall of 2019, the administrative support for the unit will increase from 0.5 FTE to 0.6 FTE. The institution’s current master planning process is expected to yield a full-time administrative support position within a year. The team considers this standard MET.

7 Loras College Final Report October 2018 NOTE: The Iowa Department of Education consultants will conduct a follow up visit one year from the time of Board action to ensure plans were properly implemented.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: • Director of Graduate Programs, Director of School Counseling Program, Director of Teacher Education, TEP faculty (FT and adjunct) and staff, President, Senior VP, VPAA, Director of Budgeting, candidates, recent graduates, cooperating teachers, Director of Admissions, Associate Academic Dean of Instruction and Assessment, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, Division Chair, Registrar. Review of: • Course syllabi • Institutional Report • Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Clinical site visits and discussions with cooperating educators and administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

DIVERSITY

Initial Team Finding: Met X Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

8 Loras College Final Report October 2018 • The team finds strong evidence of college level support for establishing a climate that promotes and supports diversity. In addition to the Loras College Diversity & Inclusion Advisory Committee’s written statements, in August 2017 there was a statement issued by the President of the College affirming human dignity and tolerance.

• Interviews with the Director of Admission Recruiting and Retention, and the Director of Intercultural Programs provided information about a number of initiatives the college has successfully implemented to recruit and support diverse students. These efforts include scholarships and programing for first generation college students that has yielded a high retention rate for students in the program.

• Loras College students and staff have been active in an interfaith leaders program, Children of Abraham, which brings together individuals from Muslim, Jewish, and Christian communities to build understanding and acceptance. This received national recognition with a Presidential Award.

• The Office of Admission, Recruiting and Retention is building on alumni relationships in various states across the country to support recruiting from diverse populations.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.11(2) The team recommends that the unit build on existing partnerships in urban areas in other states to recruit and support students from underrepresented groups to the TEP program.

2. 79.11(2) The team encourages the TEP to make efforts to attract diverse faculty. Some efforts may include advertising openings in publications and at conferences that attract a diverse pool of candidates (AACTE Holmes Group, National Association for Multicultural Education).

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

None.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: • Candidates, Unit Faculty, Director of Disability Services, Director of Intercultural Affairs, Director of Admissions Recruiting and Retention Review of:

9 Loras College Final Report October 2018 • Course syllabi • Institutional Report • Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Clinical site visits and discussions with cooperating educators and administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

FACULTY

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

10 Loras College Final Report October 2018 • A number of recent graduates and current students in the professional school counselor program cited the program director, Dr. Kimberly Tuescher, for her knowledge and her level of engagement in their preparation. Several noted that her involvement with the program was their reason for choosing to complete their preparation through this program.

• The team commends Loras College and the unit for supporting the work of Hilarie Welsh as the first TEP faculty member to have been awarded the John Cardinal O’Connor Chair for Catholic Thought. This award allows her to build upon her work in explicitly connecting teacher inquiry and induction with the mission of Catholic education.

• Faculty members report a collaborative relationship with St. Ambrose Ed Leadership program in which SAU principal candidates conduct mock interviews for Loras student teaching candidates.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.12(1) The team finds that the Professional School Counselor Program, now the largest graduate program on campus, is dependent on the work, and best practices of one full-time faculty member, Kimberly Tuescher. The team recommends that the unit give consideration to whether having the roles and responsibilities assigned to a single faculty member for this program are sustainable and in the program’s best interest.

2. 79.12(3) The team finds that faculty evaluations may be lacking in best practices specific to preparing teacher educators. While the Division Chair has many years of experience and expertise for evaluating faculty regarding promotion, tenure and retention, there is no indication unit best practices for modeling teaching are evaluated. The team recommends the unit establish a mechanism to provide periodic evaluations of teaching for unit best practices.

3. 79.12(5) Content methods faculty expressed a need for better information on candidate progress in their program of study to better prepare for candidate learning and to better schedule course offerings. The team recommends the unit consider methods of communication to ensure a cohesive program.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.12(2): The team does not find evidence that all unit faculty are qualified in knowledge, preparation and experience for their teaching assignments: a. One faculty member teaches elementary and secondary music methods, including preparation for vocal and instrumental music teaching. Evidence

11 Loras College Final Report October 2018 indicates his preparation and experience is limited to secondary level instrumental music. b. One faculty member teaches secondary math methods and elementary math methods as a component of his J-term MATH 110 course. There is no evidence of knowledge or preparation in P-12 math teaching. His experience is as a non-licensed part time elementary teacher of TAG math at grades 5 and 6. The team requires the unit to ensure all unit faculty are qualified for their teaching assignments.

2. 79.12(3). The team found no evidence that adjunct faculty are evaluated. The team requires the unit to establish and implement evaluations for adjunct faculty teaching and use of evaluations to inform support for adjunct faculty for continuous program improvement.

3. 79.12(5)c There is no evidence that three part time faculty members completed 40 hours of team teaching. The team requires the unit to ensure all candidates complete 40 hours of team teaching.

Resolution of Concern #1: a. Faculty member, who has experience teaching instrumental music at the secondary level will take an elementary music methods course and will complete the equivalent of a practicum in music methods. Additionally, he will focus a portion of his annual co-teaching on elementary music methods. Until he has completed the course and practicum, an adjunct instructor will teach the elementary music methods course. b. The MATH 110 and 111 math content courses for elementary education majors have been restructured to not include instruction in methods of teaching mathematics. The faculty member will continue to teach the courses. He will continue to evaluate math content knowledge through application to teaching but will not teach or evaluate teaching methods. The team considers this standard MET.

Resolution of Concern #2: The unit has refined a structure for evaluation of faculty. Additionally, administrative duties in the unit have been reorganized to better allow for evaluations in a timely and useful manner. The unit has a plan to evaluate all current adjunct faculty members beginning in the fall 2019 semester. The team considers this standard MET.

Resolution of Concern #3. The unit/institution has updated the adjunct employment contract to include and articulate the 40-hour team teaching requirement. To meet the requirements of their contract, all adjunct faculty will engage in at least eight hours of team teaching per year. The unit has also implemented a policy to document completion of team-teaching activities. The team considers this standard MET.

12 Loras College Final Report October 2018 NOTE: The Iowa Department of Education consultants will conduct a follow up visit one year from the time of Board action to ensure plans were properly implemented.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: • Director of Graduate Programs, Director of School Counseling Program, Director of Teacher Education, TEP faculty (FT and adjunct) and staff, candidates, recent graduates, cooperating teachers, Director of Admissions, Associate Academic Dean of Instruction and Assessment, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, Division Chair, Registrar. Review of: • Course syllabi • Institutional Report • Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report • Faculty vita • 40 hour logs Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Clinical site visits and discussions with cooperating educators and administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

ASSESSMENT

13 Loras College Final Report October 2018 d. Program completion (for teacher education, this includes testing described in Iowa Code section 256.16; see subrule 79.15(5) for required teacher candidate assessment). 79.13(5) Individual candidate assessment includes all of the following: a. Measures used for candidate assessment are fair, reliable, and valid. b. Candidates are assessed on their demonstration/attainment of unit standards. c. Multiple measures are used for assessment of the candidate on each unit standard. d. Candidates are assessed on unit standards at different developmental stages. e. Candidates are provided with formative feedback on their progress toward attainment of unit standards. f. Candidates use the provided formative assessment data to reflect upon and guide their development/growth toward attainment of unit standards. g. Candidates are assessed at the same level of performance across programs, regardless of the place or manner in which the program is delivered. 79.13(6) Comprehensive unit assessment includes all of the following: a. Individual candidate assessment data on unit standards, as described in subrule 79.13(5), are analyzed. b. The aggregated assessment data are analyzed to evaluate programs. c. Findings from the evaluation of aggregated assessment data are used to make program improvements. d. Evaluation data are shared with stakeholders. e. The collection, aggregation, analysis, and evaluation of assessment data described in this subrule take place on a regular cycle. 79.13(7) The unit shall conduct a survey of graduates and their employers to ensure that the graduates are well-prepared, and the data shall be used for program improvement. 79.13(8) The unit regularly reviews, evaluates, and revises the assessment system. 79.13(9) The unit annually reports to the department such data as is required by the state and federal governments.

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths: • Students in the TEP program report receiving feedback on various assignments, assessments, and clinical experiences.

• The team finds evidence from multiple students in both the school counseling and teacher education program that students are aware of and understand national standards. Teacher education students provided evidence of a standards based (InTASC) portfolio developed throughout their time in the program.

14 Loras College Final Report October 2018 Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.13(2) The team finds evidence that teacher education program students were compiling a standards based (InTASC) portfolio throughout their time in the program; however, it is not clear how this portfolio is used to inform candidate progress or as part of a cohesive program assessment system. The team recommends the unit evaluate the use of the portfolio for use in effective candidate and program assessment.

3. 79.13(4)b The team finds evidence of TEP students receiving communication (by letter) of provisional admittance into the program; outlining four gates necessary to pass through to successfully complete their program. However, there is not evidence of clear communication throughout the program, notifying individual candidates when they’ve successfully passed through each of these gates. The team recommends establishing a formal system of communication, clearly articulating with each candidate where they are in their progress through the program and their next steps.

4. 79.13(5)b Evidence indicates a lack of alignment of assignments with assessments and standards. Course assignments have been identified for each standard, however there is not evidence the assignments are associated with rubrics directly aligned to standards. The unit is using multiple measures to collect individual candidate data; however there is no evidence the programs (TEP & PSC) are using multiple measures aligned with each standard and assessing each candidate with these measures. The team recommends the unit develop a system that more clearly allows candidates to demonstrate attainment of unit standards.

5. 79.13(5)d The team did not find evidence the standards are addressed to show candidate progress on the standards at different developmental levels throughout the duration of the programs (TEP & PSC). The team recommends the unit implement assessments to evaluate candidate progress at different developmental levels in the program. It is recommended the unit creates a system that informs both students and faculty of the assessment expectations, while ensuring that all candidates are assessed at the same level of performance. In addition, it is recommended the assessment system developed should guide students to reflect on their own growth, using assessment feedback.

6. 79.13(6)d The team did not find evidence of how evaluation data is shared regularly with stakeholders. The team recommends the unit develop and

15 Loras College Final Report October 2018 implement policy to use data when soliciting advice from the advisory committee and other stakeholder groups.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.13(1) Evidence indicates a lack of a clearly defined, cohesive assessment system used by faculty, staff and students for either the school counseling or teacher education program. The following statements describe evidence or lack of evidence to articulate this concern:

• 79.13(5)a The team did not find evidence of how the unit determines if student assessment measures/tools are fair, reliable, and valid. The team requires the unit to develop and implement methods of determining all assessment measures are valid, fair and reliable.

• 79.13(6)a The team did not find evidence that individual assessment data on unit standards is analyzed. The team requires the unit to implement policy for analyzing assessment data for program assessment.

• 79.13(6)c The team did not find evidence of the unit using aggregated assessment/performance data to inform program decisions and make program improvements. The team requires the unit to implement policy for aggregating and using candidate performance data for programmatic decisions.

• 79.13(8) The team did not find evidence that the unit regularly reviews, evaluates, and revises the assessment system. The team requires the unit to implement policy for regularly reviewing and revising the assessment system.

The team requires the unit to develop and document policies, standards alignment, action steps and timelines for implementation of a coherent assessment system. The plan should address resources for oversight/management of an assessment system, mechanisms for data collection, aggregation and analysis, development of valid and reliable measure of candidate performance, policy for evaluating data for program improvement, policy for reviewing the effectiveness of the assessment system.

Resolution of Concern #1: The unit has initiated a number of steps to improve their assessment system: • Identified the unit position of assessment coordinator and obtained institutional approval for release time for the person in this position. • Contracted an assessment consultant, who is the assessment coordinator for an Iowa educator preparation program with a model assessment system.

16 Loras College Final Report October 2018 • Unit faculty committed time as a team to examine and refine the assessment system. • Began work to align curriculum and assessments more clearly with the InTASC standards, using the InTASC progressions rubrics to frame formative assessments. • Revised the unit assessment calendar to articulate actions to be taken at specific points in the year to examine and refine the assessment system, including an annual review the system. The unit provided a calendar of assessment work. The team considers this standard MET.

NOTE: The Iowa Department of Education consultants will conduct a follow up visit one year from the time of Board action to ensure plans were properly implemented.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: • Teacher Advisory Council members (local principals, adjuncts, current candidates, alumni), Candidates, Unit Faculty, Library Director(s), Associate Academic Dean of Instruction and Assessment, Senior VP, VPAA Review of: • Course syllabi • Student records • Institutional Report • Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

TEACHER EDUCATION CLINICAL PRACTICE

17 Loras College Final Report October 2018 79.14(2) PK-12 school partners and the unit share responsibility for selecting, preparing, evaluating, supporting, and retaining both: a. High‐quality college/university supervisors, and b. High-quality cooperating teachers. 79.14(3) Cooperating teachers and college/university supervisors share responsibility for evaluating the teacher candidates’ achievement of unit standards. Clinical experiences are structured to have multiple performance‐based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate candidates’ attainment of unit standards. 79.14(4) Teacher candidates experience clinical practices in multiple settings that include diverse groups and diverse learning needs. 79.14(5) Teacher candidates admitted to a teacher preparation program must complete a minimum of 80 hours of pre-student teaching field experiences, with at least 10 hours occurring prior to acceptance into the program. 79.14(6) Pre-student teaching field experiences support learning in context and include all of the following: a. High-quality instructional programs for PK-12 students in a state-approved school or educational facility. b. Opportunities for teacher candidates to observe and be observed by others and to engage in discussion and reflection on clinical practice. c. The active engagement of teacher candidates in planning, instruction, and assessment. 79.14(7) The unit is responsible for ensuring that the student teaching experience for initial licensure: a. Includes a full-time experience for a minimum of 14 consecutive weeks in duration during the teacher candidate’s final year of the teacher preparation program. b. Takes place in the classroom of a cooperating teacher who is appropriately licensed in the subject area and grade level endorsement for which the teacher candidate is being prepared. c. Includes prescribed minimum expectations and responsibilities, including ethical behavior, for the teacher candidate. d. Involves the teacher candidate in communication and interaction with parents or guardians of students in the teacher candidate’s classroom. e. Requires the teacher candidate to become knowledgeable about the Iowa teaching standards and to experience a mock evaluation, which shall not be used as an assessment tool by the unit, performed by the cooperating teacher or a person who holds an Iowa evaluator license. f. Requires collaborative involvement of the teacher candidate, cooperating teacher, and college/university supervisor in candidate growth. This collaborative involvement includes biweekly supervisor observations with feedback. g. Requires the teacher candidate to bear primary responsibility for planning, instruction, and assessment within the classroom for a minimum of two weeks (ten school days). h. Includes a written evaluation procedure, after which the completed evaluation form is included in the teacher candidate’s permanent record. 79.14(8) The unit annually offers one or more workshops for cooperating teachers to define the objectives of the student teaching experience, review the responsibilities of the cooperating teacher, and provide the cooperating teacher other information and

18 Loras College Final Report October 2018 assistance the unit deems necessary. The duration of the workshop shall be equivalent to one day. 79.14(9) The institution enters into a written contract with the cooperating school or district providing clinical experiences, including field experiences and student teaching.

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

• Based on interviews with cooperating teachers, the team finds the TEP faculty have strong relationships with staff and administrators in their clinical schools. This allows for better support between the TEP faculty and the cooperating teachers.

• The unit requires 10 service hours beyond the 50 practicum hours in the Secondary Methods placement.

• The team commends the unit for having contracts go through the college’s business department, which gives candidates, the college and the partner school an extra layer of protection.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.14(1) Candidates described a lack of clarity for the process of field experience placements and communication. Candidates reported delays in placements being made and/or communicated. The team recommends developing a clear policy for the field experience placement process that can be clearly communicated to students.

2. 79.14(2) Interviews with cooperating teachers and adjunct supervisors showed there are inconsistencies in how cooperating teachers and adjunct supervisors are prepared, evaluated, and supported. The team recommends the unit provide clear and consistent preparation, evaluation and support for all adjunct faculty.

3. 79.14(2) Local principals expressed concern about clinical placements being initiated by TEP faculty communicating directly with teachers, rather than through their office. The team recommends the unit clarify and enforce policies

19 Loras College Final Report October 2018 for arranging clinical placements in accordance with P-12 school/district requirements.

4. 79.14(3) The team finds inconsistencies in the assessment of teacher candidates’ achievement of unit standards in clinical settings. Not all cooperating teachers are asked to participate in evaluation of teacher candidates. The team recommends the unit ensure all cooperating teachers share in the evaluation of candidate progress toward unit standards in clinical settings.

5. 79.14(6)b Based on interviews with cooperating teachers, the team finds inconsistencies in opportunities for teacher candidates to engage in discussion and reflection on clinical practice. The team recommends the unit establish procedures to ensure that candidates are more involved in discussion with cooperating teachers about student assessment and teaching.

6. 79.14(8) The team finds the unit offers a workshop for cooperating teachers. From interviews of cooperating teachers, those in attendance found it to be beneficial. Those who do not attend do not receive the same level of communication. The team recommends the unit develop and implement a mechanism for better communication of requirements for cooperating teachers unable to attend the workshop.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.14(7)a. The team notes the policy for planned absences in student teaching has been construed by faculty and students to allow student athletes (and other students) to miss student teaching for events, which results in their not completing 14 consecutive weeks of student teaching. The policy also removes oversight for absence approval from full time faculty and/or unit administrators. The team requires the unit to clarify the policy, and ensure the the requirement for 14 consecutive weeks of full time student teaching.

Resolution of Concern #1: The unit has clarified student teaching attendance and absence policy in the Student Teaching Handbook. The unit has clarified that the Director of Clinical Education will be responsible for enforcing handbook requirements and monitoring student teaching attendance. The team considers this standard MET.

NOTE: The Iowa Department of Education consultants will conduct a follow up visit one year from the time of Board action to ensure plans were properly implemented.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with:

20 Loras College Final Report October 2018 • Unit Faculty - Full Time and Adjuncts, Director of School Counseling Program, Director of Teacher Education, candidates, recent graduates, cooperating teachers Review of: • Course syllabi • Institutional Report • Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

TEACHER EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS

281—79.15(256) Teacher candidate knowledge, skills and dispositions standard. Teacher candidates demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to help all students learn in accordance with the following provisions. 79.15(1) Each teacher candidate demonstrates the acquisition of a core of liberal arts knowledge including but not limited to English composition, mathematics, natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. 79.15(2) Each teacher candidate receives dedicated coursework related to the study of human relations, cultural competency, and diverse learners, such that the candidate is prepared to work with students from diverse groups, as defined in rule 281— 79.2(256). The unit shall provide evidence that teacher candidates develop the ability to identify and meet the needs of all learners, including: a. Students from diverse ethnic, racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. b. Students with disabilities. c. Students who are struggling with literacy, including those with dyslexia. d. Students who are gifted and talented. e. English language learners. f. Students who may be at risk of not succeeding in school. This preparation will include classroom management addressing high-risk behaviors including, but not limited to, behaviors related to substance abuse. 79.15(3) Each teacher candidate demonstrates competency in literacy, to include reading theory, knowledge, strategies, and approaches; and integrating literacy instruction into content areas. The teacher candidate demonstrates competency in making appropriate accommodations for students who struggle with literacy. Demonstrated competency shall address the needs of all students, including but not limited to, students with disabilities; students who are at risk of academic failure;

21 Loras College Final Report October 2018 students who have been identified as gifted and talented or limited English proficient; and students with dyslexia, whether or not such students have been identified as children requiring special education under Iowa Code chapter 256B. Literacy instruction shall include evidence-based best practices, determined by research, including that identified by the Iowa reading research center. 79.15(4) Each unit defines unit standards (aligned with InTASC standards) and embeds them in courses and field experiences. 79.15(5) Each teacher candidate demonstrates competency in all of the following professional core curricula: a. Learner development. The teacher understands how learners grow and develop, recognizing that patterns of learning and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas, and designs and implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences. b. Learning differences. The teacher uses understanding of individual differences and diverse cultures and communities to ensure inclusive learning environments that enable each learner to meet high standards. c. Learning environments. The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative learning, and that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation. d. Content knowledge. The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) he or she teaches and creates learning experiences that make the discipline accessible and meaningful for learners to assure mastery of the content. e. Application of content. The teacher understands how to connect concepts and use differing perspectives to engage learners in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues. f. Assessment. The teacher understands and uses multiple methods of assessment to engage learners in their own growth, to monitor learner progress, and to guide the teacher’s and learner’s decision making. g. Planning for instruction. The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals by drawing upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, and pedagogy, as well as knowledge of learners and the community context. h. Instructional strategies. The teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage learners to develop deep understanding of content areas and their connections, and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways. i. Professional learning and ethical practice. The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning and uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (learners, families, other professionals, and the community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each learner. j. Leadership and collaboration. The teacher seeks appropriate leadership roles and opportunities to take responsibility for student learning, to collaborate with learners, families, colleagues, other school professionals, and community members to ensure learner growth, and to advance the profession. k. Technology. The teacher candidate effectively integrates technology into instruction to support student learning.

22 Loras College Final Report October 2018 l. Methods of teaching. The teacher candidate understands and uses methods of teaching that have an emphasis on the subject and grade-level endorsement desired. 79.15(6) Each teacher candidate must either meet or exceed a score above the 25th percentile nationally on subject assessments designed by a nationally recognized testing service that measure pedagogy and knowledge of at least one subject area as approved by the director of the department of education, or the teacher candidate must meet or exceed the equivalent of a score above the 25th percentile nationally on an alternate assessment also approved by the director. That alternate assessment must be a valid and reliable subject-area-specific, performance-based assessment for preservice teacher candidates that is centered on student learning. 79.15(7) Each teacher candidate must complete a 30-semester-hour teaching major which must minimally include the requirements for at least one of the basic endorsement areas, special education teaching endorsements, or secondary level occupational endorsements. Additionally, each elementary teacher candidate must also complete a field of specialization in a single discipline or a formal interdisciplinary program of at least 12 semester hours. Each teacher candidate meets all requirements established by the board of educational examiners for any endorsement for which the teacher candidate is recommended. 79.15(8) Each teacher candidate demonstrates competency in content coursework directly related to the Iowa Core. 79.15(9) Programs shall submit curriculum exhibit sheets for approval by the board of educational examiners and the department.

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

• The team commends the program and college for establishing Secondary Education as a major.

• The team finds evidence through syllabi review and conversations with candidates during class visits of consistent reference to InTASC standards throughout the Teacher Education Program.

• Candidates in the Teacher Education Program report that courses are designed to afford candidates many opportunities for reflection and hands-on experience in school settings.

• During interviews, candidates indicate that they are being prepared to work with students with dyslexia.

Recommendations: 23 Loras College Final Report October 2018 (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.15(2) A number of recent graduates expressed a need for additional preparation for working with students with special needs. The team recommends that the Teacher Education Program review the curriculum to ensure candidates are prepared to work with students with special needs.

2. 79.15(5) While the team finds consistent reference to InTASC standards throughout the program in course syllabi and in field experiences, the team recommends the unit examine how they are assessing whether candidates demonstrate competency in the professional core curricula.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

None

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: • Director of Graduate Programs, Director of School Counseling Program, Director of Teacher Education, TEP faculty (FT and adjunct) and staff, candidates, recent graduates, cooperating teachers, Associate Academic Dean of Instruction and Assessment, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, Division Chair Review of: • Course syllabi • Institutional Report • Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visit to a clinical site and discussions with the building administrator and two cooperating teachers

Final Recommendation: Met X Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

COUNSELOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

281—79.20(256) Clinical practice standard. The unit and its school, AEA, and facility partners shall provide clinical experiences that assist candidates in becoming successful practitioners in accordance with the following provisions.

24 Loras College Final Report October 2018 79.20(1) The unit ensures that clinical experiences occurring in all locations are well- sequenced, purposeful, supervised by appropriately qualified personnel, monitored by the unit, and integrated into unit standards. These expectations are shared with candidates, supervisors and cooperating professional educators. 79.20(2) The PK-12 school, AEA, and facility partners and the unit share responsibility for selecting, preparing, evaluating, supporting, and retaining both: a. High‐quality college/university supervisors, and b. High-quality cooperating professional educators. 79.20(3) Cooperating professional educators and college/university supervisors share responsibility for evaluating the candidate’s achievement of unit standards. Clinical experiences are structured to have multiple performance‐based assessments at key points within the program to demonstrate the candidate’s attainment of unit standards. 79.20(4) Clinical experiences include all of the following criteria: a. Learning that takes place in the context of providing high-quality instructional programs for students in a state-approved school, agency, or educational facility; b. Take place in educational settings that include diverse populations and students of different age groups; c. Provide opportunities for candidates to observe and be observed by others and to engage in discussion and reflection on clinical practice; d. Include minimum expectations and responsibilities for cooperating professional educators, school districts, accredited nonpublic schools, or AEAs and for higher education supervising faculty members; e. Include prescribed minimum expectations for involvement of candidates in relevant responsibilities directed toward the work for which they are preparing; f. Involve candidates in professional meetings and other activities directed toward the improvement of teaching and learning; and g. Involve candidates in communication and interaction with parents or guardians, community members, faculty and staff, and cooperating professional educators in the school. 79.20(5) The institution annually delivers one or more professional development opportunities for cooperating professional educators to define the objectives of the field experience, review the responsibilities of the cooperating professional educators, build skills in coaching and mentoring, and provide the cooperating professional educators other information and assistance the institution deems necessary. The professional development opportunities incorporate feedback from participants and utilize appropriate delivery strategies. 79.20(6) The institution shall enter into a written contract with the cooperating school districts that provide field experiences for candidates.

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

25 Loras College Final Report October 2018

• An interview with the Director of Counseling revealed her connections to many counselors inside and outside the Dubuque area. The Director personally places the interns with a cooperating professional she feels will make a best fit.

• The team finds both the Cooperating Supervisor/Director of Counseling and College Supervisors share a clear understanding and the responsibility for assessment of candidates in the Practicum and Internship Experiences.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

None

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.20(6). The team finds cooperating schools are given forms to complete intended as contracts, but they do not serve the intended purpose of contracts. The team requires the unit to implement appropriate contracts that will provide protections for candidates, the college and the partner school. To resolve this concern, team suggests the unit use, or at least model after, the contracts used in the teacher preparation program.

Resolution of Concern #1: The unit has implemented new contract forms that are the same as those used in teacher preparation (which meet the standard). The team considers this standard MET.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: • Director of Graduate Programs, Director of School Counseling Program, adjunct PSC faculty, candidates, recent graduates, cooperating counselors. Review of: • Course syllabi • Institutional Report • Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Clinical site visits and discussions with cooperating educators and administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X Met Pending Conditions

Noted

26 Loras College Final Report October 2018 Not Met

COUNSELOR KNOWLEDGE SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS

281—79.21(256) Candidate knowledge, skills and dispositions standard. Candidates shall demonstrate the content knowledge and the pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to help all students learn in accordance with the following provisions. 79.21(1) Each professional educator program shall define program standards (aligned with current national standards) and embed them in coursework and clinical experiences at a level appropriate for a novice professional educator. 9.21(2) Each candidate demonstrates, within specific coursework and clinical experiences related to the study of human relations, cultural competency, and diverse learners, that the candidate is prepared to work with students from diverse groups, as defined in rule 281—79.2(256). The unit shall provide evidence that candidates develop the ability to meet the needs of all learners, including: a. Students from diverse ethnic, racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. b. Students with disabilities. c. Students who are gifted and talented. d. English language learners. e. Students who may be at risk of not succeeding in school. 79.21(3) Each candidate meets all requirements established by the board of educational examiners for any endorsement for which the candidate is recommended. Programs shall submit curriculum exhibit sheets for approval by the board of educational examiners and the department.

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

• Recent program graduates are very positive about their experiences in the program and their preparation for their current work as school counselors.

• Evidence indicates clear use and alignment of Iowa licensure standards in coursework and clinical experiences.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

27 Loras College Final Report October 2018 1. 79.21(1) Program completers stated they were not fully prepared in several pedagogical areas. The team recommends the unit examine curriculum and adjust as necessary to ensure adequate learning for the following criteria from the licensure requirements: • Career Development (particularly as it relates to K-12 students and the School Counselor’s work) • Supporting administrators, teachers, and students relative to 504 plans • Preparation for working with P-12 students in various situations (one-on-one, small group, large group).

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.21(2) The team finds evidence that PSC candidates who have not previously been teachers do not receive adequate knowledge in the professional teaching core. The team requires the unit to examine and adjust curriculum to ensure all candidates from a non-teaching background are able to demonstrate this knowledge.

Resolution of Concern #1: The unit has reviewed and updated all program curriculum to ensure all candidates can demonstrate knowledge in the professional core. The unit provided a table that illustrates where professional core content is taught and assessed. The team considers this standard MET.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: • Director of Graduate Programs, Director of School Counseling Program, adjunct PSC faculty, Associate Academic Dean of Instruction and Assessment. Review of: • Course syllabi • Institutional Report • Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Clinical site visits and discussions with cooperating educators and administrators

Final Recommendation: Met X Met Pending Conditions Noted Not Met

28 Loras College Final Report October 2018

Appendix: Loras Response to Team Report

Loras College

Response to the Team Report: April 11, 2019

Presented to: Dr. Lawrence Bice, Iowa Department of Education

Preliminary Review: August 9, 2018

Site Visit: September 30 – October 4, 2018

Final Report: October 23, 2018

29 Loras College Final Report October 2018

Acknowledgements

The Teacher Education and School Counseling Programs at Loras College would like to personally thank members of the state Review Team for participating in the accreditation visit. Faculty and staff enjoyed the opportunity to meet with all of the state Review Team members and appreciated the meaningful feedback. We would also like to thank members of the Review Team for taking the time to interact with other members of the Loras community and with our PK-12 school partners in Dubuque. In particular, with important constituents in the Dubuque Community School District and Holy Family Catholic Schools of Dubuque.

Members of the state Review Team captured many important insights for faculty and staff to take into consideration. Both the recommendations and concerns outlined in the state team report have been carefully analyzed by members of the Teacher Education and School Counseling Programs. A great deal of deliberation has taken place by members of the program to identify an action plan in response to findings from the state team. The action plan that follows is reflective of the valuable insights garnered from the dedicated work of the state Review Team. In addition, the plan highlights the months of consensus building among Program team members to initiate necessary changes for improvement.

In summary, members of the Programs are grateful to the members of the state Review Team for their time and energy reviewing our Teacher Education and School Counseling Programs. The action plan submitted in response to the state review findings should arguably help to improve the preparation of teacher candidates at Loras College in the near future and for many years to come.

The Teacher Education and School Counseling Programs express their appreciation for the work of the Review Team:

30 Loras College Final Report October 2018

GOVERNANCE AND RESOURCES

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

● The team finds a strong alignment to InTASC standards which is evident within course syllabi and through student conversations. Student portfolios demonstrate an understanding of how these standards connect with classroom practices.

● The team finds the appeals process is appropriate for the student needs and well conveyed for student understanding.

● Team found administration to be very supportive for the Teacher Education Program. The education major is the second largest on campus. The recent addition of the School Counseling program has become the largest graduate program on campus.

● The mission and goals of the Teacher Education Program are well aligned with the institution mission and goals.

● Students consistently commended the program for the availability of faculty support, and the beneficial relationships between students and faculty.

● The team finds that donor awards are often available to support program initiatives. Previous grants have provided for literacy materials and iPads within local districts.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

The Unit and the School Counseling Programs have concluded that maintaining a joint Advisory Board is to each program’s benefit. It is preferred that the 31 Loras College Final Report October 2018 combined Advisory Board continue due to the fact that shared information from educators, school counselors and administrators of the Board benefit all parties and increases continued collaboration among professionals serving PK-12 children.

Unit and candidate assessment plans and/or data were shared with the Advisory Board on October 1, 2015 (plans), April 5, 2016 (plans), October 27, 2016 (data in the form of bar graphs from fall 2015 and spring 2016; Developing and Mastering Level artifact examples). Unit faculty asked for committee members’ input on assessment matters on April 23, 2012. Moving forward, the Unit is committed to more consistently providing program and candidate assessment data to the Advisory Board. We will speak to the Assessment Consultant for strategies to most effectively present and gather feedback from the Advisory Board. The Unit is including in its Assessment Calendar dedicated dates to provide assessment information to the Advisory Board: October and April. In November, the Unit will review the input from the Advisory Board.

New policy for the School Counseling Program indicates that program data will be shared and discussed during the Spring Advisory Board meeting of each academic year.

3. 79.10(6) The team found a disconnect in collaboration between the education department and the music department. Music education students consistently commented that advising between the two departments is not well coordinated. Music education students also described a lack of engagement with the education department. The team recommends the unit initiate collaboration among faculty of the two departments to review program expectations and identify better practices for communicating those requirements and other useful information with students.

Beginning in fall 2017, the Unit began ensuring that all students pursuing licensure had an official advisor in the Unit. This change has helped ensure cohesive planning with Secondary and Music Education majors. Also, now that Secondary Education is a major at Loras College, it will be easier to track, advise, and communicate with Music majors and other Secondary Education majors. Beginning in May 2019, each year Unit faculty involved in teaching Secondary Education majors will host a meeting for Music faculty and other content-area faculty. The meetings will focus on updates to the Unit and to get feedback about how the Unit can better communicate and coordinate requirements. This will also be a key way to strengthen relationships with Music faculty.

32 Loras College Final Report October 2018

The Unit has reviewed the issue of faculty load and recognizes that there is an unequal load distribution across Unit faculty. The College requires a 21-credit load for the academic year and apart from release time for special assignments that load expectation will not change for faculty. To assist in the evaluation of the Program for continuous improvement approval has been received for the Assessment Coordinator to receive a six credit release for the academic year. While not a downward adjustment, the Unit will be proposing to the administration that the College approve additional credits for faculty to observe clinical-teaching in the Elementary Professional Development School and related school sites. This would align with the Unit’s need to adequately assess teaching skills as part of the Unit’s systematic assessment system. The use of contingent faculty and exploring ways to collaborate with Clarke University may be other avenues for managing faculty load. In addition to contributing to Special Education, the presence of an additional full-time faculty member should help with advising loads.

The Unit and the College have been reviewing online resources and are preparing updates. The College is poised to begin implementing a new curriculum fall 2019 and thus there will be new four-year plans uploaded online. Due to the implementation of the new curriculum, some changes to the Unit’s curriculum will need approval from the College's faculty governing body.

The concerns in this standard are being addressed. Several courses are indeed offered in the late afternoon or evening due to those courses being taught by adjuncts or for other reasons. The Unit faculty voted in February 2019 to deactivate the Early Childhood Special Education program due to low enrollments and lack of full-time faculty oversight (this change was approved by the faculty governing body). This will eliminate three evening courses. With the

33 Loras College Final Report October 2018 advent of a new full-time special education faculty member the Unit will move one of two evening courses (one course, which is fall only, is specific to the Strategist I endorsement; and one course, offered each semester, is part of the Elementary core with significant special education content) to earlier in the day. Two Reading Endorsement K-8 courses are offered in the evening (one each semester) at a local elementary school. These courses are part of a site-based after school reading clinic the Unit has operated for many years in partnership with the school. The status of the reading clinic will remain unchanged. EDU 333 Curriculum and Instruction in Mathematics (an Elementary major core course) is offered each semester one night each week. This course is part of a long-standing site-based after school math clinic. This clinical arrangement will remain unchanged. Three additional courses are taught each semester one day each week in the late afternoon and early evening. Each course is 1 credit and short term (about 5 weeks per course) and is only required of the Elementary majors. Since two of the three adjuncts who currently teach the courses are restricted to offering the courses later in the day (due to professional obligations), this arrangement will remain unchanged.

The Unit has multiple documents published on its SharePoint site that include program and endorsement requirements, course sequences, four-year plans all designed to assist with advising and academic planning with students. The Unit will investigate developing more specific language that communicates program requirements in the advising document and Unit gateway points will be identified. Visuals may be included with the new four-year plans based on the revised General Education curriculum. In addition, there is a campus-wide committee developing detailed advising plans to implement next academic year. The new advising plans are being developed in conjunction with the new first- year experience courses for both the fall and spring semesters.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

34 Loras College Final Report October 2018 resources, children and young adult literature, and consumables for course needs.

Before the end of the current fiscal year a budget will be submitted to the Academic Dean. The budget covers a three-year period for the acquisition of resources.

● Year One: Social Studies, Mathematics, and Reading Endorsement resources ● Year Two: Special Education, Technology, and Mathematics ● Year Three: Focus Group Assessment and Mathematics

The Unit has received approval to add a $10 course fee to EDU 336 Curriculum and Instruction in Science to cover the cost of consumables. The fee begins fall 2019.

Dr. Monhardt has worked with the Director of the Library to upgrade the collection of children’s and young adult’s literature available to the teacher candidates in the course EDU 230 Children’s and Young Adult Literature.

2. 79.10(7)a The team found insufficient human resources allotted to the work required of a state-approved teacher education program. This concern is manifested in three areas:

● There are a number of management responsibilities that require resources applied to them to operate an approved program. Current gaps include adjunct faculty and college supervisor evaluations, managing program evaluation, and planning for continuous program improvement.

The Unit will begin fall 2019 to consistently evaluate adjunct faculty using the procedures and instructions recently developed and implemented by the College. The Director of Clinical Education will annually coordinate and evaluate all College Supervisors. How the Unit will manage program evaluation and planning for continuous improvement has been documented in Standard 13 Assessment. This process will be directed by the Assessment Coordinator.

A digital copy of the Loras College Adjunct Faculty Resource Guide which includes the observation/evaluation instrument, instructions, and schedule is attached. The Adjunct Faculty Classroom Observation Form begins on page 34 of the Resource Guide. Also attached is a draft schedule for observing adjunct faculty fall 2019 through spring 2021.

● The team found a lack of faculty leadership specific to the endorsement areas of special education and early childhood inclusive education. The most recent review of the ECSE endorsement was completed by faculty and staff who do not hold licensure in this area. Courses are offered

35 Loras College Final Report October 2018 exclusively by adjunct faculty with no program faculty expertise or oversight. This has led to a lack of unit oversight of the curriculum, assessments and evaluation of preparation in these endorsements. Further, there is no evidence that the ECE/SE adjunct faculty meet on a regular basis for program planning and improvement.

A full-time faculty member in Special Education has been hired who will provide the required oversight over the Instructional Strategist I endorsement. This position begins fall 2019. The Early Childhood Special Education endorsement is being phased out. Current students will complete Early Childhood coursework in fall 2019 and complete their student teaching. Beginning spring 2019 students will no longer be admitted to the endorsement.

● The team finds that administrative assistant resources are not adequate for a state-approved program that recently added counselor preparation. Gaps were found within the following tasks: consistent advising specific to requirements and checkpoints from all faculty, consistent documentation of field experience placements with student files and other tracking systems, effective communication regarding course and field experience requirements, timely placements arranged by college staff, etc.

The team requires the unit and institution to examine and adjust human resources to provide adequate resources for program oversight and operations.

The Unit has experienced a turnover of Administrative Assistants over the last 1.5 years coupled with the reduction from a full-time Administrative Assistant to part-time has led to many of the gaps mentioned. The College Administration is aware of the needs of the Unit and is very willing to provide support. While a full- time Administrative Assistant at this time is not fiscally possible, an increase in time dedicated to the Unit is possible and will begin fall 2019.

Per the Academic Dean beginning fall 2019 our administrative assistant will spend 60% of her time in the Teacher Education Office in Wahlert Hall (an increase from the current 50%). This translates to a physical presence of approximately 24 hours each week (4-5 hours each day). In addition to the time she is physically present in the Teacher Education office, she is approved to do work for the Teacher Education Program remotely from her office in Hennessy Hall where she provides support for the other division programs (Criminal Justice, Psychology, and Social Work) in the Division of Teacher Education and Behavioral Sciences.

Loras College is currently undergoing a campus master planning process that is comprehensively examining the locations of administrative support offices, student support services, and academic programs. It is a priority to address the reduced efficiencies that arise from having programs with a division split between

36 Loras College Final Report October 2018 buildings. Beyond fall 2019, as the campus master planning process progresses, it is anticipated that our administrative assistant will be fully physically present for Teacher Education Program related work, while also serving the needs of the other programs within the Division of Teacher Education and Behavioral Sciences.

After these changes are in place we will reevaluate if the combined changes of an increased physical presence of the administrative assistant and a reallocation of the balance of time she dedicates to the Teacher Education Program were effective.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: ● Director of Graduate Programs, Director of School Counseling Program, Director of Teacher Education, TEP faculty (FT and adjunct) and staff, President, Senior VP, VPAA, Director of Budgeting, candidates, recent graduates, cooperating teachers, Director of Admissions, Associate Academic Dean of Instruction and Assessment, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, Division Chair, Registrar. Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Clinical site visits and discussions with cooperating educators and administrators

Final Recommendation: Met Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

DIVERSITY

Initial Team Finding: Met X Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

37 Loras College Final Report October 2018 ● The team finds strong evidence of college level support for establishing a climate that promotes and supports diversity. In addition to the Loras College Diversity & Inclusion Advisory Committee’s written statements, in August 2017 there was a statement issued by the President of the College affirming human dignity and tolerance.

● Interviews with the Director of Admission Recruiting and Retention, and the Director of Intercultural Programs provided information about a number of initiatives the college has successfully implemented to recruit and support diverse students. These efforts include scholarships and programing for first generation college students that has yielded a high retention rate for students in the program.

● Loras College students and staff have been active in an interfaith leaders program, Children of Abraham, which brings together individuals from Muslim, Jewish, and Christian communities to build understanding and acceptance. This received national recognition with a Presidential Award.

● The Office of Admission, Recruiting and Retention is building on alumni relationships in various states across the country to support recruiting from diverse populations.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.11(2) The team recommends that the unit build on existing partnerships in urban areas in other states to recruit and support students from underrepresented groups to the TEP program.

In the future, the Unit can plan with more intentionality the recruitment of teacher candidates from under-represented groups. Increasingly, the Unit has had recent graduates teaching in urban areas. There is potential to create new partnerships with these alumni who teach under-represented groups, and to build on informal partnerships that already exist. One example is Baker College Prep where a recent graduate is a high school teacher. Unit faculty have visited the school during January Term for EDU 203 Teaching for Social Justice. The school is on the Southside of Chicago and serves mostly African-American students. Additionally, George Washington High School on the far Southside of Chicago is another school that Unit faculty and students have frequently visited during the January Term. Multiple alumni have taught at this school which primarily serves Hispanic students. The Unit is discussing identifying one school that faculty could make an annual visit to for the purpose of recruiting teacher candidates from under-represented groups. The Associate Director of Admissions has also been working strategically with Arrupe Community College in Chicago to recruit some of these students from under-represented groups to Loras College. There were a small group of students from Arrupe Community College who

38 Loras College Final Report October 2018 transferred to Loras in fall 2018. In the future, the Unit could tap into this initiative to target students who might be considering Teacher Education.

The Unit appreciates the suggestions for attracting a diverse faculty. The Unit will talk to the Human Resources Director about posting future positions in publications and/or at conferences mentioned by the State team. The Unit may also consider posting at the NAPDS (National Association for Professional Development Schools) annual conference.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

None.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: ● Candidates, Unit Faculty, Director of Disability Services, Director of Intercultural Affairs, Director of Admissions Recruiting and Retention Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Clinical site visits and discussions with cooperating educators and administrators

Final Recommendation: Met Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

FACULTY

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted

39 Loras College Final Report October 2018 Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

● A number of recent graduates and current students in the professional school counselor program cited the program director, Dr. Kimberly Tuescher, for her knowledge and her level of engagement in their preparation. Several noted that her involvement with the program was their reason for choosing to complete their preparation through this program.

● The team commends Loras College and the unit for supporting the work of Hilarie Welsh as the first TEP faculty member to have been awarded the John Cardinal O’Connor Chair for Catholic Thought. This award allows her to build upon her work in explicitly connecting teacher inquiry and induction with the mission of Catholic education.

● Faculty members report a collaborative relationship with St. Ambrose Ed Leadership program in which SAU principal candidates conduct mock interviews for Loras student teaching candidates.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

Moving forward, an academic faculty position has been created starting fall, 2019 to be filled by Ms. Paula Baumann, retired School Counselor. If enrollment trends continue to be strong for the School Counseling Program, consideration of an additional full time Doctoral level faculty member will be a priority, with a search for this position in the future.

The Unit will begin process of periodic peer-evaluation of faculty teaching within the Teacher Education Program beginning fall 2019.

40 Loras College Final Report October 2018

As noted in 79.10(6), beginning May 2019, each year Unit faculty members involved in teaching Secondary Education majors will host a meeting for Music faculty and other content-area faculty. The meetings will focus on updates to the Unit, discuss scheduling and course offerings, and to get feedback about how the Unit can better communicate and coordinate requirements to ensure a more cohesive program. There have been far fewer course conflicts between the Unit and the Secondary licensure content areas in recent years. Yet there could be even more intentionality between Unit faculty to check-in with the wide-array of Secondary content-area faculty to prevent as much as possible overlapping course conflicts for students that populate courses in both Secondary Education and Secondary content-area courses (history, English, math, biology, chemistry, Spanish, sociology, political science, psychology, economics, etc.).

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.12(2): The team does not find evidence that all unit faculty are qualified in knowledge, preparation and experience for their teaching assignments: a. Faculty member teaches elementary and secondary music methods, including preparation for vocal and instrumental music teaching. Evidence indicates his preparation and experience is limited to secondary level instrumental music. b. Faculty member teaches secondary math methods and elementary math methods as a component of his J-term MATH 110 course. The team found no evidence of knowledge or preparation in P-12 math teaching. His experience is as a non-licensed part time elementary teacher of TAG math at grades 5 and 6. The team requires the unit to ensure all unit faculty are qualified for their teaching assignments.

a. The Academic Dean has approved a plan whereby the College will pay the tuition for Faculty member, Associate Professor of Music, to take an Elementary K-6 music methods course so that he is qualified to teach L.MUS 233 Curriculum and Instruction in Music K-6. In addition, Dr. will dedicate a percentage of his 40-hour team teaching requirement to teaching in an Elementary music methods classroom.

In the interim, the College will hire an adjunct instructor to teach the music methods course. The following is a description of the requirements for the position: The Elementary music methods faculty member must have a least a

41 Loras College Final Report October 2018 master’s degree in Music Education or its equivalent, a minimum of three years of successful K-6 music teaching experience, and a demonstrated ability to teach an elementary music methods course. Responsibilities include teaching Elementary K-6 music methods, supervising student teachers, and other clinical work.

b. The Unit will ensure that faculty who teach the Elementary Music and Secondary Mathematics methods courses are appropriately qualified.

The Unit has reviewed the syllabus for MATH 110 Mathematics for Elementary Teachers I to ensure there is no methods component. The syllabus is in compliance with this Standard. MAT 110 is offered as a January Term course and as such the course is required by the College to have an experiential learning component. To meet that requirement the course is taught at a school site, and students can spend time in the elementary classroom engaged in tasks assigned by the classroom teacher and observing instruction including mathematics instruction (which includes both content and pedagogy).

The syllabi for L.MAT 110 Mathematics for K-8 Teachers I and L.MAT 111 Mathematics for K-8 Teachers II have been reviewed and revised in consultation with faculty member to address and alleviate concerns that either course is methods course. Both revised syllabi are attached. In addition, Dr. has provided a rationale based on professional recommendations explaining why critical mathematics pedagogy is included and modeled for students in the courses. This document is attached.

2. 79.12(3). The team found no evidence that adjunct faculty are evaluated. The team requires the unit to establish and implement of evaluations for adjunct faculty teaching and use of evaluations to inform support for adjunct faculty for continuous program improvement.

The Unit will begin fall 2019 to consistently evaluate adjunct faculty using the procedures and instructions recently developed and implemented by the College.

See attached documentation of completed evaluations for adjunct faculty of the School Counseling Program. (Signed hard copies are housed in the program office).

3. 79.12(5)c There is no evidence that three part time faculty completed 40 hours of team teaching. The team requires the unit to ensure all candidates complete 40 hours of team teaching.

The adjunct faculty identified in 79.12(5)c will not be teaching for the Unit. The Unit will ensure that all part-time contingent faculty will meet the necessary 40 hours of team teaching.

42 Loras College Final Report October 2018 The attached contingent faculty employment contract will now include language related to the 40-hour team teaching requirement: Adjunct faculty for the Teacher Education Program have a 40-hour team teaching requirement. For this contract to be valid, adjunct faculty must earn 8 hours of team teaching annually and update the log each academic year to meet the continuous 40-hour requirement.

Also attached is the Faculty Credential Verification Form. All faculty credentials will be reviewed and approved by the Academic Dean. The 40-hour team teaching requirement is included on the Form and applies to all faculty (full-time, part-time, and contingent) in the Teacher Education Program.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: ● Director of Graduate Programs, Director of School Counseling Program, Director of Teacher Education, TEP faculty (FT and adjunct) and staff, candidates, recent graduates, cooperating teachers, Director of Admissions, Associate Academic Dean of Instruction and Assessment, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, Division Chair, Registrar. Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report ● Faculty vita ● 40 hour logs Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Clinical site visits and discussions with cooperating educators and administrators

Final Recommendation: Met Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

ASSESSMENT

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

43 Loras College Final Report October 2018 ● Students in the TEP program report receiving feedback on various assignments, assessments, and clinical experiences.

● The team finds evidence from multiple students in both the school counseling and teacher education program that students are aware of and understand national standards. Teacher education students provided evidence of a standards based (InTASC) portfolio developed throughout their time in the program.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

The Unit has begun a systematic review and evaluation of how the Unit’s documentation of student progress on the ten InTASC Standards at the Developing Level and can be more effectively communicated to students so they are better informed of their progress. The Unit is recommending: ● Students will use a digital portfolio application such as Seesaw or Google Classroom to maintain a record of their progress on the InTASC Standards throughout the Developing Phase of the program. ● The digital portfolio will contain each of the assigned course-based InTASC artifacts, reflections, and the faculty scoring of those artifacts. ● The digital portfolio will also include clinical-teaching evaluations. ● An InTASC Overview folder in the digital portfolio will house a table providing an “at-a-glance” display of performance data. ● Students will be responsible for inputting all required artifact and data elements of the portfolio. ● Review of the digital portfolio will be the responsibility of the Assessment Coordinator, faculty advisor, and Screening Committee. ● The Assessment Coordinator will prepare regular summaries and data displays for the purpose of assessing candidate progress and program improvement.

2. 79.13(3) The team does not find evidence of the unit using candidate assessment data to inform the comprehensive unit/program. The team recommends the unit faculty regularly analyze candidate assessment data to develop strategies for continual improvement. . The Unit will commit to a schedule of biweekly program meetings. One part of each meeting will be dedicated as needed to the review of relevant candidate data and assessment at both the Developing and Mastering levels. Each semester at

44 Loras College Final Report October 2018 least one scheduled assessment meeting will be devoted to candidate assessment at the Developing and Mastering Levels. Each summer the Assessment Coordinator will review and prepare a report on candidate performance related to progress on the ten InTASC Standards, observable teaching performance, and program dispositions from the previous academic year. This report will be shared at a September program meeting and with the Advisory Board in October. The report will also be shared with the Academic Dean.

Upon review the Unit believes that it is now clearly communicating by email letter with students on their admission status regarding 1) initial admission to Teacher Education, 2) Pending Admission to Student Teaching, and 3) Full Admission to student teaching. In each letter students are clearly informed of their status, the current requirements for admission, and what may need to be remedied. The Unit will continue to review its system of communication and how it maintains its internal records of these communications.

4. 79.13(5)b Evidence indicates a lack of alignment of assignments with assessments and standards. Course assignments have been identified for each standard, however there is no evidence the assignments are associated with rubrics directly aligned to standards. The unit is using multiple measures to collect individual candidate data; however, there is no evidence the programs (TEP & PSC) are using multiple measures aligned with each standard and assessing each candidate with these measures. The team recommends the unit develop a system that more clearly allows candidates to demonstrate attainment of unit standards.

The Unit will implement a revised table to indicate, by courses at the Developing Level, 1) the InTASC standard to be assessed, 2) the specific course assignment or assignments that are used to assess a student’s proficiency in the course-based Standard, 3) the rubric/scale for assessment, and 4) the assigned observable clinical-teaching performance standard with the rubric/scale. A revised rubric/scale will be included for the Mastering Level. The Mastering Level consists of Student Teaching during which candidates must demonstrate proficiency on all ten InTASC Standards. Syllabi will clearly contain this information. Candidates select their own artifacts based on the work accomplished at their assigned site or sites.

For the School Counseling Program, multiple measures are identified for courses aligned with each standard. These multiple assessment measures have separate

45 Loras College Final Report October 2018 rubrics associated with them. All students engage in the portfolio process using the multiple measures of assessment aligned with standards. See Pages 7-11 of the attached Portfolio Guide that outlines this process. Further the Portfolio Guide contains the identified rubrics for measures. (Portfolio Guide Attached)

The Unit elements identified in 79.13(2) and 79.13(5)b to address this recommendation for both the Developing and Mastering Levels.

For the School Counseling Program, the Portfolio Guide addresses this specifically. Students are assessed on multiple assessments for each of the standard, at multiple points in the program. Students are informed in advance. Additionally, the Portfolio Guide is intended to be a reflection instrument, as well as a demonstration of competence, as evidenced by reflection of all required assessments with the “Documentation and Reflection Sheet”. Finally, faculty are provided with the Portfolio Guide, outlining expectations of student assessment.

6. 79.13(6)d The team did not find evidence of how evaluation data is shared regularly with stakeholders. The team recommends the unit develop and implement policy to use data when soliciting advice from the advisory committee and other stakeholder groups.

The Unit believes that it has been sharing assessment data regularly with its Advisory Board. The Unit will implement a more explicit communication of assessment data with its Advisory Board and explicitly solicit, record, and report Board response and feedback on its data.

A policy was developed and approved by the Graduate Faculty on February 20 and Graduate Council on March 4, 2019, respectively, specifically outlining how and when data is shared with stakeholders. See attached policy.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.13(1) Evidence indicates a lack of a clearly defined, cohesive assessment system used by faculty, staff and students for either the school counseling or

46 Loras College Final Report October 2018 teacher education program. The following statements describe evidence or lack of evidence to articulate this concern:

● 79.13(5)a The team did not find evidence of how the unit determines if student assessment measures/tools are fair, reliable, and valid. The team requires the unit to develop and implement methods of determining all assessment measures are valid, fair and reliable.

The Teacher Education Program has identified an InTASC priority performance standard or standards for each of the InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards (program outcomes). The Teacher Education Program will adapt the rubrics of the Learning Progressions for Teachers as a means to assess student clinical performance. We fully recognize that the InTASC rubrics as they are designed are intended to support formative rather than summative judgments of performance, and thus they will serve to help faculty provide feedback and to support a candidate’s growth. Given the wide use of InTASC and its research-base (www.ccsso.org/intasc) we are confident that the Standards and rubrics will provide us with tools and measures that are “fair, reliable, and valid”.

● 79.13(6)a The team did not find evidence that individual assessment data on unit standards is analyzed. The team requires the unit to implement policy for analyzing assessment data for program assessment.

School Counseling Program Data and draft policy is attached.

● 79.13(6)c The team did not find evidence of the unit using aggregated assessment/performance data to inform program decisions and make program improvements. The team requires the unit to implement policy for aggregating and using candidate performance data for programmatic decisions.

School Counseling Program: This policy specified above in 79.13(6)d additionally specifies how and when aggregated data is shared with stakeholders for program decisions and program improvements.

● 79.13(8) The team did not find evidence that the unit regularly reviews, evaluates, and revises the assessment system. The team requires the unit to implement policy for regularly reviewing and revising the assessment system.

School Counseling Program: The new policy addresses this.

47 Loras College Final Report October 2018 for program improvement, policy for reviewing the effectiveness of the assessment system.

The Unit has been systematically reviewing its current assessment system and is committed to revising that system and address each of the concerns identified in this report. Critical assistance in that process is being provided by our assessment consultant, Sarah Kress, Coe College.

One of the first steps taken in this process has been the request to the Loras Administration for approval to have sufficient release time during the academic year and a summer stipend for an Assessment Coordinator. The position, release time, and compensation have been approved by the Academic Dean.

The Unit’s goal is to have Phase One, the majority (around 80%) of its revised assessment system, ready for fall 2019. It will implement Phase Two (around 10%) of the system over the course of the 2019-2020 academic year. Phase Three (final 10%) will be the interview protocol for use in the Introducing Level (perhaps in 2021-2022 due to budgeting).

In addition to its use of the InTASC Standards, the Unit is currently reviewing options that will assure that assessment instruments are valid, fair, and reliable. Two options are being reviewed: Marzano’s work on teaching and Charlotte Danielson’s Framework. Both would provide research-based instruments and approaches to assessing a candidate’s performance. In particular, the Unit recognizes a significant gap in its assessment system and that is in regard to the assessment of a candidate’s clinical-teaching performance. The Unit will be developing an instrument with normed rubrics for field use by faculty observers that is valid, fair, and reliable for measuring a candidate's clinical-teaching performance in the Developing and Mastering Levels of the program (for both the Elementary and Secondary majors).

The Unit has revised its assessment calendar to include all actions taken throughout the academic year and summer related to it systematic assessment system. These actions include a monthly review of assessment data, the creation of actions plans in response to the information learned from the monthly assessment meetings, including the comparison of data points. The revised calendar also includes the dedicated time for the annual review of the assessment system.

Loras College Teacher Education Assessment Calendar

Month Actions Purpose Responsible Persons

August Review and analyze the Identify assessment Assessment Praxis II data by trends related to Coordinator categories (pedagogy candidate performance and content), the and program

48 Loras College Final Report October 2018 dispositional data, improvement. graduate survey data and principal survey Use data to set data , and the teaching goals/create action performance data for plans, and to inform the for the previous AY. program improvement Prepare the necessary decisions data summaries, charts, tables for the TEP and Advisory Board for the fall

September The TEP faculty review Identify assessment Assessment the Assessment trends related to Coordinator Coordinator’s report candidate performance TEP Faculty and data displays and program prepared in August. improvement.

Analyze aggregated and Use data to set disaggregated InTASC goals/create action data (courses and plans and to inform student teaching) program improvement decisions Compare data with prior semesters

Review annual graduate and principal survey data

September - Collection of InTASC Individual candidate Assessment December data performance Coordinator (courses and student TEP Faculty teaching), dispositional Program assessment Cooperating teachers data, assessments of College supervisors candidates’ observable Administrative clinical-teaching Assistant performance

Prepare and present aggregated and disaggregated data

All data is entered into database

Prepare assessment report

Review assessment data (student and program) at weekly TEP meetings

Monthly review of all assessment data

49 Loras College Final Report October 2018

October External Advisory Board input on Assessment Board: Report analysis assessment and annual Coordinator of program assessment survey data data Set goals and inform program improvement

December Student Teaching Mastering Level TEP Faculty portfolio panel assessment presentation

January Analyze aggregated and Identify assessment Assessment disaggregated fall trends Coordinator InTASC data (courses and student teaching) Use data to set goals and inform program Prepare a report for the improvement decisions February TEP meeting

February - May Collection of InTASC Individual candidate Faculty data (courses and performance Cooperating teachers student teaching), College supervisors dispositional data, Program assessment Administrative assessments of Assistant candidates’ observable clinical-teaching performance

Prepare and present aggregated and disaggregated data

All data is entered into database

Review assessment data (student and program) at weekly TEP meetings

Monthly review of all assessment data

February - March Prepare and send the Collect assessment data Assessment annual graduate and from recent graduates Coordinator principal surveys and their employers Administrative Assistant

April External Advisory Board input on fall Assessment Board: Report analysis assessment data Coordinator of program assessment data Set goals and inform

50 Loras College Final Report October 2018 program improvement

May Review Board input Set goals and inform Assessment program improvement Coordinator Review and evaluate TEP Faculty assessment system Identify needed revisions to assessment Student Teaching system portfolio panel presentation Mastering Level assessment

May/June Final entry and House data and make it Assessment organization of all available for the August Coordinator assessment data analysis by the Administrative Assessment Assistant Coordinator

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: ● Teacher Advisory Council members (local principals, adjuncts, current candidates, alumni), Candidates, Unit Faculty, Library Director(s), Associate Academic Dean of Instruction and Assessment, Senior VP, VPAA Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Student records ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

TEACHER EDUCATION CLINICAL PRACTICE

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

51 Loras College Final Report October 2018

Commendations/Strengths:

● Based on interviews with cooperating teachers, the team finds the TEP faculty have strong relationships with staff and administrators in their clinical schools. This allows for better support between the TEP faculty and the cooperating teachers.

● The unit requires 10 service hours beyond the 50 practicum hours in the Secondary Methods placement.

● The team commends the unit for having contracts go through the college’s business department, which gives candidates, the college and the partner school an extra layer of protection.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

The Unit currently has policies and procedures in place for making Introducing and Developing Level clinical placements (clinical experience that are embedded in individual courses are closely tied to partner sites and managed by individual faculty), and student teaching placements. The Unit is reviewing these policies and procedures.

The Unit is reviewing its policies and procedures for preparing, evaluating, and supporting cooperating teachers and college supervisors. This review is being led by the Director of Clinical Education.

The Unit will begin evaluating adjunct faculty using the procedures and instruments recently put in place by the College.

52 Loras College Final Report October 2018 for arranging clinical placements in accordance with P-12 school/district requirements.

We have confirmed that the core Unit faculty have not initiated contact directly with teachers for placements. The Unit has a clear policy and procedure with the local public school district for making pre-student teaching clinical placements. The local IHEs worked with administrators of the local public school district to create the policy. This policy allows the Unit to make direct contact with those schools identified as “partner” schools. Such contacts are handled through the individuals identified as the appropriate contact at each site (e.g., instructional coach, principal). A new HR Director for the local public schools will be in place in 2019-2020. The policy will be revisited at that time. At our meeting with secondary content area faculty and Music faculty, we will review the clinical placement policy. The Unit has a long-standing written arrangement with the local Catholic school system that governs the making of clinical placements. Student teaching placements are managed by the Director of Clinical Education who abides by each district’s policies for making placement requests.

A strength of the Unit is the multiple avenues of interaction through which Unit faculty interact with local P-12 schools. While this may occasionally result in informal inquiries and placement discussions through affiliated venues, the procedures established by the local districts are still followed.

The Unit is reviewing these policies and procedures and how they are being implemented.

The Unit will commit itself to ensure all cooperating teachers share in the evaluation of candidate progress toward unit standards in clinical settings.

The Unit is confident that these discussions between candidates and cooperating teachers is occurring at the Mastering Level in student teaching. In fact, it is a critical component of student teaching. The Unit is reviewing how these discussions are being facilitated in the appropriate clinical settings, and in the Elementary and Secondary Professional Development Schools.

53 Loras College Final Report October 2018 6. 79.14(8) The team finds the unit offers a workshop for cooperating teachers. From interviews of cooperating teachers, those in attendance found it to be beneficial. Those who do not attend do not receive the same level of communication. The team recommends the unit develop and implement a mechanism for better communication of requirements for cooperating teachers unable to attend the workshop.

Cooperating Teachers who do not attend the workshop receive a Word document with enhanced instructions on managing paperwork and procedures through eLearn. College Supervisors will receive instructions to schedule additional time with Cooperating Teachers who do not attend the workshop in order to better orient them to the supervision process. Request for suggestions to improve this process is also included in College Supervisor evaluation survey, under "general suggestions for the program" text field.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.14(7)(a) 1. The team notes the policy for planned absences in student teaching has been construed by faculty and students to allow student athletes (and other students) to miss student teaching for events, which results in their not completing 14 consecutive weeks of student teaching. The policy also removes oversight for absence approval form full time faculty and/or unit administrators. The team requires the unit to clarify the policy and ensure the requirement for 14 consecutive weeks of full-time student teaching.

The Unit takes seriously its obligation to ensure that established policy for attendance and absences during the Student Teaching semester are communicated and consistently applied with fidelity. The Director of Clinical Education has oversight for the policy and its application. The Unit has no record of any athlete not meeting the requirements for student teaching including the requirement of 14 consecutive weeks. However, the Unit will carefully monitor the application of its policy. The written policy is below.

The absence policy found in the Student Teaching Handbook has been edited for clarity and inserted directly into the document.

Absence from Student Teaching

Student Teaching is a full-time, 18-week experience that may extend beyond the traditional college semester calendar. During the dates of the placement, the Student Teacher is expected to maintain, at a minimum, the working hours specified by the local school district or agency for the Cooperating Teacher-Mentor to which he or she has been assigned, as well as the schedule of the Cooperating Teacher with regard to

54 Loras College Final Report October 2018 outside planning and preparation. This includes following the local school district or agency calendar during the entire assignment. Up to 3 contract days of allowable absences may be recorded during this time. In all cases, adequate plans and instructional materials must be communicated to the cooperating teacher in advance and available in the classroom at the start of teacher contract time.

If due to an illness or emergency situation a Student Teacher cannot be present at the start of the teacher contract time for a given school day, the Student Teacher must notify the Cooperating Teacher-Mentor and College Supervisor per established protocol and communicate instructional plans and materials before the beginning of the school work day.

Any request to absent oneself from one's teaching duties for reasons scheduled in advance requires the prior consent of (1) the College Supervisor and (2) the Cooperating Teacher-Mentor.

If a professional absence is longer than one day the following conditions must be fulfilled: ● A workable, written plan must describe how the missing days and responsibilities will be made up. ● Written, prior consent must be obtained from the Cooperating Teacher-Mentor, the College Supervisor, and the Director of Clinical Education.

Student-athletes or coaches whose sport practice or competition schedule overlaps with the student teaching experience should indicate their intent to participate on the Application to Student Teaching, then meet with the Director of Clinical Education in the semester before student teaching begins. This will allow the Student Teacher to collaborate with Head Coach, Cooperating Teacher and College Supervisor to develop a plan to minimize anticipated absences. The specific dates and times of absences during the school day must be presented for Cooperating Teacher’s approval before the student teaching semester begins. Total hours absent from the classroom for practices, games, or travel must stay within the allowable three days, as calculated by teacher contract hours.

Should the cumulative accrual of absences (for any reason) exceed three school days, the Director of Clinical Education will consult with the College Supervisor and the Cooperating Teacher-Mentor to determine if additional student teaching days will be required for the successful completion of the experience.

The Loras College Undergraduate Bulletin (p. 37) affirms the policy found in the Student Teaching Handbook.

POLICY ON CLASS ATTENDANCE AND COLLEGE SPONSORED EVENTS

Occasionally during a semester, other College-sponsored events conflict with scheduled classes or required course activities. College-sponsored events covered by this policy include: intercollegiate athletic competitions, theater and music

55 Loras College Final Report October 2018 performances, academic competitions in which the student is representing the College, curricular and co-curricular conferences in which the student is presenting work and/or been invited to attend the event on behalf of the college. This policy does not cover the following types of activities: course field trips, practice for any college- sponsored event, or learning opportunities that the student opts to pursue without college affiliation or sponsorship. Teacher Education students enrolled in Student Teaching courses will follow the policy outlined in the Student Teaching Handbook.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: ● Unit Faculty - Full Time and Adjuncts, Director of School Counseling Program, Director of Teacher Education, candidates, recent graduates, cooperating teachers Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visits to clinical sites and discussions with candidates, cooperating teachers, administrators

Final Recommendation: Met Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

TEACHER EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

● The team commends the program and college for establishing Secondary Education as a major.

● The team finds evidence through syllabi review and conversations with candidates during class visits of consistent reference to InTASC standards throughout the Teacher Education Program.

56 Loras College Final Report October 2018

● Candidates in the Teacher Education Program report that courses are designed to afford candidates many opportunities for reflection and hands-on experience in school settings.

● During interviews, candidates indicate that they are being prepared to work with students with dyslexia.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

The Unit currently embeds special education content related to working with students with special needs (EDU 205 Foundations of Inclusive Education, EDU 339 Differentiated Instruction 5-12, and EDU 340 Differentiated Instruction K- 8). With a new Special Education faculty member joining the Unit fall 2019, we will begin reviewing the Elementary Education program for an enhanced delivery of Special Education content for all students.

This will be addressed by the Unit's review and revision of the assessment system (refer to the Unit’s responses in 79.13). The Unit’s Assessment Consultant will also be able to provide direction and feedback on this issue.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.15(9) Curriculum exhibits are not approved. The team requires curriculum exhibits for the professional cores and all endorsements offered to be approved.

The Unit has submitted its Curriculum exhibits for approval.

Status of Curriculum Exhibits as reported by BOEE 4/1/19 Key: No shade, not reviewed Yellow: Questions Green: Approved

57 Loras College Final Report October 2018 Professional Ed Core K-8 Professional Ed Core 5-12 Other

Birth-3 Inclusive Settings 5-12 American K-8 Counselor Government

K-6 Elementary Classroom 5-12 American History 5-12 Counselor

K-8 Strat I 5-12 Biology

K-8 Mathematics 5-12 Chemistry

K-8 Reading 5-12 English/LA

K-8 Spanish 5-12 Mathematics

K-8 History 5-12 Music

K-8 Social Studies 5-12 Physics

5-12 Psychology

5-12 Sociology

5-12 Spanish

5-12 World History

5-12 All Social Sciences

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: ● Director of Graduate Programs, Director of School Counseling Program, Director of Teacher Education, TEP faculty (FT and adjunct) and staff, candidates, recent graduates, cooperating teachers, Associate Academic Dean of Instruction and Assessment, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning, Division Chair Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report Visits to classrooms and discussions with students Visit to a clinical site and discussions with the building administrator and two cooperating teachers

Final Recommendation: Met

58 Loras College Final Report October 2018 Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

COUNSELOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

· An interview with the Director of Counseling revealed her connections to many counselors inside and outside the Dubuque area. The Director personally places the interns with a cooperating professional she feels will make a best fit.

· The team finds both the Cooperating Supervisor/Director of Counseling and College Supervisors share a clear understanding and the responsibility for assessment of candidates in the Practicum and Internship Experiences.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

None

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

A new contract was created and implemented starting spring 2019. See attached document. This is consistent with contracts used by the Teacher Education Program.

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: Director of Graduate Programs, Director of School Counseling Program, adjunct PSC faculty, candidates, recent graduates, cooperating counselors.

59 Loras College Final Report October 2018 Review of: ● Course syllabi ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report ● Visits to classrooms and discussions with students ● Clinical site visits and discussions with cooperating educators and administrators

Final Recommendation: Met Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

COUNSELOR KNOWLEDGE SKILLS AND DISPOSITIONS

Initial Team Finding: Met Met Pending Conditions X Noted Not Met

Commendations/Strengths:

· Recent program graduates are very positive about their experiences in the program and their preparation for their current work as school counselors.

· Evidence indicates clear use and alignment of Iowa licensure standards in coursework and clinical experiences.

Recommendations: (Recommendations are made to inform the program for continuous improvement only. No action is required.)

1. 79.21(1) Program completers stated they were not fully prepared in several pedagogical areas. The team recommends the unit examine curriculum and adjust as necessary to ensure adequate learning for the following criteria from the licensure requirements: · Career Development (particularly as it relates to K-12 students and the School Counselor’s work)

There were student complaints about the content of SCP 637 Career Lifestyle and Development course, specific to the instructor’s lack of career-based content shared for

60 Loras College Final Report October 2018 programming and services for the PK-12 population. The identified instructor has been replaced by Ms. Eryn Kjelland. Ms. Kjelland is currently a school counselor with a depth of understanding of career programming and services. She also has a career consulting business that privately serves high school students. Therefore, this issue has been addressed and resolved beginning spring semester 2018.

· Supporting administrators, teachers, and students relative to 504 plans

504 Plans are specifically discussed in our SCP 690 School Counseling course in Lesson #9, addressing student assessment. Intentional identification of this will appear in the syllabus the next time this course is offered in fall 2019. Additionally, a 504 specific assignment will be added to SCP 615 Assessment for the purpose of students having more familiarity and practice with conceptualizing and writing 504 plans.

· Preparation for working with P-12 students in various situations (one-on-one, small group, large group).

Curriculum is specifically targeted for working with PK-12 students one-one-one, small group, and large group through the following courses: SCP 647 Helping Relationships, SCP 643 Group Methods, SCP 694 Practicum, SCP 696/698 Internship. This is a major knowledge and skill core of the SCP training program with many assignments to support and develop skills and knowledge in these areas.

Concerns: (Concerns are made to inform the program for continuous improvement. However, the program is required to address concerns before State Board action.)

1. 79.21(2) The team finds evidence that PSC candidates who have not previously been teachers do not receive adequate knowledge in the professional teaching core. The team requires the unit to examine and adjust curriculum to ensure all candidates from a non- teaching background are able to demonstrate this knowledge.

During summer 2019, the School Counseling Program Director will review all syllabi of the School Counseling curriculum and adjust each accordingly to ensure that all candidates are able to demonstrate adequate knowledge in the professional teaching core as identified below. The following table identifies each course to be reviewed and assessments specifically targeted to address the identified requirement. Documentation of changes will demonstrate compliance with this standard.

79.21(2) Each candidate demonstrates, within specific coursework and clinical experiences related to the study of human relations, cultural competency, and diverse learners, that the candidate is prepared to work with students from diverse groups, as defined in rule 281—79.2(256). The unit shall provide evidence that candidates develop the ability to meet the needs of all learners, including: a. Students from diverse ethnic, racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. b. Students with disabilities.

61 Loras College Final Report October 2018 c. Students who are gifted and talented. d. English language learners. e. Students who may be at risk of not succeeding in school.

A document identifying a policy for evaluating candidate performance is attached.

Table --: Human Relations and Cultural Competency Coursework Course(s) Candidate Performance(s) Requirement

Social&Cultural Paper Be aware of and understand Diversity Presentation the values, life styles, history, Final Exam and contributions of various Disposition statement identifiable subgroups in our society.

Social&Cultural Paper Recognize and deal with Diversity Presentation dehumanizing biases such as Helping Relationships Final Exam sexism, racism, prejudice, School Counseling Disposition statement and discrimination and Group Work Disposition Statement become aware of the impact Comprehensive Exam Case conceptualization that such biases have on Phil Statement interpersonal relations. Group Observ Paper

Social&Cultural Paper Translate knowledge of Diversity Presentation human relations into Helping Relationships Final Video attitudes, skills, and School Counseling Disposition Statement techniques which will result Internship Case conceptualization in favorable learning Phil Statement experiences for students. Level II Portfolio Disposition Statement

62 Loras College Final Report October 2018 Social&Cultural Paper Recognize human diversity Diversity Presentation and the rights of each Helping Relationships Disposition statement individual. School Counseling Final Video Group Work Disposition Statement Internship Phil Statement Comprehensive Exam Group Observ Paper Level II Portfolio Disposition Statement Social&Cultural Disposition statement Relate effectively to other Diversity Final Video individuals and various Helping Relationships Disposition Statement subgroups other than one’s School Counseling Case conceptualization own. Internship Phil Statement Comprehensive Exam Level II Portfolio Disposition Statement Successful completion

Social&Cultural Final Exam Have an awareness of federal Diversity Presentation and state civil rights legislation as it impacts students.

Source(s):

Table --: Meeting Needs of Diverse Learners Course(s) where Candidate Addressed Performance(s) Student characteristics Social&Cultural Diversity Presentation 1. Students from School Counseling Case conceptualization diverse ethnic, Group Work Phil Statement racial and Internship Group Observ Paper Level II Portfolio socioeconomic

backgrounds.

63 Loras College Final Report October 2018 Social&Cultural Diversity Presentation 1. Students with School Counseling Case conceptualization disabilities. Group Work Phil Statement Internship Research paper & present Level II Portfolio

School Counseling Case conceptualization 1. Students who are Group Work Phil Statement gifted and talented. Research and Prog Eval Research paper & present Internship Prog Eval Prospectus Level II Portfolio

Social&Cultural Diversity Presentation 1. Students who are School Counseling Case conceptualization English language Group Work Phil Statement learners. Internship Research paper & present Comprehensive Exam Level II Portfolio Successful completion

School Counseling Case conceptualization 1. Students who may Group Work Phil Statement be at risk of not Internship Research paper & present succeeding in Research and Prog Eval Level II Portfolio Assessment Prog Eval Prospectus school. Career and Lifestyle Devt Functional Behav Assess Programming Present

2. 79.21(3) Curriculum exhibits are not approved. The team requires curriculum exhibits for the professional cores and all endorsements offered to be approved.

The Unit has submitted its Curriculum exhibits for approval.

Status of Curriculum Exhibits as reported by BOEE 4/1/19: K-8 School Counseling – not reviewed 5-12 School Counseling – not reviewed

Sources of Information:

Interviews with: Director of Graduate Programs, Director of School Counseling Program, adjunct PSC faculty, Associate Academic Dean of Instruction and Assessment. Review of: 64 Loras College Final Report October 2018 ● Course syllabi ● Institutional Report ● Program Response to Review Team’s Initial Report ● Visits to classrooms and discussions with students ● Clinical site visits and discussions with cooperating educators and administrators

Final Recommendation: Met Met Pending Conditions

Noted Not Met

65 Loras College Final Report October 2018