Committee on Advanced Programs for Certification In Education
January 12, 2004
Graham Hall 423 8:30-10:00 A.M.

Present: A. Buehler, (UOTC); Barbara Fiehn, (ETRA); J. Jacobson, (LEPF); C. Montgomery, (Associate Dean, Graduate School), J. Saban, (LESO); G. Seaver, (Vice Provost); C. Sorensen, (Dean, CoE); N. Stahl, (LTCY); S. Stratton, (LEPF); S. Wichman, (CAHE); S. Warber (Registration & Records)

Not Present: P. Tattersall, (COMD); G. Waas, (Psychology)

The meeting convened at 8:30 AM. No items were added to the agenda.

A motion was made by J. Jacobson and seconded by N. Stahl to approve the November 3, 2003, minutes. Motion passed

Earl Seaver noted the Unit Assessment Committee has made some progress working to identify common data across programs that can be aggregated at the unit level. The committee will look at data collected at the unit level at other institutions. Currently, a copy of data reported by programs to the unit at Illinois State University has been obtained. The Unit Assessment Committee will be scheduling two meetings per month to facilitate progress.

Norm Stahl expressed a need for a unified appearance showing that the Unit Assessment aligns with the University Assessment. He felt the Unit Assessment Committee should have a representative on the University Assessment Panel. It was noted that this is one reason Craig Barnard is on the Unit Assessment Committee.

Chris Sorensen said that NIU needs unity to pass the next accreditation visit. She noted that at Illinois State University, their initial certification programs share a common way to report data. She added that the advanced programs at ISU did not have a common data reporting system. Recently, the deans talked about a common data base and saw a presentation of SharePoint. Some significant questions need to be answered about the costs associated with introducing a data management system.

Chris Sorensen commented on LiveText, the portfolio software used for initial certification programs at ISU. LiveText is trying to promote common software between feeder colleges and larger institutions to facilitate data flow for institutions with large transfer student populations. Considering NIU has a high percentage of transfer students, NIU needs to give this some consideration. An advantage LiveText provides verses a locally controlled solution is that the vendor carries the expense of the server and program support. Another reason ISU went with LiveText is because it was quick to implement. The trade off with packaged programs is limited ability to be unique.

Earl Seaver said the Unit Assessment Committee looked at GPA’s as a data item for students entering programs, but found there was too much variation to make valid comparisons. He also noted the need to distinguish between what is assessment and what is demographic data across programs. Further, our assessment plan must be built around our conceptual framework. Finally, he cited the need to differentiate between portfolios and the unit data base.

Joe Sabin noted that if we’re looking for congruence across the university, shouldn’t the state have a common system? A comment was made that this may be realized as the Illinois Data Warehouse is developed. Joe Saban asked, what will the unit be asking of CAPCE? It was determined this will be the central agenda item for the next meeting.

Regarding software solutions, the question was raised how will software and training costs be funded? This will be an issue to be resolved because this expense is not a funded item in the Provost’s budget.

Al Buehler stated that the Portfolio/Technology Committee had viewed a presentation of SharePoint by Gary Baker and planned to schedule presentations by various e-portfolio software vendors. He was asked by CAPCE to begin by inviting LiveText and setup multiple sessions for different groups.

Chris Sorensen reminded all of the upcoming AACTE Annual Meeting in Chicago beginning with the Preconference Workshops on Saturday, February 7, 2004, and encouraged participation.

Suzanne Warber addressed the committee about the new electronic entitlement plan and how it will be phased in. She explained that through the new Teacher Certification Information System (TCIS) we can now electronically go directly into the state data base and enter information. We have begun with the initial certification programs and will move to include the advanced programs hopefully by May. The next step will be issuance, meaning when students return applications we will collect fees and issue certificate numbers. This is currently still done at the Regional Offices of Education. The goal is to begin this phase by fall 2004.

The main agenda item for the February 2, 2004 meeting will be the need to discuss how CAPCE sees itself reporting on the annual assessment report.

A motion to adjourn was made by N. Stahl and seconded by J. Jacobson. Motion passed.

February 2, 2004
March 1, 2004
April 5, 2004
May 3, 2004