Voting Members Present: G. Logan for J.D. Bowers, P. Bauer for G. Cosenza, K. Carrier, S. Wyland for K. Cole, S. Conklin, J. Cooke-Plagwitz, S. Woods for M. Dunn, M. Fischer, P. Carpenter for C. Fox, T. Heinze, L. Hecht for M.B. Henning, L. Hilgenbrinck, L. Johannessen, G. Logan, M. Mazzola, J. Miller, B. Montgomery, M. Morris, P. Nelson, J. Rique, N. Stahl, D. Walker, A. Windelborn
Voting Members Absent: G. Baker, P. Ervin, K. Freedman, E. Hines, T. VanLaarhoven
Ex Officio Members Present: A. Buehler, M. Gillis, H. Kafer, M. Myles for D. Jackman, J. Cox-Henderson for F. Kitterle, S. Richmond, E. Seaver, P. Carpenter for C. Sorensen
Ex Officio Members Absent: C. Montgomery, S. Warber
Student Representatives Present: M. Larson,
The meeting was called to order by S. Conklin, Chair, at 1:00 PM.
I. Motion by N. Stahl to approve the Agenda.
Motion seconded by L. Johannessen.
II. Motion by L. Johannessen to approve the October 10, 2003, meeting minutes as submitted. Motion seconded by M. Fischer. Motion passed
III. Reports from Committees:
A. Executive Committee:
E. Seaver reported that in preparation for the ISBE/NCATE visit we need to continue on with the assessment plans developed for the last visit. The unit needs to collect data to show where we are in the unit plan and to provide guidance to individual programs, especially in the area of program changes to reflect incoming data. The unit plan needs to reflect our Conceptual Framework and include dispositions while continuing to address the ISBE/NCATE standards. We are behind at the unit level and this semester we need to address this need very seriously. E. Seaver and A. Buehler will be putting together a timeline to meet the needs of the ISBE/NCATE review. We need to address the diversity data at both the unit level and program level but very specifically, at least in the mechanism, to conform to the needs of the ISBE/NCATE recommendations for data collection which need to show that 100% of our students have diverse experiences.
N. Stahl reported on the recent ISU reaccreditation visit, which resulted in a passing grade with no weaknesses. They addressed overall knowledge, assessment of students meeting the standards and the diversity of clinical experiences. ISU is using Live Text for portfolios tied to standards and has this at both the program level and the unit level. We need to have an instrument in place soon to assess our candidates’ meeting the standards. The portfolio we need is not an employment instrument but rather a way to measure candidates’ meeting the standards.
A. Buehler reported on a performance-based evidence accreditation workshop he attended. Some of the key points were:• The Conceptual Framework should be based on the professional teaching standards and everything done at the program level related to the Conceptual Framework.
• The focus of programs is to collect data evidence of compliance with state standards. The focus of the unit is to aggregate data from the programs to show compliance with NCATE standards.
• In terms of unit assessment systems, NCATE’s purpose for reviewing aggregate data was to find in the attached narratives, how the data drove decisions regarding program changes.
• NCATE will also seek to review data from surveys of employers to assess the preparation of graduates. Their focus will be to determine how well graduates were able to facilitate positive learning environments.
• Student lesson plans will be examined to determine how well the lessons were tied to state standards and to see if the lessons illustrated that adaptations were made to meet the needs of all students.
• The primary purpose of portfolios is for institutions to collect evidence to show program quality. Students modifying portfolios later on to market themselves is a secondary consideration. Artifacts in portfolios should relate to a standard and show how it was met in the lesson.
• And finally, the reminder that 80% of a unit’s graduates must pass the content-area tests. Programs will need to provide remediation for students who were not successful on those tests.
Assessment of Professional Teaching (APT) testB. Curriculum Committee:
Motion by L. Johannessen, seconded by M. Mazzola to inform students that the APT Test is a requirement for state certification but not a program completion or graduation requirement. Motion passed.
B. Montgomery presented the Summary of Action distributed with the agenda for this meeting. She then withdrew language in CHHS 10-3-03 minutes, page 138, 2003-04 Graduate Catalog, regarding Certificate of Graduate Study. Also withdrawn from the CHHS 9-26-03 minutes, page 146, 2003-04 Undergraduate Catalog, was the statement about passing the APT test. Motion by M. Morris, seconded by N. Stahl to accept the Summary of Action as amended. Motion passed.C. Research and Assessment:
L. Johannessen reported that the Special Education Program assessment plan had been presented to this committee. At the upcoming meeting 11/21/03 the committee will review this plan and submit a report back to the program. On a separate note, he also reported that this committee will be working on developing a definition of “dispositions” for use in preparing for the upcoming ISBE/NCATE review.D. Committee on Policy and Procedures:
A. Windelborn reported that this committee is still developing some language for changes to the CITC By Laws and they expect to present it at the next regular CITC meeting. He also reported that this committee is discussing the changing role of some CITC committees, such as the increasing importance of the Research & Assessment Committee and that the focus of the External Communications has also changed.E. External Communications: M. Morris - no report
F. Ad Hoc Committees:
1. Portfolio/Technology CommitteeIV. Springfield Report: no report
A. Buehler reported that this committee met and outlined a number of targeted capabilities they feel an electronic portfolio should have. He added that he has since attended a workshop on Live Text and will ask the committee at next week’s meeting if they wish to see a presentation of that software.
2. Endorsements & Transcript Evaluation Committee
M. Morris reported the following:
• NIU’s actions are limited until we know what the ISBE wants to do concerning endorsement evaluation and reporting
• As ROE’s continue to be phased out, more responsibilities will come to NIU. How will these services be funded?
• Should the Office of R & R continue to handle endorsement reporting?
• How do programs communicate to university offices what endorsement requirements are and how they are met?
• If certificates/endorsements are to be issued electronically from NIU, when will this happen, which office will do this and how will this be funded?
• If NIU needs to evaluate previous coursework for transfer students, which office will do this and how will this be funded?
• Should NIU require all teacher certification candidates to do the complete NIU program in their field of specialization (i.e., not accept coursework from other four-year institutions? How will this affect our competitiveness with those institutions? Will NIU requirements put us at a competitive disadvantage with other institutions?
• Should endorsement applications from students to program advisors be distributed at the time of admission to the program?
• Should we create a handbook of endorsement requirements?
• What steps can we take to prepare for future developments in endorsements?
• How should students wanting endorsements apply to NIU (student status)?
V. Old Business: none
VI. New Business
Covered earlier in this meeting.VII. Announcements
A. Motion by N. Stahl that we dispense with the CITC Meeting, December 5, 2003, and vote on the Curriculum Committee Summary of Action by e-mail. Motion seconded by L. Johannessen. Motion passed.
Next meeting of CITC will be January 16, 2004, HSC Illinois Room, 1:00-3:00 PM
Motion by M. Mazzola to adjourn.
Motion passed. Meeting adjourned at 2:15 PM