Standard 5 Addendum

Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance; they also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.

5.3  Evidence for the BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit

1. While the IR states that two “highly qualified faculty” have been added across the unit and that the unit plans to continue recruitment and hiring of talented faculty, specific evidence or plans for this were not found in the IR or in the exhibits. What plans does the unit have for recruiting qualified faculty? What is the process for hiring temporary faculty? What is the university ratio of T-TT and temporary faculty?

The IR states that “all departments in the unit have been granted at least two T-TT hires for 2014-15 academic year.” To clarify, that means that a minimum total of ten new tenure track faculty will be hired in the unit beginning in AY 2014-2015. The university president has made a commitment to hire 100 tenure track faculty over three years across the institution. That promise is on track since fall 2013 with thirty-six new hires in 2013-2014 and about the same number anticipated for 2014-2015. In addition, the SOE has hired a number of clinical supervisors to keep up with our reduced ratio of candidates to their university supervisors (as of fall 2013 the ratio dropped from three candidates for every unit of workload for university supervision to two candidates for every unit of workload).

The School of Education has hired 30 temporary part-time instructors/supervisors since 2011-2012. Temporary faculty complete a part-time pool application process that includes listing years of experience teaching, credentials held, and highest degree awarded (MA is the minimum). Applicants must submit transcripts, resume, and letters of recommendation. They must meet minimum qualifications to be considered for an interview. For a sample of interview questions see exhibit A.5.1 Supervisor Interview Questions.

According to the most recent data reported under “faculty and staff” on the CSU, Chico website, there are 49% full-time faculty to 51% part-time faculty. The percent of full-time faculty with doctorates/terminal degrees is 83%.

2. How do faculty at both initial and advanced levels support candidate reflection, critical thinking, problem solving and professional dispositions?

Exhibit A.5.2 Supporting Reflection gives examples of faculty support of candidate reflection, critical thinking, problem solving, and professional dispositions.

3. How do faculty in initial and advanced programs integrate technology and diversity in their teaching?

Evidence describing the integration of technology and diversity in teaching is shown in Exhibits A.5.3a Technology in Teaching and A.5.3b Diversity in Teaching.

 4. How are courses aligned to the Common Core and ELD standards?

One example of alignment can be seen in the initial program fieldwork courses. In 2005, the School of Education, together with school partners, developed a rubric based upon the California Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs). This rubric is used by faculty, students and supervisors as a way to operationalize the TPEs. As such, it is used during observations of student teachers and is an important part of the assessment system. In March of 2013, when the Commission on Teacher Credentialing revised the TPEs to align with the common core standards, the School of Education revised the SOE TPE Rubric for use in the 2014-2015 academic year. A copy of the rubric with highlighted Common Core State Standards elements is included in A.5.4a TPE Rubric Highlighted Common Core.

Both the  ELD and Common Core Standards are introduced in prerequisite coursework, so that candidates can observe instruction and plan instruction that aligns with these new standards. In methods courses, instructors address various aspects of the ELD and Common Core standards. For example, in EDTE 522 Reading Comprehension and Content Literacy, the instructor focuses on how candidates can teach their students to read complex text, a focus of the common core English Language Arts standards. In addition, candidates learn how to choose appropriate strategies to support English Language Development and access to the curriculum for English language learners. Candidates use the common core standards and instructional strategies to create unit plans and instructional interventions for students. Exhibit A.5.4b Syllabus Highlighted Common Core and ELD shows how the syllabus reflects these standards.

5. The IR states that there is a goal-driven focus on professional development opportunities and sharing across the unit occurs at department meeting as well as other professional development venues noted in the IR.  Specific evidence of this sharing is not noted in the IR. How has professional development helped unit faculty to develop goal-driven knowledge and skills? How does sharing of this knowledge occur and inform future goals? 

The mission of the School of Education is to create a diverse, democratic, socially responsible society in which every student is valued. Toward that end, two of the goals that faculty have focused on for the past three years are: 1) Candidates effectively support students with special needs, and 2) Candidates effectively support and develop the language needs of English learners.

The goal of supporting students with special needs has been identified as a unit priority. In 2013-2014, faculty across the unit joined forces to present an assistive technology workshop for all candidates, initial and advanced, across pathways and programs. When debriefing this workshop, faculty began to discuss the movement toward inclusive education in the public schools. Faculty across programs in the unit, particularly in general education programs, felt as though they needed more experience with how to write Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs).  In response to this request, a special education faculty member has agreed to lead a workshop about conducting IEPs for faculty at our spring retreat. In addition, this year’s assistive technology workshop for candidates will include a case study approach where candidates will experience developing and participating in IEPs.

The following chart summarizes unit activities focused on the Assistive Technology Workshop and faculty professional development directed toward developing IEPs.

Date

Task

Fall-Spring 2013-2014

Planned Assistive Technology Workshop at EPP unit meeting (see item 3 in Exhibit A.5.5 Goal Driven Professional Development)

Spring 2014

Conducted Assistive Technology Workshop. Candidates across the unit attended. Coordinators across the unit supported candidate learning.

Fall 2014

Reflected on workshop at EPP unit meeting (Education Preparation Providers), with coordinators across unit programs present.

Fall 2014

Discussed plans for professional development with faculty member Steve Koch (see item 7 in Exhibit A.5.5 Goal Driven Prof Dev.).

Spring 2014

 

Assistive technology workshop, with faculty using new expertise to guide candidates.

Spring 2014 May Retreat

Faculty workshop in writing IEPs.

Specific evidence of how goal-driven professional development has helped faculty develop goal-driven knowledge and skills for the goal of supporting English Learners is referenced in IR Exhibit 5.4.g.4, Professional Development Feedback.  The goal was first selected in response to candidate data. Faculty across programs identified a number of actions for improvement, including professional development. This exhibit includes faculty feedback following a professional development workshop conducted by faculty with expertise in this field. The focus was on helping candidates to support English Learners. Faculty shared what they learned, how they planned to apply the new knowledge to their practice, and asked questions and/or made suggestions and comments for follow-up sessions.

6. What are specific examples of collaboration of faculty with P-12 partners, professional organizations and the community?

Exhibit A.5.6 Examples of Partnerships describes examples of collaboration of faculty with P-12 partners, professional organizations and the community.

7. What are the timelines for unit plans on moving toward target for this standard? For example, what are the plans for comparing and aligning assessments across the unit, as noted in the IR? 

Areas in which the IR noted that the unit is moving toward target include 5a. “Qualified Faculty” and 5f. “Unit Facilitation of Professional Development”. The table below provides the timeline for the completion of identified tasks.

Date

Task

Fall 2014-

5f. Strengthening of policies and practices that encourage all professional education faculty to be continuous learners.

  • University-wide Academic Planning Committee (APC) completes its conversation-driven, participatory action report, which is organized around six themes and prioritizes actions to be taken. The report will form the basis of the new Academic Plan for the institution. Areas prioritized include student success, promoting excellence in teaching and learning, building community, and faculty and staff renewal, including professional development. See exhibit A.5.7 APC Action Report for details on Theme 2 “Promoting Excellence in Teaching and Learning” (p. 9-12) and Theme 4, “Faculty Renewal” (p. 17-19) including provisions for workload and faculty support and evaluation.

Fall 2014-

Spring 2015

  • Professional Development for faculty increases. Ongoing support continues from the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT) in the form of workshops and other supports. 
  • Department Chairs Leadership Institute begins. Chairs, chair-elects, and associate chairs are encouraged to consider applying. Institute focuses on developing leadership skills that should directly benefit individuals in current and future leadership roles. Participants, each of whom will receive $750 for professional development or stipend for participation in the program.
  • Internal research grants announced

Spring 2015

5a. Qualified faculty.

New Academic plan is drafted based upon results of APC report. The draft will include university-wide:

  • philosophy on faculty expectations

that emphasizes the teacher-scholar model

  • articulation and clarification of faculty expectations
  • a focus on faculty renewal and support

Spring 2015

5a. Qualified faculty.

RTP alignment and cross-departmental mentoring. Conversation across departments in the college (Dean and Chairs meetings) and in the unit (EP Unit) meetings. Draft template of RTP document to be completed in spring.

 

Spring 2015

5a and f. The New Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for faculty settled that includes support for new probationary faculty employees for workload reduction of two courses per year for the first two years.