South Carolina
COMMISSION
ON HIGHER EDUCATION
APPLYING
COMMISSION
STANDARDS, NCATE STANDARDS, AND
STATE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STANDARDS
TO
TEACHER
EDUCATION PROGRAMS AT SOUTH CAROLINA
PUBLIC
INSTITUTIONS
PREFACE
The members of the Commission on Higher Education Statewide Evaluation Team, presented alphabetically, were as follows:
· Dale G. Andersen, Past-President of AACTE and Professor of Higher
Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
· Ronald G. Joekel, Executive Director Emeritus, Phi Delta Kappa International, Retired Professor of Higher Education, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
· Bernice Bass de Martinez, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Indiana
State University, Terre Haute, Indiana.
The dates of each of the National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education/State Board of Education/South Carolina Commission on Higher Education site visits are shown below. These occurred over the period extending from October, 1996, when the first of the visits was conducted at the University of South Carolina-Columbia, through April, 1999, when the last of the eleven visits was made to Clemson University. Also shown below is the name of the Commission on Higher Education representative that served on each of the visits.
1. University of South Carolina-Columbia; October 26-30, 1996 (Anderson).
2. Winthrop University; October 25-29, 1997 (Bass de Martinez).
3. The Citadel; February 19-23,2000 (Joekel).
4. University of South Carolina-Spartanburg; February 28-March 4, 1998 (Joekel).
5. College of Charleston; October 3-7, 1998 (Bass de Martinez).
6. Coastal Carolina University; September 26-30, 1998 (Anderson).
7. University of South Carolina-Aiken; February 6-10, 1999 (Joekel).
8. South Carolina State University; February 20-24, 1999 (Bass de Martinez).
9. Francis Marion University; March 20-24, 1999 (Bass de Martinez).
10. Lander University; March 27-31, 1999 (Joekel).
11. Clemson University; April 10-14, 1999 (Anderson)
A dynamic and far-reaching reform movement seeking greater accountability and effectiveness in the field of education has been underway in the United States since the early 1980’s. The teaching profession was first jolted into action by the report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983), A NATION AT RISK: THE IMPERATIVE FOR EDUCATION REFORM. For the first several years following the release of this report, attention was focused largely on teaching and learning in the world of P-12 education. Concern with the lack of quality and with alleged weaknesses and shortcomings in public elementary and secondary schools dominated the early criticisms of the American education system. In recent years, however, attention has been broadened to include a call for rigorous evaluation and improvement of teacher education and in the preparation of teachers and educational personnel in the colleges and universities of the nation as well. At all levels there has been intense focus on two vehicles for improvement. The first of these has been the development and implementation of benchmarks for achievement, often referred to as standards-based reform. The second has been a raising of the accountability bar relative to the expenditure of time, effort, energy, and money in educational practices and programs.
This national concern has been heightened of late by an increased awareness of an imminent shortage of P-12 educators. Some estimates place the number of teachers that will be needed at 2.2 million over the next ten years. Acknowledging that some of these may come from the reserve pool of teachers who are not currently in the workforce for whatever reason, there still will be a considerable strain on the programs that prepare teachers. This will be felt not only in the increase in the numbers needed, but also in the call for higher level of competence and effectiveness in these neophyte teachers.
The constant and enduring goal of educational reform at all levels, including higher education, has been to increase the academic performance of the children and youth of the nation. They must be the beneficiaries. The direct linkage between the preparation of teachers and learning in P-12 schools has been captured in wording contained in the 1996 report of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, WHAT MATTERS MOST:TEACHING FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE:
There should be a caring, competent, and qualified teacher in every classroom—a goal worthy as an “A” on a report card and as unconventional as apple pie.
and
What teachers know and do is the most important influence on what students learn. Competent and caring teachers should be a student right.
From the outset there has been a general recognition that education is so vitally important to the national mission that it must be the responsibility of a very wide array of stakeholders. Thus, there has been an assumption of assurance that these stakeholders should be involved in planning and implementing reform measures including not only teachers, school administrators and parents, but also policy makers, business representatives, spokespersons for groups with vested interests, citizens at large, and others. As a result of urgent demands and appeals for greater accountability in the preparation of teachers and other educational personnel, higher education leaders have also become involved, especially in recent years.
Models of increased effectiveness in teacher education –informed by research and tested through practice – have been under development over the past fifteen years. These efforts have also focused on the development of standards as to the qualities of knowledge, skills, and competencies both beginning and accomplished teachers should possess. Progress toward greater accountability in this regard has been led by a number of influential professional organizations. In the realm of standards, the Chief State School Officers have evolved benchmarks for neophyte teachers through the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). Concurrently, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) has created standards for national certification of accomplished teachers.
The Holmes Group, a consortium of research universities, developed paradigms for teacher education programs that incorporate reform in teacher education with the reform of the teaching profession as a whole. Included in these reforms has been the notion of professional development schools, an increased emphasis on continuous, field-based experiences, and collaborative research. Additionally, the Association of Teacher Educators (ATE) has created a set of standards for teachers of teachers –those who hold positions in colleges, schools or departments of education in universities.
The most significant impact in promoting accountability in teacher education, however, has undoubtedly been that rendered by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the premier national accrediting body in teacher education. The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education is a specialized non-governmental professional accrediting agency founded in 1954. It is governed by both the practicing and preparation arms of the education profession. Its essential function is to provide professional judgment about the quality of the education unit and to encourage continuous improvement of the unit through a voluntary peer review process. There are over 30 different constituent members of NCATE including a wide array of organizations representing practitioners, teacher educators, academic content specialty groups, and policy makers. A sample of organizations involved in forming NCATE includes the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the National Education Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, National School Boards Association, National Association of State Boards of Education, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, Association for Childhood Education International, Council for Exceptional Children, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, American Association of School Administrators, American Educational Research Association, American Library Association/American Association of School Librarians, and National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Together, these member stakeholders developed a shared vision of teacher education that revolves around the belief that every child should be taught by teachers who are well-prepared and competent. NCATE has evolved a set of continuously updated, quality standards in areas of evaluation that are critical to the preparation of teachers.
Institutions seeking national accreditation must meet 20 specific standards in four general categories (Appendix 1). Standards are applied at the initial (undergraduate) and advanced (graduate) levels. The four general categories include: (1) Design of Professional Education, (2) Candidates in Professional Education, (3) Professional Education Faculty, (4) and The Unit for Professional Education. NCATE standards in the above categories address quality issues in the organization of the curriculum, field experience expectations, presence of adequate resources for support of programs, admission and retention requirements for candidates, faculty standards, and proper governance structures. There are a number of themes that are expressed within the above standards. The need for a conceptual framework based on a defensible knowledge base that provides the foundation for all programs, the need for diversity among faculty and students, the use of technology to enhance the teaching-learning process, and providing classroom experiences in a variety of settings to include exposure to students of diverse racial, ethnic and socio-economic background as well as students with special needs. In addition, through affiliations with the leading national learned societies and professional associations in the numerous content and/or subject matter areas, NCATE has adopted sets of curriculum guidelines in a wide array of specialty areas. When both general and specialty standards are met by programs of preparation, there is assurance that candidates in those programs are well familiar with the knowledge and applications necessary to be successful teachers.
NCATE standards are monitored through a system of application of the standards. This begins with self-examination by an institution’s professional unit in teacher education and its preparation of an Institutional Report. Next, the institution submits a complete set of curriculum materials (folios) for each program that prepares teachers to the appropriate national professional organization. Those materials undergo a stringent review by subject matter specialists who are recognized for their expertise in that discipline. These expert reviewers apply the folio materials toward the standards that have been established by each particular subject matter specialty. A set of 10 pre-conditions must be met by the institution before it may continue further in the accreditation process. Next, accumulated evidences are examined and a set of judgments are made as to whether each standard has been met or not by a visiting Board of Examiners (BOE) made up of rigorously trained professional educators. The Board of Examiners completes a report reflecting whether the institution met the 20 standards at the initial and advanced levels. Each institution receives a copy of the BOE report and has the right of rejoinder to NCATE on any of the decisions made by the BOE team.
Finally, utilizing the series of written reports and assessments, a set of independent objective evaluations are made which result in a decision on accreditation by the NCATE Unit Accreditation Board (UAB). The UAB is composed of no more than 32 members; one-third are representatives from teacher education, one-third are teachers, one-sixth are state and local policy makers, and one-sixth are from professional specialty academic areas. In addition, one representative is from a student organization and one representative is from the public-at-large. The UAB renders separate accreditation decisions for the initial teacher preparation and/or advanced levels of the professional education unit in the college or university. One of the five following accreditation decisions is issued for each of both levels (initial or advanced).
Initial accreditation or continuous accreditation.
1. Accreditation with stipulations.
2. Continuing accreditation with probation.
3. Denial of accreditation.
4. Revocation of accreditation.
If fully accredited, the professional unit is accredited for a period of five years. At that time, it must be reviewed for continuing accreditation and a new decision rendered. Institutions have the right of appeal for decisions rendered by the UAB.
Through its national, voluntary accreditation standards for teacher education programs and its partnership with some 46 states that link national accreditation with state teacher licensure, NCATE has had a profound impact on the improvement of teacher education programs. Over 500 colleges, schools and/or departments of education in institutions of higher education are currently accredited by NCATE and another 75 are candidates or pre-candidates for accreditation. NCATE has led the charge toward standards-based reform and in meeting the demands for accountability in teacher education programs across the nation. It has blended a devotion to higher standards in accrediting teacher education with an emphasis on collaboration between P-12 schools and university programs. It is now in the process of championing performance-based standards and the accreditation of professional development schools.
It was within this national context that the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education took the initiative in 1995 of addressing accountability in teacher education in a most creative way for the State of South Carolina. The Commission on Higher Education assumed leadership in creating a truly innovative partnership with NCATE and the South Carolina State Department of Education (SDE). This “cutting edge” leadership brings these three entities, each with related yet separate aspects of improving the quality of teacher education programs, into a partnership. The Commission on Higher Education and the South Carolina State Department of Education have authority and responsibility for education in South Carolina, the Commission in regard to public higher education in the State of South Carolina (including teacher education) and the State Department of Education with responsibility for P-12 schools and all state teacher-training institutions and certification programs.
Commendations are in order for representatives of the Commission and State Department of Education who examined and decided to partner with NCATE for the accreditation of programs in South Carolina public institutions of higher education. Once this decision was made, it became imperative that an agreement be formalized with NCATE. The formal agreement that was executed called for representatives of the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education and the State Department of Education to serve on the Board of Examiners team visiting each public higher education institution preparing educators. These members of the BOE team had to have training in the NCATE process and application of the NCATE Standards. The Commission on Higher Education employed outside consultants who had extensive knowledge of the NCATE process, thorough training and experience in applying the standards, and who were not currently serving on NCATE Board of Examiner Teams to be their representative for each institution visit. The State Department of Education provided State NCATE training for those individuals who were not already trained to serve as members of the Board of Examiners.
The NCATE Board of Examiner Team reviewed the Education Unit in each institution and evaluated all programs for which NCATE approved curriculum standards existed. The State Department of Education team members served on the Board of Examiners and also had responsibility for reviewing all programs for initial licensure not covered by NCATE curriculum standards, e.g., Business Education, Foreign Language, and Counselor Education. The consultant representing the Commission on Higher Education served on the BOE team and reviewed all advanced graduate programs not covered by NCATE curriculum standards. Table 1 and Table 2 which follows on the next two pages will visually present the roles of each group.
Under the tripartite arrangement, reviews of teacher education programs in each of the public institutions in South Carolina that have teacher education programs are conducted employing joint visits and evaluation activities by a single Board of Examiners Team made up of representatives of the three agencies. Applying quality standards of each of the partners, the CHE/NCATE/SDE Board of Examiners achieves rigorous evaluations of the various teacher education programs at each of the eleven public colleges or universities in South Carolina. This promises to ensure success in meeting South Carolina’s critical need for large numbers of high quality, new teachers in the next decade.
Now let us turn to an analysis of the state context for teacher education in light of the variety of initiatives that have occurred in South Carolina.
There are eleven public institutions of higher education in the State of South Carolina that offer preparation programs for educators leading to licensure to be employed in the P-12 schools. Each institution has a specific role and mission statement as do each of the teacher education units. Each mission statement is clear, explicit and highly germane to the teacher education programs offered by the institution. The range of programs offered by the eleven institutions is comparable to offerings in other geographic regions of the United States. Obviously, not all institutions offer a full range of programs, nor should they. However, programs exist to prepare teachers, administrators, counselors, etc. in one or more of the institutions so the State is being served.
The continuing demand for teachers and other educational personnel for the P-12 schools in South Carolina continues to grow. In the Summary of 1998 Turnover Rate in South Carolina School Districts (dated December 10, 1998), 3,685teachers were reported as leaving the State or moving to another position within the State. In comparison, the South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment reports in the 1999 Teacher Supply and Demand Report that 4,153teachers left the State or moved to another position within the State. These figures indicate that the demand for teachers has increased. More teachers left the profession or moved in 1999 than in 1998, an increase of 468 teachers or a 12% difference.
Additionally, there is a concern about the decreasing number of minority teachers in the South Carolina workforce in comparison to the overall teaching force. The Summary of 1998 Turnover Rate in South Carolina School Districts found that 934 minority teachers (or 18% of all new hires) were hired in 1998. This compares to 1,038 (or 16% of the new hires) in 1999 as reported in the 1999 Teacher Supply and Demand Report. Overall, the number of new hires for 1998 totaled 5,213as compared to 6,513 in 1999. Nevertheless, the overall number of minority teachers leaving the teaching force continues to increase faster than the number of those entering the field. This is evidenced by the fact that of the 3,945 initial certificates issued between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 1999, only 654 (or 16.58%) were issued to African-Americans (source: South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment website.) Of that number, 3,200 (or 8l.1%) were issued to Whites. Of those receiving initial certificates, not all seek and/or accept employment.
Nearly one-third of all new hires were recent graduates of South Carolina institutions. More specifically, that was 2,141 (or 33%) of the 6,513 new teachers hired in 1999 (source: South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment 1999 Teacher Supply and Demand Survey, November 15, 1999. According to the Governor’s Commission on Teacher Quality Preliminary Report, less than one half of graduates from the State’s teacher education programs choose to teach in its classrooms.
In 1998, of the 5,864 (5,214 excluding in district transfers) teachers hired with new contracts, 1,655 were new graduates of South Carolina institutions. Excluding teachers who transferred assignments within districts that year, contracts issued to new graduates of South Carolina institutions equaled 32% of the total.
These data are typical of what is occurring across the United States. With an aging teaching population and early retirement programs, South Carolina is comparable to other states in needing additional teachers to meet future needs. Accompanying this is an increase in the number of children in P-12 school across the country. Additionally, a number of the innovations to improve P-12 education are focusing on the need to reduce class size. With mandates to provide education for children with special needs, there is a need for more educators to serve this population. Across the country, there is a shortage of mathematics teachers, science teachers outside of general science/biology, and special education. Looking at the number of graduates and students enrolled, this same trend is reflected in South Carolina. Lastly, with changing demographics in the United States, there is a shortage of teachers who represent diversity, especially racial diversity. There is a tremendous influx of students who do not speak English and a demand for teachers who have English as a second language. South Carolina will face this need, if it already hasn’t, in the near future. It would appear that the 11 institutions preparing educators have the capacity to meet the general needs of South Carolina for the future. Almost all institutions have programs of low enrollment that could accommodate additional students. However, a mechanism for increasing the number of graduates who choose to enter the classroom will be needed to meet the increasing demand for new teachers. The one area where the state may not be prepared is in teachers who speak a second language.
INSTITUTIONS OFFERING
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
The eleven public institutions offering teacher education programs can be further described as either being research or comprehensive institutions.
Research Institutions, (institutions that focus on research activities,
producing new knowledge, and provide the majority of terminal degree
programming in the State):
1. Clemson University
2. University of South Carolina-Columbia
Comprehensive Institutions, (institutions that provide the breadth of
degrees and focus on the applied arts and sciences and the professions, and do
not offer terminal doctoral degree programs, with one exception):
1. College of Charleston
2. The Citadel
3. Coastal Carolina University
4. Frances Marion University
5. Lander University
6. South Carolina State University *
7. University of South Carolina-Aiken
8. University of South Carolina-Spartanburg
9. Winthrop University
* offers Ed.D. degree in Educational Administration
As a result of visits to the eleven South Carolina public institutions, the visiting NCATE Board of Examiners teams prepared reports as did the Commission on Higher Education consultants. From this intensive review of teacher education programs, several generalizations can be made that speak to the quality and efficiency of the programs in education throughout the state. More specifically, there are patterns of strengths as well as conditions needing attention. The overall mission/vision in education as designed and in operation throughout the State is good. The mission of providing quality teacher preparation to meet the needs of the area served by each institution was consistent. Requiring that each institution participate in the joint NCATE, SDE, CHE evaluation/accreditation process forced institutions to examine their programs and make changes to meet the standards. As a result, a common language has been translated across all campuses resulting in increased awareness and attention to performance standards. The implementation of the teacher induction program, Assisting, Developing, and Evaluation of Professional Teaching (ADEPT), has also made a major impact on performance assessment. To move programs from being “good” and “consistent” to very good or excellent, some changes will need to occur. There is a need to move vision to systematic and consistent application and translation into practice. For example, almost every institution has undergone an extensive review of its conceptual framework/knowledge base and made significant changes in its programs based on the conceptual framework. However, this is not applied evenly across the curriculum of all programs and in many cases, has just been implemented and it cannot be fully assessed until students have gone through the program from beginning to end. While the State’s NCATE initiative is cutting edge, it takes time and resources to support change and to ensure that the change becomes routine and systematic. The slower pace of change is fairly typical across the nation and should not be viewed with alarm in South Carolina. The reality is that change takes time.
STATEWIDE GENERALIZATIONS AND CONCERNS
WITH RECOMMENDATI0NS
There were a number of features that were observed on nearly all or most of the campuses visited and are presented here as generalizations that need to be addressed.
1. The application of the conceptual framework (the rationale and organizing principles that guide the development of the curriculum for professional education including the categorization of knowledge) is uneven at nearly all the institutions visited. As evidenced in seven of the eleven reports filed, the NCATE standard addressing the implementation and integration of the framework for education was passed with weaknesses. In several institutions, there was a problem of not infusing the conceptual framework into the advanced (graduate) degree programs. Because the framework defines the educational unit and establishes the context for its own assessment, attention should be paid to the manner in which the conceptual framework is incorporated into the curriculum. The consistent infusion of the conceptual framework across the curriculum is not unique to South Carolina. With the development and infusion of the conceptual framework being of the utmost importance for all programs in the unit, institutions throughout the United States have spent a great deal of energy reviewing, revising, and implementing their conceptual model.
Recommendations:
i. Institutions who were identified as having a weakness in the infusion of the conceptual framework across the curriculum will be required to address this weakness and report to NCATE how they have taken steps to remedy this weakness. At the time of the NCATE Continuing Accreditation visit, the visiting team will seek evidence of how the weakness has been removed. These institutions should be addressing this weakness now.
ii. A workshop sponsored by either the Commission or the State Department of Education bringing together the key persons from each campus focusing on the conceptual framework and problems associated with infusing it across the curriculum would be another way to attack this issue. Inviting someone from NCATE or a person they recommend to conduct the workshop would provide a broader perspective for the participants.
2. There is a lack of diversity by race and ethnicity in faculties and students, excepting at South Carolina State University (and at Francis Marion in terms of students). The NCATE standard that addresses the composition of faculty was reported as not met or met with weaknesses at seven of the eleven institutions. In terms of the composition of students, the associated NCATE standard was reported as not met or met with weakness at six of the eleven institutions. Having diversity in the faculty and the students in the education program ensures a broader view of the discipline and the inclusion of multiple voices. Exposure in a diverse setting challenges those in the environment to become more comfortable in diverse settings. Again, this is not a problem unique only to South Carolina. It is a problem in many institutions across the United States. With changing demographics of the United States in terms of race and ethnicity, it is important that teacher preparation programs also reflect this diversity.
Recommendations:
i. Individual institutions and teacher education units need to be more proactive in recruiting diversity among students and faculty. Although institutions have a recruiting plan, the education unit also needs to have a plan and strategy for recruiting diversity. The best recruiting done on most campuses is by the athletic teams. Studying how they plan and approach recruitment might be helpful in developing the teacher education unit plan.
ii. Teacher Education units at individual institutions need to develop closer ties to P-12 schools and make special efforts to encourage and recruit qualified minority students. Partnering with the South Carolina Center for Teacher Recruitment’s Teacher Cadet Program is a step in the right direction for institutions to take. The establishment of a Future Educators Club with students and faculty serving as mentors has also been successful in recruiting students of diversity.
iii. Teacher Education units at individual institutions that work with the P-12 schools can identify outstanding minority teachers and encourage them to pursue graduate studies. Again, faculty serving as mentors for these teachers has proven to be successful at other institutions. It may also be necessary to provide incentives to these minority P-12 teachers in the recruiting process. Scholarships, graduate assistantships, loan forgiveness, etc. are common ways other institutions provide incentives. South Carolina’s teacher loan program currently provides loans to teachers if their graduate degree leads to a new area of certification. The state should explore ways to expand this program to assist minority teachers in seeking graduate degrees in their teaching field.
iv. At the state level, a special task force to address the problem should be assembled to involve stakeholders and policy makers in developing a plan. This is an approach that has been taken in other states. Since this is a statewide problem, leadership from the Commission on Higher Education to establish such a task force would highlight the seriousness of the problem and a desire to seek solutions.
v. In terms of increasing the diversity of faculty, special incentives and commitment from administrators and faculty to seek out qualified faculty candidates personally has proven successful in some cases. In addition to putting faculty position announcements in appropriate publications, visits by administrators to campuses where they personally meet prospective candidates face to face provides an opportunity to “sell” the institution to the candidate. Attractive materials that are left with the candidate and put forth the best features of the institution and the teacher education program are also a must. Follow-up phone calls to candidates, particularly from other minority faculty, also help candidates to know they are wanted by the institution and the unit.
vi. Many institutions, and some in South Carolina as well, are using a strategy of “growing their own” in dealing with the faculty diversity issue. In some instances, outstanding minority teachers are identified and recruited to participate in a program whereby the institution assisted the candidate with financial support in order to obtain an advanced degree. The candidates’ commitment is to agree to return to the campus as a faculty member for a specified number of years after the candidate has earned the advanced degree.
3. Faculty scholarship was uneven as measured by the review of faculty vita; more attention needs to be placed on defining the role and purpose of faculty scholarship, particularly for faculty teaching in advanced and terminal degree programs. Also in this regard, the term “graduate faculty member” needs to be defined and clear criteria for appointment and recognition of graduate faculty be established. For example, in some institutions a new hire with a terminal degree was automatically designated as a member of the graduate faculty, while at other institutions the faculty member was required to demonstrate a level of scholarly activity that goes beyond the terminal degree to earn the graduate faculty distinction.
Recommendations:
i. Professional development plans for each individual faculty member including goals for scholarly activities should be implemented and tied to the faculty evaluation process. Administrators reviewing the plans need to help the faculty member achieve those goals by supporting the proposed endeavors. Financial resources must be made available to assist the faculty member in increasing his/her scholarly activities. Business and industry dedicate a great deal of financial support to professional development while typically those in education have small amounts available. Each teacher education unit needs to have a reasonable amount of money dedicated to professional development.
ii. All faculty should be expected to engage in scholarly activities each year. This does not mean that teaching and service should be given lesser priority. To be an outstanding teacher or provider of service, faculty members must be current in their academic expertise. Scholarly activity does not necessarily mean research and publication, but it can take on many different characteristics. However, each teacher education unit needs to identify what scholarly activities means to the unit and faculty should be active participants in determining this policy
iii. Workshops on special topics such as using technology as a teaching resource need to be provided continually for faculty members. Topics need to be identified by each teacher education faculty along with administrators. Funds must be made available to bring the necessary expertise to the campus to conduct the workshops and time must be made available for faculty members to engage in the workshops. South Carolina has two Centers of Excellence that focus on educational technology and their expertise should be utilized in this process.
iv. It is important to help new, young faculty members develop a scholarly agenda and support them with mentors and other resources. Frequently, new faculty members are given a heavy teaching load and duties that others do not want to do. These duties leave new faculty with little time to develop their scholarly activities agenda. It is recommended that each new faculty member be assigned to a mentor who is an outstanding faculty member and committed to helping others. Most new faculty members need someone to guide them and help them.
v. The term graduate faculty means different things to different people and this presents a concern that needs to be addressed. There needs to be agreement on what the qualifications for graduate faculty membership are across the campuses. The appointment of a system-wide group with representatives from each campus should develop guidelines for appointment to and recognition of graduate faculty. Development of consistent terminology and policy would help alleviate this concern. The committee should be encouraged to examine other graduate institutions outside of South Carolina to obtain a better sense of what is taking place nationally.
4. A high number of professional development and contract courses are being offered by various campuses without the provision of consistent guidelines for use of these courses with regard to application to degree credit and re-certification. Additionally, an unevenness in the criteria used to determine who should teach the courses was found across the institutions. The purposes of graduate level courses as part of a graduate degree and the purposes of courses designed to help a classroom teacher on a specific topic are quite different. Further complicating this issue is who teaches the course. Across the country, graduate colleges have firm guidelines in regard to who can teach classes offered for graduate credit and what the academic expectations are for these courses. The problem arises when classroom teachers or schools identify a special topic/issue they wish to address through higher education courses. Almost without exception P-12 teachers want credit for their involvement. In many cases, P-12 teachers have already identified one of their group to be the instructor and the course is to be taught in the school, not on higher education campus. Further exacerbating the issue is that contract courses are frequently viewed by some units as their source of extra income. When contract courses used for professional development or re-certification are counted as part of a graduate degree program, credibility can be an issue. The question arises whether the courses are the equivalent of courses taken on campus that are taught by graduate-level faculty and whether these course have the same expectations for rigor and scholarship.
Recommendations:
i. In some states, courses specifically designated for P-12 professional development carry a special number for transcripts. An explanation is placed on the transcript describing what the specific numbers mean for courses which carry this designation. Included in the description it is stated that these courses may not be used for graduate programs at that institution. This alerts other institutions when a transcript is presented by a student seeking admission to a graduate degree program. The Commission on Higher Education has established a policy that requires public institutions to adopt a course identifier to distinguish professional development courses. This policy should be expanded to all institutions with teacher education programs.
ii. The use of Continuing Education Units (CEU) has been employed by some states as a way to deal with this issue. Continuing education units are awarded to participants based on established criteria. Most center around how much time the student is involved in instruction. CEU’s may not be used for graduate programs, but they can be used for salary purposes and renewal of certificate in some cases. The use of CEU’s should be part of the work agenda for the Commission’s Graduate Teacher Education Task Force which could look into how CEUs may be used by P-12 teachers.
iii. Graduate Deans in the eleven public institutions have probably already identified this issue. If specific guidelines have not been developed regarding professional development/contract courses, then it would be prudent to do so. If the guidelines have been developed, then one would have to question why there is such inconsistent use of them in these courses.
iv. Of course there is always the option to declare that any course developed as a
professional development/contract course for a specific topic/issue by a school is not eligible for graduate credit and may not be used in graduate degree programs. Such courses could receive continuing education credits or credit that has been identified on transcripts as not eligible for use in degree programs.
5. Graduate level courses were not consistently difficult across the institutions. While MAT, M.Ed., and MA degree programs might be offered at the same institution, there was an unevenness with the way curriculum and programs were designed and implemented with little attention given to ensure the continuity of learning, i.e., to build upon and extend prior knowledge and experiences. There was a general lack of enhancing competencies and depth of research course work and application at the M.Ed. degree level. At some institutions, M.A.T. candidates were enrolled in courses with M.Ed. and M.A. degree candidates.
Recommendations:
i. All institutions involved in graduate level programs should ensure that all students receive instruction in research and expect students to conduct research based on knowledge obtained in the course requirement.
ii. Graduate policies and practices need to be clarified in regard to the
relationship of MAT, M.Ed., and M.A. degree programs and required course work. M.A.T. courses need to be differentiated from undergraduate courses and also from courses in the M.Ed. and M.A. degree programs.
6. There is a need for professional development for faculty in the use of instructional technology. Computers are available on campuses, and faculty in most cases have been provided a computer for their offices. However, there is currently a void in how to use technology as a learning tool and incorporate technology into the faculty’s classroom instruction. In-service has been provided to help faculty members learn how to use the computer personally for word processing, spread sheets, etc. but training needs to go beyond the personal use of the computer. Furthermore, candidates in the programs need to learn not just how to use the computer, but also how to effectively incorporate a variety of technology into classroom instruction.
Recommendation:
i. Additional resources need to be provided to each teacher education unit to conduct professional development activities for its faculty on how to incorporate technology into the teaching-learning process. If the faculty know how to use the technology to enhance instruction, they will model its use for candidates in the teacher preparation programs and help candidates learn to use technology as well.
7. Professional Development Schools have been identified as holding promise for integrating campus course work with the world of the practitioner. Several teacher education programs are either starting to work with local P-12 schools or thinking about developing a Professional Development School agreement with P-12 schools. The movement is one that should be examined for all institutions that prepare educators.
Recommendations:
i. The Commission should bring together a group to explore the potential of expanding the number of Professional Development Schools and to develop some clear definitions and policies taking into consideration national standards and guidelines.
ii. Encourage the development of the Professional Development School
concept by providing financial resources to support the cultivation of Professional Development Schools at the institutions. Such support should assist the PDS effort of the S.C. Department of Education’s Teacher Quality Grant which is attempting to expand the PDS network in the State.
8. There is a general lack of funding and support for faculty development and
professional development opportunities across the institutions. In some cases, there was a small amount identified in the unit budget for faculty development. Business and industry devote a great deal of their financial resources to promote the development of their employees. Education also needs resources and support to assist the faculty to keep current and abreast of new research and instructional strategies. A good example is the use of technology already identified in number six above.
Recommendations:
i.