NATIONAL COUNCIL for the SOCIAL STUDIES

Summary Report of Program Review Decisions

Date of Review: Fall, 2003 Initial review

X 2^nd review

Coordinator of Reviews: Robert M. Toepper 3^rd review

Institution Submitting Program State

Eastern Michigan University MI

Program(s) Degree Level

Initial teaching licenses:

Secondary Social Studies Baccalaureate

Secondary History Master’s

Secondary Geography

Secondary Political Science

Secondary Economics

Secondary Psychology

Decision

Program(s) that merit(s) national recognition: NONE

Program(s) not approved for national recognition:

Secondary Social Studies

Secondary History

Secondary Geography

Secondary Political Science

Secondary Economics

Secondary Psychology

Standards Met or Not Met

These categories apply essentially to baccalaureate programs. They may or may not apply to post-baccalaureate programs. This must be demonstrated for initial graduate social studies education programs in the next rejoinder.

Met: 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3

Not Met: 1.1 – 1.10, 2.1 - 2.5, and 3.4

Summary of Overall Program Strengths

The current document is significantly improved over the previous document.

With the exception of Standard 1.8, programmatic evidence was considered adequate for Standards 1.1 – 1.10 and 2.1 – 2.5.

With the exception of Standard 1.8, internal and external testing evidence was considered adequate for Standards 1.1 – 1.10 and 2.1 – 2.5.

Standard 3.1 has now been met.

It is still unclear how the post-baccalaureate programs handle programmatic content expectations and internal testing evidence. How do graduate candidates do on the state tests? Performance evidence has the same problems as for the baccalaureate program.

Summary of Overall Program Weaknesses

The programmatic evidence in Standard 1.8 does not describe coursework that addresses the standard.

The performance evidence presented for Standards 1.1 through 1.10 and 2.1 – 2.5 is not explained. The “Supplemental Evaluation Form” is not presented in an appendix.

For Standard 3.4 the clinical field experiences are not described.

Comments on Introductory Information

It greatly facilitates the review process if the introductory contextual information is reprinted in each rejoinder. This is especially important so that reviewers can distinguish between baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate social studies education programs.

Explanation and Rationale for Not Met Decisions for Each Standard

This section of the program reviewers’ report includes a synopsis of the rationale and recommendations for each standard NOT MET. Standards not listed are assumed MET.

Standard 1.8: Programmatic and Testing Evidence

Education technology application courses do not meet the expectations of this standard. Science, Technology, and Society coursework must refer candidates to the manner by which science and technology have enhanced or threatened the development of human society. In the science courses described or, better, in the various history and social science courses offered, it is necessary to describe the units or aspects of courses that expose candidates to the social effects of the application of science and technology.

Testing evidence for this standard would show how well candidates have done on the units or aspects of the courses appropriate to the programmatic content.

Standards 1.1 – 1.10 and 2.1 – 2.5: Performance Evidence

A summary of at least cooperating teacher assessments of candidates’ abilities to teach real students in real classrooms the content applicable to each standard are required here. The format for performance evidence would include adding at least the following to your institution’s more generic student teaching assessment instrument:

the title of each standard;

possibly, a brief description of the content included in each standard;

a rubric similar to the rubric for the generic student teaching assessment form by

which each cooperating teacher assesses his or her student teacher’s ability

to teach content applicable to each standard.

An example of performance evidence rubrics is available on the NCSS website (www.ncss.org).

The overall data could be placed in a data array in an Appendix and a summary chart applicable to each standard could be explained in each standard description.

The performance evidence provided by Eastern Michigan University from the clinical student teaching experiences is generic and not specific to social studies and each standard within the social studies. The document does not report how well each candidate can teach the content of each standard to school pupils. The “Supplemental Evaluation Form” is neither described in the document nor presented in an appendix.

Standard 3.4

Standard 3.4 again appears to be absent from the report. This standard addresses the expectation that there will be clinical experiences in social studies classrooms prior to and including student teaching and that the university supervisors involved have been successful social studies educators and that the cooperating teachers involved are licensed and experienced in social studies education.

Concerns regarding the post-baccalaureate programs

In general, programmatic evidence for Standards 1.1 through 1.10 and 2.1 through 2.5 must describe what aspects or units of courses provide candidate learning experiences in compliance with each content standard. This is especially problematic for initial social studies education graduate programs. The same problem applies to how internal testing evidence (grades) is assessed for coursework completed at other institutions.

A copy of the “program sheets” that the Registrar and academic counselors or advisors use to assess transfer credits would be an important addition to the appendix of the next rejoinder. A description of how transfer credit applies to each content standard would then be included in the body of the report.

How successful are graduate candidates on the state (external) tests appropriate to each standard?

The performance evidence problems are the same for post-baccalaureate programs.

In the next report, show how graduate programs meet Standards 3.1 through 3.4.

The rejoinder process

If the faculty chooses to submit a rejoinder to the Summary Report of Program Review Decisions, it is suggested that they consult the NCSS web page for the appropriate documentation. The NCSS sponsors a standards clinic each November one day before the annual conference. Workshops and consultant services are also scheduled upon request of the Coordinator of NCSS Social Studies Teacher Education Program Reviews.

In rejoining, the faculty should submit TWO copies of the rejoinder. The rejoinder should consist of the cover page; a copy of this Summary Report of Program Review Decisions; the required introductory institutional context data; the COMPLETE matrix for all Not Met standards; and, in an Appendix, any data necessary to explain, clarify, elaborate, or reinforce descriptions presented in the matrices. It is NOT necessary to include standards already met.

NCATE rejoinder deadlines are September 15 and April 15 of each year. However, NCSS has no requirement that a rejoinder be submitted within a specific time after an institution’s initial review. Institutions are NOT encouraged to submit a rejoinder by the next deadline if the conditions that led to a program’s not being approved for national recognition have not yet been adequately addressed.

If additional information is necessary in order to submit a successful rejoinder, please contact Robert M. (Bob) Toepper, Ph.D., Coordinator of NCSS Social Studies Teacher Education Program Reviews, at 708-447-8218 (home), 630-624-0279 (cell), or crftoepperm@curf.edu (email).