Web Print
2002 NCATE Annual Report
(Part C of the AACTE Annual Report)
[Printable Version]


Section 1 - Institutional Information:


NCATE ID: 11472
AACTE SID: 1025
Institution: Eastern Michigan University
Unit: College of Education
Next Accreditation Visit:
Last Accreditation Visit
Deadline to Submit Final Version of Part C: 12/02/2002


Section 2 - Individual Contact Information


Unit Head Name: Dr. Jerry H. Robbins
Unit Head Email: jerry.robbins@emich.edu
Unit Head Phone: (734) 487-1414
Unit Head Fax: (734) 487-6471
Institution Unit Phone: (734) 487-1414
1st NCATE Coordinator: Dr. Jerry H.Robbins
1st Coordinator Title: Dean
1st Coordinator Phone: (734) 487-1414
1st Coordinator Fax: (734) 487-6471
1st Coordinator Email: jerry.robbins@emich.edu
2nd NCATE Coordinator:
2nd Coordinator Title:
2nd Coordinator Phone:
2nd Coordinator Fax:
2nd Coordinator Email:
CEO: Dr. Samuel A.Kirkpatrick
CEO Phone: (734) 487-2211
CEO Fax: (734) 487-9100
CEO Email: samuel.kirkpatrick@emich.edu

Is the information above accurate? Yes - Skip to NCATE Standards Section

Corrected Unit Head:
Corrected Title of Unit Head
Corrected Unit Head Email:
Corrected Unit Head Phone:
Corrected Unit Head Fax:
Corrected Institution Unit Phone:
Corrected 1st NCATE Coordinator:
Corrected 1st Coordinator Title
Corrected 1st Coordinator Phone:
Corrected 1st Coordinator Fax:
Corrected 1st Coordinator Email:
Corrected 2nd NCATE Coordinator:
Corrected 2nd Coordinator Title:
Corrected 2nd Coordinator Phone:
Corrected 2nd Coordinator Fax:
Corrected 2nd Coordinator Email:
Corrected CEO Full Name:
Corrected CEO Phone:
Corrected CEO Fax:
Corrected CEO Email:



Section 3 - NCATE Standards Categories & Weaknesses Section





Section A. Conceptual Framework(s)

The conceptual framework(s) establishes the shared vision for a unit's efforts in preparing educators to work effectively in P-12 schools. It provides direction for programs, courses, teaching, candidate performance, scholarship, service, and unit accountability. The conceptual framework(s) is knowledge-based, articulated, shared, coherent, consistent with the unit and/or institutional mission, and continuously evaluated.

Please indicate evaluations of and changes made to the unit's conceptual framework (if any) during this year:
        See below.


Conceptual framework weaknesses cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
There is a lack of articulation of the conceptual framework by some candidates
and faculty.

        During 2001-2002, much attention has been given to aspects of the conceptual framework for the initial teacher preparation program. The "theme" statement for the conceptual frameworks has been reviewed and revised. It is now Caring professional educators for a diverse and democratic society. (CPED2S). An explanation of this theme and summary of the conceptual framework has been prepared in easily-readable (including a "critter" representing "CPED2S" and other illustrations) booklet format and widely distributed to faculty members and students. The revised "theme" is placed in several popular locations on the College of Education web site. See, for example, http://www.emich.edu/coe/ncate/2003/Docs/G-26/. Faculty members have been encouraged to emphasize elements of the conceptual framework in syllabi and other materials.

        Draft materials have been prepared and it is anticipated that, early in 2002-03, similar actions will be taken with respect to the "theme" and conceptual frameworks for the advanced programs. Under consideration is a revision to the "theme" of Inquiry, advocacy, and leadership in education for a diverse and democratic society, with appropriate adjustments to the conceptual frameworks.


Section B. Candidate Performance

Standard 1. Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions
Candidates include persons preparing to teach, teachers who are continuing their professional development, and persons preparing for other professional roles in schools such as principals, school psychologists, and school library media specialists. Preparing to work in schools as teachers or other professional school personnel. Know and demonstrate the content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students.

Please describe the unit's plans for and progress in meeting this standard. (Refer to the NCATE 2000 Unit Transition Plan for information regarding the levels at which units should address Standards 1 and 2 during the first year of NCATE 2000 implementation)
        Two major activities were conducted during 2001-2002. First, there has continued to be major attention given to the state's subject-field certification tests?addressing low scores, getting more accurate information, and revising programs to accomplish better alignment between the curriculum and the state's objectives for the teaching field. (See below for additional information.) Substantial program modification has been accomplished in such teaching fields as earth-space science, biology, physics, geography, and special education. Program modification is underway in other fields as well (e.g., political science, technology education, business education, marketing education) and should come to closure during the coming year.

        Second, there has been much attention given to "dispositions." Desired and appropriate dispositions for the initial teacher preparation program have been identified and officially approved. Mechanisms for the assessment of these dispositions and for remedial work as necessary have been identified and implemented. Several faculty members have presented at national meetings concerning the development and implementation of a set of dispositions.



Areas of Improvement related to Standard 1 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:



Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
        See above.



Standard 2. Assessment System and Unit Evaluation
The unit has an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on the applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.

Please describe the unit's plans for and progress in meeting this standard. (Refer to the NCATE 2000 Unit Transition Plan for information regarding the levels at which units should address Standards 1 and 2 during the first year of NCATE 2000 implementation)
        Under state policies, any one may take any state certification test. Further, each test taker self-identifies the institution at which she/he claims to have been prepared. As a result, until October 2001, the test score results for this institution were "contaminated" with the inclusion of scores for persons with little or no EMU affiliation, persons taking a test in the wrong field, persons taking a test very early in their preparation program, and the like. With considerable leadership from persons at EMU, we were able to get state policy changed such that the roster of test takers was provided to institutions prior to scoring. State wide criteria were developed for use in "striking" inappropriate persons from the roster. Scores then were reported only for persons who met the criteria for inclusion. This policy went into effect with the October 2001 tests and has been in place since then.

        The availability of "good" data since October 2001 has been highly influential in persuading our colleagues in certain subject-area fields of the lack of alignment between the curriculum and the state's objectives for the teaching field. The test results?especially the subtest results?have been valuable for identifying broad topics where students' content knowledge is consistently weak.

        For the third consecutive year, the EMU College of Education has participated in the Educational Benchmarking, Inc. process. All student teachers were requested to complete the standard survey form that is used across all institutions that participate in this study. These data provide not only a comparison with "peer" institutions on many program elements, but we are now able to track progress longitudinally.

        For all initial and advanced programs, with a few exceptions that had another evaluation model in place, a follow up study was conducted of all program completers of the previous year. A special feature of this follow up was the extraordinary attention given to obtaining evaluative information from the immediate supervisor of each program completer. This process will be repeated during the 2002-03 year such as to build a longitudinal data base concerning program completers. Supervisor's evaluations are the best "proxy" for program completer performance "on the job" that we have been able to devise to date. The special education programs conducted a similar but separate study. The special education programs are also devising and implementing other assessment procedures consistent with expectations from the State of Michigan and CEC.

        EMU is a participant, along with about 10 other institutions, all from The Renaissance Group, in a "Teacher Quality" consortium. This activity is currently enjoying external funding. While the activities vary among the participating institutions, the EMU variant is to work with a small group of student teachers to assess, among other things, the effects of the student teacher and the student teacher's work in the classroom to accomplish learning among the K-12 students. Obviously, a long-term objective is to move what is learned through this project into the early years of teaching, such as to be able to get quantifiable (from sources other than standardized tests!) measures of the degree to which the EMU-prepared teacher is causing learning to occur.


Areas of Improvement related to Standard 2 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:


Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
        See above.


Section C. Unit capacity

Standard 3. Field Experiences and Clinical Practice.
The unit and its school partners design, implement, and evaluate field experiences and clinical practice so that teacher candidates and other school personnel develop and demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn.
Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 3 that occurred in your unit this year:
        After several years of "phase in," the required FETE (field experiences in teacher education) program is substantially implemented. There is a structured field experience, associated with a required course, at three points prior to student teaching. Prospective special education students have a separate set of pre-student teaching field experiences which have been revised, especially in terms of the assessment of the experience.

        With the adoption of a new union contract for "lecturers" (full-time faculty members not on the tenure track), the College of Education was able to "institutionalize" a core of 17 full-time supervisors of student teaching (plus the use of additional part-time personnel and small quantities of tenure-track faculty participation). This has vastly increased the quality of student teaching supervision, with higher salaries and benefits, opportunities for training and recognitions, and the like. Use of electronic communications among student teachers, university supervisors, and cooperating teachers has increased considerably, especially with support from an external source. Many of the evaluation forms/processes have been revised, particularly to make them consistent with the objectives of the "Teacher Quality" project (see above).


Areas of Improvement related to Standard 3 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:


Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
        See above.

Standard 4. Diversity
The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and experiences for candidates to acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to help all students learn. These experiences include working with diverse higher education and school faculty, diverse candidates, and diverse students in P-12 schools.

Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 4 that occurred in your unit this year:
        While incremental improvements continue to be made in the diversity of the faculty and staff, the dramatic news for 2001-02 is in the increased diversity of the student body for the initial preparation program. For example, the number of minority students admitted during 2001-02 (150) increased by 25 over 2000-01 (125) (from 10.3%% of those admitted to 10.7% of those admitted). The number of men (our gender minority population) admitted during 2001-02 (371) increased by 67 over 2000-01 (304) (from 24.1%% of those admitted to 25.8% of those admitted).

        Our new faculty hires for Fall 2001 included nine women and two men; four minority and seven White. Our new faculty hires for Fall 2002 included five women and two men; two minority and five White.


Areas of Improvement related to Standard 4 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:


Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
        See above.


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.

Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 5 that occurred in your unit this year:
        Especially through the COE Office of Collaborative Education, the number and extent of various collaborations involving faculty members have increased considerably. These especially include ones having to do with multicultural and international education. Several of our sponsored projects provide funding to support faculty participation in P-12 activities. In addition, the Department of English has implemented, or has plans for, several activities of interest to area teachers of English (Inside Out initiative, conferences for new and experienced P-12 teachers of English. A faculty member in History and Philosophy is leading his colleagues into much greater connections with P-12 schools than has been the case in the past (workshops for P-12 social studies teachers, curriculum work with several area districts, grants, service-learning, student involvement with schools, etc.)

        The creation of a third "consociate" school (special partnership arrangement) with Ypsilanti's East Middle School is scheduled for 2002-03.


Areas of Improvement related to Standard 5 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:


Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
        See above.


Standard 6. Unit Governance and Resources.
The unit has the leadership, authority, budget, personnel, facilities, and resources, including information technology resources, for the preparation of candidates to meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

Please indicate any significant evaluations, changes and/or improvements related to Standard 6 that occurred in your unit this year:
        See below.


Areas of Improvement related to Standard 6 cited as a result of the last NCATE review:
(Initial teacher preparation) Because advising loads are not equally
distributed throughout the unit, some candidates are not well served.

(Initial teacher preparation) Heavy faculty advisement loads, especially in the
Teacher Education Department, do not permit adequate advisement.

Please indicate how the unit has addressed these areas of improvement (Optional).
        During 2001-02, many advances were made in the advising area. During the previous year, a COE advising office was established and staffed with a half-time faculty member and various student workers. This work continued and expanded during 2001-02. About 1,200 students visited the advising office, about 2/3 of whom were seeking academic advising. The COE advising office also housed a "branch" office of the EMU Career Services office, the effect of which was to increase considerably the number of COE students seeking career services and job placement assistance.

        An advising center advisory board was established, the services of the advising office were widely marketed, a web page was created for the advising office, and strong working relationships were established with related offices across campus (admissions, the university's Academic Advising Center [primarily undeclared majors], the community college liaison office, records and registration, etc.). Group advising sessions for counselors at major feeder community colleges were held, an advising center flyer and newsletter were published, and direct individual advising services were provided to potential, transfer, and native students.

        Training sessions for faculty advisors were held, "frequently asked questions" (and answers) were posted to the advising web site and made widely available on paper, flow charts for student progress were developed and widely distributed within the college to faculty members and support staff, and a student advising handbook was prepared for use in group advising sessions. Staffing was arranged such that an appropriate person was "on duty" in the advising center around the calendar, such as to handle walk ins, phone calls, and emails.

        Perhaps most important were the many dozens of group advising sessions held throughout the year?deliberately scheduled for different days of the week and different times of the day?for students similarly situated?prospective elementary teachers, prospective secondary/K-12 teachers, post-baccalaureate "inquirers" and prospective students, and the like.

        During the course of the year, permission was received to hire a full-time assistant dean to assume the responsibilities of the half-time advising center coordinator. Permission was received to hire a full-time advising staff member. Plans were made to relocate the advising center into the suite of offices that supports all other college student functions, thus permitting "one-stop shopping" for students (formal admission to the teacher education program, advising and other information, scholarships, career services, student teaching placement, etc.). All of these were accomplished during the latter part of the 2001-02 year.

        EMU participates in the Educational Benchmarking Inc. study on an annual basis. In 2000, the mean response by exiting student teachers to the question "How satisfied are you with the academic advising by faculty?" was 4.08. (1 = not at all, 4 = moderately, 7 = extremely).

        In 2002, the mean response to the same question was 4.03, and in 2003 the mean response to the same question was 4.08.

        We have made extraordinary investments in the improvement of advising services and we feel that students are being far better served than ever before. Nevertheless, we seem to be dealing with a student body that has enormous expectations and/or needs in the advising area?a challenge that is likely to be with us for years to come.


Enter the Name of the Person Filling Out the Report: Jerry Robbins