NCATE-2000

In the spring of 1998, the Education Department received accreditation without stipulations once again for its Teacher Education Program (TEP) from the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Though cause for celebration, it was understood that the department could not rest on its laurels for too long. Discussions about assessment, diversity, priorities and additional endorsement programs commenced shortly thereafter, in preparation for our next institutional visit scheduled for Spring, 2003. In addition, preparation for the Michigan State Department of Education Periodic Review process, also scheduled for Spring, 2003, was set in motion as well.

In the time since our 1998 review, NCATE implemented changes in its standards and procedures. Most prominent among these modifications was the addition of Standard 2-Assessment Plan. This standard requires a unit to "develop a comprehensive assessment plan, including a data collection system and method(s) of using that data to inform the program." (NCATE 2000). While Hope's Education Department faculty had been quite diligent about including a wide variety of assessment tools in coursework throughout the program, an intentional and comprehensive assessment system had not been developed. Thus, the task that lay ahead was to create a procedure that would systematically verify students' skills, knowledge levels and dispositions.

LAYING THE FOUNDATION

After attending the PETE/AACTE Conference in Washington, D.C. in June, 2000, which was partially funded by the Hope College Assessment Committee, a team from the Education Department returned to Hope and formed its own assessment committee. Several additional members of the department joined this original group and two students in the TEP were invited to participate as well.

Throughout the year, the committee reviewed the new NCATE standard and determined a process for creating the assessment plan. It decided first to inventory the assessments currently in use throughout the department's coursework, particularly as they corresponded to a set of predetermined standards. After considering several sets of standards, the committee decided to use the Entry Level Standards for Michigan Teachers (ELSMT). This particular set of standards and benchmarks had previously been used by the department to align the student teaching evaluation process, including revamping the student teaching observation forms and the mid- and final term evaluations used for student teachers. Teams of department members completed the inventory, (Figure 1) identifying the range of assessment tools currently in use throughout the TEP. (Note: Figure 1 shows a sample of the 7 standards and numerous proficiencies included in the ESMST.)

(As it has turned out, the State Department of Education has recently determined that all institutions will use the ELSMT for the Periodic Review of their programs. Our work in aligning our program and assessment plan with the ELSMT will prevent duplication of efforts as we move to our own program review.)

This data was then compiled and analyzed to determine the major assessments already in use and to discern if any standards and/or proficiencies were not currently addressed in the program. Analysis for both our elementary and secondary certification strands revealed that most of the standards and related proficiencies were being addressed by major assessments already in place in the program. In addition, many of these assessments aligned with multiple standards and proficiencies. In fact, it became increasingly clear that the combination of major assessments, along with the college's general education core requirements, already addressed the vast majority of ELSMT standards and proficiencies.

DEVELOPING THE ASSESSMENT PLAN

Once this analysis was completed, the team set out to formulate the program's assessment plan. After reviewing a number of options, it was determined to set up a portfolio assessment process (Figure 2) that would require students to submit work samples, reflective statements, and other required elements such as scores from state assessments, faculty recommendations, field experience evaluations, grade point average, and a diversity assessment. It was felt that this type of process would allow the Education Department faculty to more accurately assess the students' levels of readiness to be admitted into the program, while also providing expanded opportunities for the students to reflect on their preparation as well. A major benefit of the plan, too, was that it would enable the department to collect data from already existing assessment tools, such as course tests, projects and papers. The need to go "above and beyond" in creating new tools seemed to be unnecessary at this point in the development of the plan.

The assessment plan was also crafted to align with the ELSMT, the National Education Technology Standards (NETS), and indicators from the department's Professional Abilities. It was additionally correlated to the established levels of the current program. At the end of Level 1, the "Choosing To Teach" level, students have traditionally submitted a number of artifacts that in turn have been used to determine if the student should be admitted to the Teacher Education Program. These items, in the past, included items such as the overall grade point average, recommendations from faculty members, and positive evaluations from field experiences. Lacking in large part, however, from this process was reflective activity on the part of the student, as well as evidence for demonstration of specific skills, knowledge and professional dispositions. The previously held assumption (both by faculty and students) was that passing the education classes and meeting the above named requirements somehow implied proficiency. The newly developed assessment plan was specifically designed to include these critical reflective elements, as well as preserve previously included items. Students would now be required to include and reflect on specific assessments from designated courses, in light of the ELSMT and department's Professional Abilities. Specific attention to developing skills, knowledge, attitudes and values with regard to diversity issues and technology would also be addressed with each submission. The portfolio assessment would guarantee that critical outcomes and standards would be systematically addressed.

The Learning Portfolio was designed to provide evidence for admission to the program at the end of Level 1. Midway through Level 2, the students would be required to submit further proof for continuation in the program. In the past, some students who had been admitted to the TEP had subsequently failed to consistently demonstrate the necessary skills and/or dispositions for continuation in the program. These situations had been problematic for the department in that no system was in place to objectively deny continuation in the program. In some cases, students participated in the Student Concerns process, completing a contract designed to enhance the lacking skills or dispositions. In other cases, students rejected the Student Concerns process and continued in the program, albeit at risk. In other rare cases, students opted not to continue in the program. In any case, though, the faculty wrestled with how to deal with these borderline students.

From the time of entry into the beginning Level 1 courses, through completion of Level 2B courses, the portfolios were intended to be student-managed. Professors would be responsible in terms of grading assignments, but the students would ultimately be responsible for compiling artifacts and providing evidence for admission and/or continuation in the TEP. During Level 3, however, a certification file, managed largely by the department, would be created in order to compile evidence and data related to teacher certification.

Work on the development of the assessment plan initially covered a seven-month period, which included 1= semesters and an intensive two-week stretch in the summer of 2001. Funding for the summer work was provided by the Hope College Assessment Committee and the Dean for the Social Sciences. At the end of the summer work time, a proposal for the assessment plan was developed and a plan for implementation of the Level 3 review process was fully prepared. It was determined to start at this level because a system was already in place here that could readily accommodate changes. It also made sense to "design backwards," knowing first where students would end their programs and then work forward to design the beginning levels moving towards Level 3.

The timetable seemed to allow adequate time to finalize details for implementation at the remaining levels. It also flowed naturally for the students entering the program at Level 1. Details for staffing and budget will need to be fully addressed within the planning process for implementation at each level besides finalizing details for physical handling of the portfolios and timing of due dates.

In addition to developing the Assessment Plan, the team also worked to bring specific documents, such as the Statement of Commitment to Professionalism, the Professional Abilities, and the field placement evaluation forms into alignment with the ELSMT. The revised forms are being piloted during the current semester, with hopes of finalizing them during Spring, 2002. The data collection system is well on its way to being fully developed as well. Work with CIT has resulted in a customized data support system through the Banner. Yet to be developed, however, are methods for analyzing and utilizing this data to make decisions about the program.

The work of the Education Department's Assessment Committee has resulted in an assessment plan that is aligned with professional standards at the state and national levels, as well as our own Professional Abilities (outcome statements and developmental indicators). The plan is designed to enhance our students' reflective activity, while also providing adequate evidence for admission to the Teacher Education Program, continuation in the program, admission to student teaching, and recommendation for certification. We hope that it becomes a system that students will use to assess their growth and progress through the program, as well as one that we as a department can use to inform our practice.