Continuing Accreditation Report for the
Professional Standards Commission and the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
College of Education, The University of Georgia
2001

SECTION ONE: THE OVERVIEW

As the first state university in the country, chartered in 1785, the University of Georgia has a long and distinguished history in the development and dissemination of the state and national intellectual and cultural heritage. The university created a School of Education in 1908, expanding it into the College of Education in 1932. Always nationally ranked among peer Research I colleges of education, the college continues to set the pace in research, teaching and service projects of local, national and international interest.

The mission of the University of Georgia is encapsulated in its motto: "to teach, to serve, and to inquire into the nature of things." The College of Education embeds its mission within that institution-wide commitment, pledging to "provide the highest level of leadership in furthering education and life long learning for all citizens. This mission must be pursued at local, state, and national levels, and it must permeate academic preparation programs, community collaborations and partnerships, and the domains of teaching, research, and service."

The College of Education today is comprised of four schools: Health and Human Performance, Leadership and Lifelong Learning, Professional Studies, and Teacher Education. The schools are detailed below. As a result of administrative changes instituted since August 1999, the college is administered by a dean and three associate deans. It is indicative of the college's emphasis on collaboration that two of the associate deans (the Associate Dean for Research Development and Outreach, and the Associate Dean for Educator Partnerships) share responsibility for areas of external relations. The Associate Dean for Academic Affairs deals with internal affairs except for research issues. The four schools within the college are led by school directors who meet regularly with the dean, associate deans, and dean's office staff members.

With 18 undergraduate majors, 35 master's degrees, 21 specialist degrees, 21 doctor of education degrees, and 16 doctor of philosophy degrees, the College of Education is among the most comprehensive in the nation. It is also one of the largest colleges of education in the nation. There are 226 faculty in the college; 212 are tenured or on a tenure track; fourteen are academic professionals or research and public service associates. Thirty-one faculty members are people of color, or 14% of the college faculty. In addition to the faculty, 340 graduate assistants and 118 staff serve a student body of over 2,900 undergraduates and over 2,000 graduate students. In Spring, 2000, the college awarded 436 undergraduate and 215 graduate degrees. Faculty, students and staff occupy offices and classrooms in seven facilities on the Athens campus.

Within its many degree programs, students can earn teaching and administrative certification in 37 fields, and endorsements in another ten fields, from the College of Education. University of Georgia students can also pursue teaching certification in five additional fields through cooperating programs in the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Family and Consumer Sciences, and the School of Social Work. There are, then, a total of 42 certification fields that fall under the umbrella of the College of Education. Since the last PSC and NCATE visit, one certification field has been terminated, seventeen have been revised, and one has been added. See Table 1, appendix.

The college's graduate programs are ranked among the top tier in the country. For the sixth year running, US News & World Report placed the college among the nation's leaders, ranking it 26th out of 187 programs. Three graduate programs in the college were ranked among the top five in the nation (secondary teacher education, counseling, and vocational-technical education) and five programs were ranked among the top ten nationally (elementary teacher education and curriculum and instruction, in addition to the three above). Four other programs ranked between fifteenth and twenty-third (Educational Psychology, Special Education, Higher Education and Administration, and Administration and Supervision), bringing to nine the total number of College of Education programs ranked in the top twenty-five nationally by US News & World Report. Other publications and organizations rank some of those programs even higher. Contemporary Educational Psychology ranked the Department of Educational Psychology tenth in the nation; a web-based poll of higher education faculty in instructional technology ranked the Department of Instructional Technology first in the nation. [http://www.coe.uga.edu/annual_report/1999/pro/it.html, p. 257]
[http://www.coe.uga.edu/coenews/2000/USnews2000.htm]

As a part of Georgia's flagship state university, the college's primary service area is the state of Georgia. The college's undergraduate majors are drawn predominantly from within the state (nearly 86%) and, as throughout the university, rank among the best students in the state. The college's majors have a cumulative high school GPA of 3.62, only slightly below a university-wide high school GPA of 3.64, and total SAT scores of 1163 (university-wide, 1195); the college GPA of the senior class averages 3.03, and 3.81 for graduate students, across all college departments. The preponderance of the students are female (over 72%). Over 61% are between 18 and 24 years of age. Graduate students account for 43% of the student population in the college. See Institutional Research and Planning, "Average GPA by Class W/I Major," 11/02/00, PSC/NCATE room.*
[http://irhst40.irp.uga.edu/html/irp/irpk/student/freshmen/stats/index.html]
[http://irhst40.irp.uga.edu/html/irp/irpk/l3index/06.html]
*While the majority of the documentation for this reaccreditation visit is available on-line, a handful of documents are available only in hardcopy in the PSC/NCATE document rooms.

The university's statewide network of off-campus centers and its distance learning capacity carries the college's reach throughout the state. However, as befits a college with a national standing, its actual service area extends far beyond the state and the region. Through the faculty's myriad activities in the creation and dissemination of knowledge, faculty and institutional collaborations, study abroad opportunities, and the international scope of its graduate student population, the college also affects the nation and the world. The College of Education has no branch campuses. It does have a fixed off-campus site, the Gwinnett Center, operated in cooperation with the Gwinnett University System Center. No faculty members are housed away from the Athens campus.

In other words, the college carries on extensive activities beyond the boundaries of the Athens campus and the Gwinnett Center. Last year, its in-service credit program reached teachers in seventeen locations throughout the state and internationally. Ten percent of the college faculty participated in distance education initiatives in 1999. Seventeen school-university partnerships with districts in Atlanta and northeast Georgia are currently being formalized. In 1999-2000, over one dozen College of Education faculty worked directly with schools and teachers internationally to improve practice. The College of Education estimates that it reaches approximately 100,000 state, national and international outreach recipients annually.

During the 1999-2000 fiscal year, the college received more than $22.9 million in state support and $12.3 million in external funding for teaching, research and service programs. External funding came from such sources as the U.S. Department of Education, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Spencer Foundation, the Annenberg Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trust, the National Science Foundation, and the Kellogg Foundation, among others. The number of proposals submitted increased from 118 to 160 between 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. Of those 160 proposals, 133 were funded. Total external funding increased 47% in the most recent fiscal year.

In addition to winning major grants, the College of Education faculty continued to be recognized with significant and competitive honors. In the most recent academic year, college faculty received one Study in a Second Discipline Award, one Fulbright Award, two Lilly Fellow Awards, one Senior Teaching Fellow Award, and two Sara Moss Fellowships. Additionally, professional associations gave an Early Career Award (American Educational Research Association), a Scholar of the Year Award (Academy of Human Resource Development), and a Distinguished Service Award (the International Council of Special Educators) to members of the College of Education. Four faculty members have won the university's highest award for service, the Hill Award.

The college has continued to assure a strong faculty across all ranks and responsibilities. In the last five years it has recruited eminent mid-career and senior scholars and promising young scholars. At the same time, it has increased faculty diversity, increasing the proportion of minority faculty members to over 14%.

While the College of Education is in remarkably good health, it is at a crossroad. The university is in the process of approving its Strategic Plan for the next ten years. Although K-12 education is one theme in the plan, the expectation is that external funds will be substantially tied to that work. The college has experienced eroding state financial support in the last five years. Funding has remained virtually constant while operating costs have increased substantially. In the face of fixed operating resources, the college must continually upgrade electronic technology and it must respond to pressure to offer new programs or expand existing programs.

The Schools

The School of Teacher Education (STE) is composed of seven departments. US News & World Report ranks the schools' secondary education programs second best in the nation, and its elementary education program fifth best. Four of the college's five Special Professorships reside in STE, as do two independently supported projects aimed at school improvement, the long-standing Program for School Improvement and the Technology Training Center. STE was responsible for bringing in more than $2,425,000 in external funding to pursue teaching, research, and service activities. One funding source, the Eisenhower Higher Education program, provided funds for projects that affected over eight hundred K-12 teachers in the state of Georgia. Through the Dean's Forum, School of Teacher Education faculty collaborates with arts and sciences faculty in cross-disciplinary projects that support the Board of Regent's Principles and the state's P-16 Initiative, and a joint project between the two schools to map national content standards to college curriculum.
[http://www.coe.uga.edu/annual_report/1999/, pp. 369-70]

The School of Teacher Education faculty is the most diverse in the college with 22% from minority groups; 55% are female; its diversity is distributed across all ranks. STE's curriculum reflects the college's commitment to diversity in education. Multicultural education strands are infused across courses. Likewise, STE has implemented study abroad programs in England, Mexico, and Kenya, and plans to implement a program in Italy.
[http://www.coe.uga.edu/annual_report/1999/, p. 372].

The School of Leadership and Lifelong Learning (SLLL) is comprised of three departments and a research unit; two of the three departments are ranked in the top four among peer departments. The school has gained grants and contracts totaling just over $2.1 million dollars, including a U.S. Department of Education grant of nearly $916,000 shared between the schools of Leadership and Lifelong Learning and Teacher Education to co-develop a model program of excellence for pre-service teacher education based on contextual teaching and learning.

Nearly half of the faculty of the School of Leadership and Lifelong Learning participates in web-based and other distance-learning approaches as well as face-to-face delivery of instruction to offer doctoral programs at Fort Valley State University, one of Georgia's first historically black colleges, and to offer graduate programs or courses in four other locations in north Georgia. These activities have led to increased enrollment for the school, especially from under-represented groups -- 17% of the graduate students in Adult Education and Educational Leadership are African-American.
[http://www.coe.uga.edu/annual_report/1999/, pp. 5, 204-07]
[http://ncate.coe.uga.edu/coedocs.html]

The School of Professional Studies (SPS) has five departments offering both undergraduate and graduate courses. Four departments rank in the top twenty-five nationally, including first rank in the nation for the Department of Instructional Technology. SPS's Counseling Department brought in $1.72 million in new funding. Educational Psychology increased the diversity of its faculty and students in the last few years, surpassing university and national averages; 17% of the faculty and 22% of the students in the department are from minority groups.

The School of Professional Studies hired a nationally renowned expert in qualitative research methods in 1999 to organize, administer, and develop a program in qualitative research training at the University of Georgia and within the College of Education. The Department of Special Education's highly visible national and international distance learning projects reach more than seven hundred sites in the United States and are estimated to reach 85,000 professionals and parents. The Creative and Gifted program area within the Department of Educational Psychology is working to implement more on-line courses for teachers in the state. In addition to the educational community, SPS has developed links to the business community through the Instructional Technology Department's certificate program in Instructional Design and Technology in cooperation with the college's Department of Adult Education.
[http://www.coe.uga.edu/annual_report/1999/, pp. 5-6]

Five academic departments with a common focus on human movement and health science constitute the School of Health and Human Performance. With new degree programs in Sports Studies and Athletic Training, the school has increased undergraduate and graduate enrollments. In the 1999 it gained over $790,000 in external grants. Research in the schools is frequently conducted in collaboration with other units on campus, including Gerontology, Pharmacy, Veterinary Medicine, Music, the U.S. Forest Service, and the university's BioMedical Initiative.
[http://www.coe.uga.edu/annual_report/1999/, p. 6]

College Initiatives for Programmatic Improvement

Within the last decade, the college initiated a number of ambitious projects intended to improve the quality of certified professionals from its programs. First, seven years ago the College of Education adopted multicultural education as a central, college-wide initiative, and has become a leader on campus in addressing the university's commitment to cultural diversity. The Multicultural Education Initiative has enhanced the college's multicultural education mission and remains a vital component of the college. The initiative is described in Section 2.

Second, complementing the college's efforts in multicultural education is its growing international visibility. Faculty and students engage in a variety of instructional, research and service activities that promote international interest and involvement by the college. These include faculty collaboration in research and outreach efforts with institutions in Japan, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Botswana Columbia, Peru, Mexico, Germany, and the Republic of Georgia, and study abroad experiences for students. Last year, the college hosted 38 visiting scholars from countries including Australia, the Philippines, Korea, Malaysia, Japan, Egypt, Ghana, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Finland, Norway, Germany, England, and Denmark.
[http://www.coe.uga.edu/annual_report/1999/, pp. 92-107]

Third, the College of Education launched its Technology Initiative three years before the last PSC and NCATE visit. Still largely in gestation at the time of the last visit, its fruits are now becoming visible. The Technology Initiative is described more fully in Section 2. The college is currently considering a proposal to fully integrate educational technology into all certification programs. The results would move the college's candidates well beyond the expectations of current state mandates. [http://it.coe.uga.edu/~lrieber/teachtechproposal/]

Fourth, faculty members from across the college and throughout the university have established a major new initiative to improve student learning at all levels. With funding from the U.S. Office of Education, National School to Work Office, and the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, the college launched a project to improve teaching through contextual teaching and learning. The project focuses on helping participating teacher education majors to tie their teaching content to real world experiences in community, workplace, and school settings. The focus is on problem-solving, higher-order thinking skills, sensitivity to issues of communication, equity and diversity combined with teacher reflection on the application and relevance of subject matter to authentic life experiences of students. The project involves over two dozen faculty members and administrators from the College of Education and the College of Arts and Sciences. [http://www.coe.uga.edu/ctl]

Improving student learning is also a goal of a fifth College of Education initiative, the Northeast Georgia P-16 Initiative. This effort to ensure success for all students through shared university, school, and community responsibility and collaborative action, launched early in 1996, has elaborated a range of innovative projects to reach its goals. For instance, its co-reform commission, realizing the need to reform teacher education along with the public schools, is working on several fronts to transform teacher education and advanced teacher education preparation programs, including a major effort to build standards-based teacher education curricula (see below). Another group within the initiative sought ways to improve students' aspirations, expectations, and attitudes toward school. The initiative's Academic Standards Project is raising academic standards while easing the transition between education levels. [http://www.coe.uga.edu/outreach/]

Sixth, a primary undertaking within the Northeast Georgia P-16 Initiative is the Standards-Based Teacher Education Project (STEP). STEP originated in 1997 when the College of Education was designated as a pilot campus for a project to align teacher education curriculum with national subject-matter standards in partnership with arts and sciences faculty and P-12 educators. The Council for Basic Education and American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education funded the project. In February 2000, the Georgia Board of Regents awarded the STEP program a grant from its Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Plan to continue and expand its work. The goals of the STEP initiative are: to ensure that prospective teachers learn content and pedagogy in their courses related to standards identified for core curriculum areas, and to assess the effectiveness of the preparation programs in preparing teachers to teach to the standards in school settings and bring grades 7-12 students to high levels of achievement. See STEP Report to the Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Plan, p. 1, available in hard copy, PSC/NCATE room.

Seventh, convinced of the value and importance of the STEP effort, in 2000 the college developed a broader and more comprehensive initiative, the Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Project. This five-year project, with an initial grant of $6.5 million from the U.S. Department of Education, will bring the college into collaboration with Georgia state colleges at Valdosta and Albany, greatly enhancing the impact of the reform effort on candidate outcomes within all three teacher education programs. The STEP program will continue for two more years under this new initiative. All certification programs within the college will be involved in this undertaking. See GSTEP documents, in the PSC/NCATE room.

Eighth, as part of its response to the Board of Regents' Principles and Actions for the Preparation of Educators for the Schools (1998), the university, in collaboration with the College of Education, created an Advisory Council for Educator Preparation. Composed of the university's Vice President for Instruction, deans and associate deans from the colleges of education and arts and sciences, the Director of the School of Teacher Education, and appointed members from the university faculty, P-12 educators, and community members, this group advises programs that prepare educators at the university. Its work continues a tradition in the college of close collaborations between the university and local school systems. Extending that tradition, the dean recently charged all teacher education programs to develop and implement plans for formal partnerships with schools within two years. University faculty offers professional development to the public school faculty; public school educators and university faculty collaborate on school-based research; resources such as travel expenses are shared among all partners; and reform is seen as a two-way street, influencing the university as well as the local schools. [http://www.coe.uga.edu/coedocs.html]

Finally, to respond to the growing shortage of teachers within the state and nation, in 2000 the College of Education sought and won Board of Regents funding to design a teacher preparation program for career-change individuals. This Business-to-Teaching initiative is intended to attract mid-career candidates whose life experiences will contribute to their teaching, and focuses particularly on "high need" teaching fields. In its first year, the project developed, piloted, and revised technology-based alternative teacher certification courses in mathematics education, science education, occupational studies, special education, and English as a Second Language, all in collaboration with seven other institutions in Georgia. Over 100 candidates enrolled in the program in autumn, 2000. The project will expand into other content areas in the next two years. The three-year project is funded at $800,000 per year. [http://www.coe.uga.edu/biztoteach.html]

As part of its ongoing work of programmatic improvement and rededication to excellence in teacher preparation, the College of Education has just completed work on a ten-year strategic plan, and departments and programs have responded with plans of their own that complement and extend the objectives adopted by the college. The plan's emphasis on diversity issues and technology place it squarely within the current thrust of the college. [http://www.coe.uga.edu/dean/strategicplan/]



SECTION 2: THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The College of Education aspires to prepare exemplary reflective practitioners to serve a diverse, global community; it seeks to achieve that end through teaching, scholarship, outreach, and partnerships at local, national, and international levels.

Development of the Conceptual Framework: A Shared Vision


Until recently, the College of Education has had a tradition of strong individual departments. As a result, each department in the College of Education developed its own conceptual framework that was used to guide its work. However, in 1995, NCATE's Unit Accreditation Board cited the college for weakness in the Conceptual Framework, stating, "It is not clear that all programs have a model for curriculum design." Consequently, the college worked toward a conceptual framework that would serve as a guide for the entire unit. Faculty from all four schools constituted a committee that met beginning in 1999.

The committee conducted an inductive analysis of the conceptual frameworks and mission statements governing departmental and programmatic work. It discovered a high degree of unanimity regarding basic goals and a good deal of commonality in the descriptive language employed by the various departmental documents, indicative of a shared, if heretofore unarticulated, vision cutting across the college. From that analysis, the committee identified five common themes. Those common themes and the descriptive language from the documents provided the basis for a conceptual framework statement for the college.

The initial draft of a conceptual framework was presented to all department and program heads to discuss with their respective faculty in departmental meetings. The framework was also distributed twice to every faculty member with a request for feedback. The first mailing included an extensive explanation of the process of creating the framework, its purposes, and its meaning; the follow-up mailing a month later was intended as a reminder of the committee's need for comments and criticisms to gain college-wide agreement. Through an iterative process of responses and refinements to the statement, continuing through the Spring semester and into the summer, the college faculty reached consensus on the conceptual framework as the college's shared vision in August, 2000.

The conceptual framework sets forth a vision of a particular sort of educator - exemplary, reflective, and prepared for service to diverse learners - and a commitment to the means of bringing the vision into reality - through teaching, scholarship, outreach and partnerships. The college's understanding of those elements and their grounding in scholarship follows.

Exemplary Practitioners

The teacher education faculty of the College of Education is convinced that exemplary practice rests on the dual foundation of a profound grounding in subject matter knowledge and a thorough knowledge of the complex art of teaching. The faculty understands exemplary teaching not as the display of measurable behaviors, but as the masterful performance of the multitude of teaching tasks with full fidelity to the subject matter, yet in the constant consciousness of the multiple demands of context, purpose, diversity, and professional ethics.

That teachers must have deep familiarity with the subject matter they are to teach seems axiomatic. However, two decades of research intended to identify essential teacher behaviors that contribute to learning-the process-product tradition of the 1960s and 1970s-led researchers away from careful study of the value of content knowledge. That particular research tradition, and the classroom practices it imagined, cast teachers as managers and facilitators of processes in which students mastered expert-made curriculum. Teachers' roles were essentially content-free; the research task was "to identify generic teacher behaviors that seemed to be effective. The identified 'effective' instructional behaviors tended to be connected with the management of classrooms rather than with content pedagogy" (Even & Tirosh, 1995, p. 2; see also Brophy & Good, 1986; Gage, 1978). Worse, the students implicitly hypothesized by that research were nearly uniform in culture, ability, propensity, and expectation.

Emerging conceptions of the role of the teacher in promoting learning restore content knowledge to a preeminent place and indicate that subject matter is more than knowledge of a subject's "facts." Shulman (1986b), summarizing a recent body of research, argues that teachers must "understand that something is so; the teacher must further understand why it is so" (p. 9). Such understandings are dependent entirely upon strong subject matter knowledge. Others have demonstrated that the quality of content knowledge powerfully influences teachers' instructional practices (Grossman, 1989; Shulman, 1986b; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987; Wilson & Wineburg, 1988; Lee, 1995). Yet many of the calls for school reform in the last two decades assert that beginning teachers often have inadequate content knowledge (Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; Vance & Schlechty, 1982). Subsequent investigations suggest that weak subject matter knowledge is a continuing problem (Even & Tirosh, 1995; Stoddart, Connell, Stofflett, & Peck, 1993), one that sometimes persists even when candidates are required to take additional content courses (Wenner, 1993).

A renewed appreciation of the centrality of subject matter knowledge and deeper appreciation of the ways children learn have led to research into the relationship between content knowledge, or subject-matter knowledge, and effective pedagogy. That research confirms that, "Without the essential base of subject matter knowledge, teachers are simply unable to produce effective instruction" (Lee, 1995, p. 424; Hashweh, 1987). Yet subject matter knowledge is the necessary but insufficient condition; effective instruction also requires pedagogical content knowledge, defined as knowledge of the ways teachers transform and represent, or re-present, their knowledge of subject matter in the images, metaphors, activities, and other modalities that learners can accommodate and incorporate (Shulman, 1986a, 1986b, 1987; Brophy, 1991; Grossman, Wilson & Shulman, 1989; Garnett & Tobin, 1988; Even & Tirosh, 1995).

Pedagogical content knowledge hinges on high quality subject matter or content knowledge. Pedagogical content knowledge is distinct from what Kennedy (1998) calls "recitational knowledge," or that sort of knowledge that provides "the ability to recite specific facts on demand, to recognize correct answers on multiple choice tests, to define terminology correctly, and so forth" (p. 253). Shulman (1986b) describes pedagogical content knowledge as primarily the ability to generate metaphors; the quality of the metaphors employed, in turn, depends upon the age and prior knowledge of the students -- effectiveness, in other words, is dependent upon the metaphor's "comprehensibility to the particular audience" (Kennedy, 1998, p. 257). Thus, understanding the nature of the subject matter, and the teacher's disposition toward the subject matter, are also important parts of the whole package of pedagogical content knowledge.

Without marginalizing content knowledge, research on effective practice is bringing to light an increasing range of understandings and knowledge, encompassed by many writers under the general rubric of teacher knowledge. In experienced, effective teachers, several sorts of complex and interactive knowledge can be identified, though researchers do not agree on the exact typology: content knowledge; knowledge about students; knowledge about context; beliefs about the subject matter; pedagogical content knowledge; and curricular knowledge (Grossman, 1990, 1995; Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989; Shulman, 1986b, 1987; Ball & Wilson, 1996).

Finally, enthusiasm for high quality subject matter knowledge must be tempered by the fact that the best subject matter knowledge is often betrayed and undermined by teachers. Strauss, Ravid, Magen, & Berliner (1998), for example, found that the assumption that content knowledge "has priority over much of classroom teaching" (p. 592) will not stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, teachers' espoused mental model of children's minds and learning has much more influence than subject matter knowledge in determining instructional practices. Indeed, "the espoused MM [mental model] constrains and subordinates SMK [subject matter knowledge]. We argue that the espoused MM is the framework within which teachers make pedagogical decisions" (p. 592). Importantly, they do not claim that subject matter knowledge is unimportant: "... teachers' SMK is crucially important though it is subordinated to their espoused MM.... [However, having] more deeply organized SMK will not lead to teachers teaching that SMK in different ways" (Strauss, et al, 1998, p. 593, emphasis in original; see also, Pajares & Bengston, 1995). Similarly, Dunkin, Welch, Merritt, Phillips, & Craven (1998) found that teachers' knowledge of students and knowledge of context affects their substantive curricular decisions, "even to the extent of jeopardising the validity of concepts communicated" (p. 148; see also Swafford, Jones, & Thornton, 1997; Chen & Ennis, 1995).

Teacher knowledge, then, must be fortified with examinations of beliefs about the subject matter, reflections on pedagogical purposes, inquiry into the deepest interest of the child, and other professional and developmental tasks to achieve greatest integrity and authenticity in teaching. Yet there is a danger that the contemporary focus on teacher knowledge, from content knowledge through pedagogical knowledge, reduces teaching to a technical task. What is missed too often is the unavoidably moral and political dimensions of teaching, aspects of education too long brushed to the margins (Ball and Wilson, 1996; Liston & Zeichner, 1991; Delpit, 1995; Sockett, 1987; Tom, 1984; Goodlad, 1990; Fenstermacher, 1992)

In sum, then, profound grounding in subject matter is the indispensable condition for teacher training. Yet it is clear that teacher knowledge is far more than subject matter knowledge, and that teacher knowledge must include centrally, not peripherally, moral and political reflection. That leads, in turn, to the college's concern not simply with exemplary practitioners, but with exemplary reflective practitioners.

Reflective Practitioners

With the eclipse of the view of the teacher as classroom manager and curriculum facilitator, the rise of constructivist conceptions of teaching and learning, the elaboration of notions of teacher knowledge, and the emergence of an understanding of the myriad instructional decisions made moment by moment in classrooms, it became clear to teacher educators and researchers that the most effective instruction was enacted by teachers who took time to reflect on their subject matter, their classrooms, their students, their contexts, and their dreams. Schön (1983, 1987) made the case for self-reflection as central to clarifying one's understanding and making meaning from these understandings. He held that self-reflection is vital to learning and to enhancing professional performance. To change and grow as a professional, reflective thinking must become a taken-for-granted lens through which pre-service teachers conceptualize their practices and through which in-service teachers examine and reexamine their practices to make more informed decisions about students and learning. Brookfield (1995) asserted that reflection is critical to making better decisions and more informed judgments on practice, for it allows teachers to "stand outside their practice and see what they do in a wider perspective" (p. 16).

Reflection enlarges and enriches pedagogical content knowledge by providing a process of reviewing, reconstructing, reenacting, and critically analyzing one's own and her or his students' performance, and grounding exploration in evidence. It hones the process of transforming subject matter knowledge into the metaphors, examples, analogies, drills, and explanations that lie at the heart of pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987). Indeed, Grimmett (1989) observes that it is through reflection on action that knowledge-teacher knowledge-is derived. Although some of the work in the field is aimed at in-service teachers (Osterman, 1990; Cruickshank, 1987; Handal & Lauvas, 1987), a rich literature has developed regarding the initiation of teacher candidates into the habits of critical reflection (Maas, 1991; Ross, 1989; Calderhead, 1989; Ferguson, 1989; Schön, 1987).

Much of the literature on reflective teaching understands the object of reflection as the improvement of the technical aspects of transforming subject matter knowledge into pedagogical content knowledge-finding better metaphors, trying more challenging exercises, eliminating redundant or inappropriate activities, becoming more aware of students who need more time and more explanation, and so on. A more critical literature seeks to extend reflection into moral and political dimensions of teachers' work, making teachers more aware of teaching as a moral and political endeavor (Smyth, 1992; Liston & Zeichner, 1987; Armaline & Hoover, 1989).

It is increasingly clear in contemporary schools that a crucial object of reflection, in both its technical and its moral and political dimensions, is diversity. In the thinking of the College of Education, issues of diversity are not simply adjunct to teacher knowledge and reflective practice, but a central problematic to be confronted in professional education.

Preparing Professionals to Work in Diverse, Global Communities

The college's commitment to preparing professionals to work in diverse, global communities is crucial, given the current demographics of the candidate pool of professional educators and the increasing diversity of communities at the local, state, and national levels. Despite recruitment efforts, the candidate population in the college preparing to become school professionals remains largely white and female. The spring, 2000, cohort of College of Education student-teachers were 92% white and 78% female. These demographics parallel the demographics of educational professionals nationwide at a time when the nation is becoming increasingly diverse. Nationally, 87% of teachers are white (Henke, et. al, 1997). Hollins (2000) reports that nationally European Americans comprise 73.5% of the college student population while racial minorities comprise 24%. In colleges, as in public P-12 schools, students are generally taught by European American faculty (Hollins, 2000). Nieto (1996) notes that despite efforts to recruit and retain people of color and working class candidates into the teaching profession, the majority of pre-service teachers are still from white, middle class backgrounds.

Given the stark contrast between P-12 student populations and the college student population that will become tomorrow's teachers, the college is committed to prepare candidates to work with diverse communities through multicultural education. Drawing on the work of Banks (1994), Grant, Sleeter (1991), Nieto (1996), Noel (2000), Spring (1996), and others, the college defines multicultural education broadly to include race, ethnicity, religion, linguistic diversity, social class, gender, abilities, and sexual orientation.

Multicultural education has been woven through discussions in the professional education literature since the 1960s. Yet multicultural education means quite different things to different people. On one end of the continuum, educators follow the "tacos on Tuesday" approach, celebrating the foods and customs of ethnically different groups with little exploration of the historical and sociopolitical contexts of those target groups. At the other end of the continuum, educators view multicultural education as anti-racist, anti-sexist education that critiques both individual and institutional forms of racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination, and that works toward social transformation (Bennett deMarrais & LeCompte, 1999).

Through its Multicultural Educational Initiative, described below, as well as many other faculty and departmental efforts, the college aims to prepare professionals who have a solid knowledge of the historical, sociological, anthropological and educational literature focused on schooling for diverse families and communities. The size of the College of Education, as well as the diversity of faculty perspectives across the departments, encourages multiple approaches to multicultural education in professional education programs. Some of the courses and experiences offered to candidates are intended to achieve a human relations perspective on diversity; others take a single group approach as in courses that focus on women or on African Americans. Still others take a more global and critical social reconstructionist approach to understanding diversity and promoting social justice issues. Although candidates are able to take many courses centered on diverse learners, the curriculum is designed so that issues of diversity are also infused throughout courses and programs across the college. The faculty expect professional education candidates to demonstrate not only a knowledge base in issues related to diversity, but the skills and dispositions that enable them to create appropriate learning environments in which all children will thrive and where parents and communities are a vital part of the project. Bennett deMarrais & LeCompte (1999) argue that a multicultural emphasis only achieves legitimacy when it ceases to be exotic and becomes part and parcel of everyday life in every subject. The college strives to reach that goal.

Achieving the College's Aspirations

The Conceptual Framework speaks not only of the aspirations of the College of Education, but also of the means by which it seeks to achieve its end. Its means are those traditional to Research 1 institutions - teaching and scholarship - but the college adds to them two other means not often found in research universities, outreach and partnerships at local, national, and international levels.

The College of Education at the University of Georgia takes great pride in the teaching abilities of its faculty. In 1999, eleven faculty members received awards for teaching excellence, ranging from two recipients of Lilly Teaching Fellowships to a Fulbright Teaching and Research award. The college provides support for the improvement of faculty teaching, including monetary support for enhancing the technological proficiency of faculty teaching.

The faculty is also distinguished for the quality and quantity of its research. In the last year, eighteen faculty members won awards from national organizations for scholarship, including two Fellows of the Institute for Behavioral Research, one fellow of the American Academy of Kinesiology and Physical Education, and the designation of one colleague as one of "the 50 most productive and influential" scholars of educational administration by a task force within AERA Div. A. In that same year, the faculty authored 38 books, over 130 chapters to edited books, nearly 300 articles in refereed journals, and well over 900 other publications and papers presented before scholarly audiences nationally and internationally. Nine education-related journals are edited by college faculty. As noted earlier, the faculty has been highly successful in winning external support for its work.
[http://www.coe.uga.edu/annual_report/1999/, pp. 135-465]

Of growing importance to the College of Education, however, are its outreach and partnership efforts. While collaboration has not been a defining element in teaching and scholarship in the past, it must now become a professional norm. The faculty has begun crossing boundaries between groups within the college and across the campus, while the college has been engaged in building bridges to public schools, other institutions of higher education, business, community groups, and others. So important has the issue of outreach and partnerships become to the college that it sought and hired a dean with a commitment to such goals, and has reorganized its administrative structure around outreach and partnerships. The Office for Public Service and Outreach currently oversees more than 300 partnerships in the state and throughout the world.[http://www.coe.uga.edu/outreach/]

Professional Commitments and Dispositions

The College of Education is firmly committed to all aspects of exemplary teacher education. It offers the best and most current knowledge to its candidates, while actively pursuing new knowledge and promoting its application in its own teaching and in public schools. It seeks expanded means of assuring itself and its constituents of its success in nurturing exemplary, reflective practitioners.

The college believes that the work of educational professionals does not equate to a set of measurable competencies or behaviors. Their work is, rather, an intellectual and inevitably moral work requiring a thorough integration of complex, contextually actuated skills and particular habits of the heart and habits of the mind. Embedded in the college's conceptual framework, and revealed in the knowledge base undergirding that framework, are a number of attitudes, dispositions, and orientations that the faculty values in its candidates and seeks to enhance in them and in itself.

Among the habits of the mind that the college seeks to foster are an abiding respect for intellectual effort, ideas, disciplinary knowledge, and professionalism. Through its insistence upon excellence in subject matter, the faculty seeks in its candidates not merely mastery of facts, but far more importantly it seeks growth in a deep appreciation for the structures of and the modes of thinking fundamental to the disciplines. It is aware that a full grounding in the disciplines teaches the norms of inquiry, the modes of respectful, rigorous inquiry and critique, the informed skepticism, and the respect for divergent ideas that are essential to academic disciplines, and more crucially are fundamental to the discipline of committed citizenship.

The college promotes attitudes of broad professionalism, not as careerist self-interest but as habits of continual self-evaluation and enhanced performance, along with habits of continual evaluation of educational institution and their practices, in the interests of children and the society's highest ideals. It anticipates candidates who have developed habits of examining school practices and educational ideas, and formulating new practices and ideas in light of a grounded knowledge of learning, childhood, and society.

The college is similarly convinced that teaching, counseling, leadership, and other work in schools constitutes a moral craft as much as an intellectual craft. It values and seeks to nurture educational professionals who understand the political character of education and what that means for ethical professionalism. The college recognizes that deeply contested questions about the purposes and beneficiaries of education condition the work of educational professionals, and it promotes attentiveness to ends and means. It encourages careful and on-going consideration of ethical perspectives on classroom practices, curricular choices, pedagogical modalities, and institutional culture and organization. It presses for educational professionals who value difference and promote equity. A professional ethic requires a consciousness of the value orientations within educational practices. The college expects its candidates to value democratic forms of association and to support the conditions essential to them.

The faculty hopes to replace the image of educational professionals as technicians delivering prescribed content to passive consumers with the more potent notion of educational professionals as committed intellectuals skillfully engaging learners in the expansion of their ethical, cultural and intellectual universes. Actualizing that hope pivots on encouraging habits of thought, reflection, connection-making, understanding, and moral concern that are not required of technicians.

Commitment to Diversity

Increasingly, the popular and professional press is calling for educational institutions to acknowledge the nation's changing demographics, and to respond by helping to create a society characterized by mutual respect and a sense of community. The College of Education has achieved distinction in its anticipation of and response to these calls. Beginning in the early 1990s, the college adopted its Multicultural Mission Statement and launched its Multicultural Education Initiative.

The college's commitment to diversity is not limited to curriculum for the consumption of candidates. The multicultural education mission statement specifies that the college's instruction, research, service and administration all share a role in fulfilling the goals of diversity in the college. Multicultural education is regarded as a process that facilitates the development of educational policies and practices within the university and in the public schools that recognize, accept and affirm differences and similarities among people and challenge inequities that exist in society in general, and in educational settings, in particular. The college is committed to making itself more diverse, to developing programs and practices that nurture in candidates, staff and faculty the knowledge and actions necessary to lead productive lives in the context of pluralism, and to effectively educating and counseling students from various cultural and social backgrounds.
[http://www.uga.edu/~mctf/]

Curriculum. Between 1996 and 1998, the college encouraged all departments to create Cultural Diversity Action Plans to diversify their curricula. To support these departmental efforts, the college provided consultation and training on curriculum transformation. The college also instituted an annual multicultural education conference whose first meetings were devoted to curriculum development. Finally, each department received funding to bring in discipline-specific consultants to work directly with faculty on curricular changes.
In 1997, the University of Georgia instituted a Cultural Diversity Requirement for all undergraduate students. Alone among all the colleges in the university, the College of Education extended that requirement to graduate students as well as undergraduates. The college's cultural diversity graduation requirement intentionally avoided stipulating whether the requirement should be met through coursework or specific experiences. The intent was to identify a broad set of learning outcomes and to rely on the individual departments to make the best programmatic judgement about how those outcomes could be achieved. While the university has experienced delays in implementing the cultural diversity requirements in the various colleges, the College of Education, working from a high degree of faculty consensus, has continued to move toward full implementation. Departmental plans are now in the final stages of approval by the College of Education Curriculum Committee, and are beginning to be implemented within departments.

Recruitment and Retention. The college administration's commitment to increasing the number of minority faculty has led to six years of consistent increases in the number of faculty of color hired in the college. As noted previously, minority faculty now account for over 14% of the total college faculty, compared with a university-wide minority presence of 11%. Further, nearly half of the minority faculty are tenured and hold the rank of full or associate professor.

The college has also worked aggressively to retain faculty of color. The vitality of the college's multicultural education initiative, along with the administration's support for the initiative, is a positive influence on the retention of faculty of color. Additionally, the college supports a faculty administrator charged with supporting junior faculty members in their work toward tenure and promotion. As a result, every faculty member of color that has applied for promotion and tenure in the past five years has been successful, a point of pride in the college, and a record that also contributes to minority faculty retention

The college's efforts to recruit candidates of color have not been as fruitful as desired, especially at the undergraduate level. Minority undergraduate education majors constitute 10% of the student body, compared to 12% for the university as a whole. The college seeks venues for undergraduate minority student recruitment, such as participation in Georgia Preview Days, a university-wide effort to promote campus visits and orientations for students and parents of color. The dilemma currently faced by the college, shared with most other institutions, derives from the chilling effect of the recent Hopwood case that declared the University of Texas' affirmative action efforts unconstitutional.
[http://irhst40.irp.uga.edu/html/irp/irpk/student/Sirs/profile/l3/06.html]

However, the college has been successful in recruiting minority graduate students. Through participation in the Graduate School's recruitment work, active representation on the Graduate Student Recruitment Committee, and attendance at recruitment fairs and related events, the college has increased its minority graduate population. Graduate students of color made up nearly 13% of all graduates in the college in the autumn of 1999, with African Americans composing almost 9%. International students account for 0.3% of the college's undergraduate population, and 6% of its graduate population. Further, the college is retaining and graduating graduate students of color. According to Black Issues in Higher Education, the college ranks fifth in the nation in the number of education doctorates awarded to African Americans.
[http://irhst40.irp.uga.edu/html/irp/irpk/student/Sirs/profile/l3/06.html]

Research and Scholarship. Since the initiation of the multicultural initiative, several specific programs have been put in place to promote research and scholarship into diversity issues and multicultural education. In 1995, the college began funding mini-grants to support school and departmental efforts. The resulting grant program has funded 47 proposals with a range of valuable, innovative results. Among the outcomes of these grants are all-day departmental trainings on diversity, conference presentations at state, national and international conferences, refereed journal articles, and development of instructional videos and teacher guides. [http://www.uga.edu/~mctf/]

The faculty's scholarship and the systemic efforts to institutionalize change across the college have garnered visibility and attracted attention. National presentations about the multicultural education initiative are well received. The task force responds to numerous inquiries each month from other institutions of higher education, as well as peers at UGA, regarding the initiative. The university's central administration touts the College of Education as a model of effective integration of diversity.

Faculty and Staff Development. Many multicultural education programs nationally focus primarily on changing student knowledge and perceptions. By contrast, the college realized early in the multicultural education initiative that faculty and staff also needed to reflect on and learn about diversity and multiculturalism. Therefore, professional development has comprised a substantial component of the multicultural education initiative. Perhaps most notable and enduring has been the annual Multicultural Education Conference sponsored by the College of Education each Spring, initiated in 1994. Nationally recognized scholars such as Carl Grant, Carlos Cortez, Beverly Guy-Sheftall, Tracy Robinson, and Don Locke have participated, exposing the college to the diversity of work in the field of multicultural education.

The effects of the college's stand on diversity have reverberated into all corners of the unit. Educational Leadership's School Design and Planning Laboratory studies multicultural aspects of school design [http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/sdpl.html]. The remarkable Sport Instruction Research Lab is leading the nation in investigations in instructional diversity and multicultural education in physical education. The college's P-16 initiative seeks to "close the gaps in access to post-secondary education between students from majority and minority groups and between students from high and low income groups" and to "focus the co-reform of schools and teacher education on practices that bring P-12 students from diverse groups to high levels of achievement¼."
[http://www.coe.uga.edu/sportlab/labinfo/labmission/cihist.html] [http://www.coe.uga.edu/outreach/]

Commitment to Technology

The college expressed its commitment to educational technology in 1993 through the College of Education Technology Initiative. The initiative found expression through the College Technology Committee that was charged to develop college-wide technology goals. The consensus was that technologies such as multimedia instruction, electronic presentations, distance learning, and electronic mail are changing teaching, learning and communication. Therefore, a process was initiated to prepare candidates, faculty and staff to receive systematic exposure to instructional technologies. The technology goals, announced in 1995, have guided the processes of strategic planning and resource allocation within the college and its schools, departments, and programs. The college has renewed its technology initiative as a way to demonstrate a collective dedication to the integration of technology into the teaching and learning process. The current technology initiative also serves as a response to the State of Georgia legislative requirement to prepare pre-service teachers to incorporate technology into the classroom.

To facilitate candidate mastery of technology, the college supports eight computer labs in three buildings with a total of 148 stations. The labs are available to candidates for up to seventy hours per week, depending on location. In addition, the university maintains a ninth lab in Aderhold for candidate use. Both Windows and Macintosh computing environments are available in the labs, and all feature projection systems for class use. The fifty classrooms within the college's own buildings are wired for internet access, and all but the smaller seminar rooms are equipped with overhead projectors, VCRs and monitors. The larger lecture halls throughout the campus are equipped with video projection devices, cordless microphones, CD and VCR capacity, and other mediation. The most recent movement regarding education technology is a proposal, just coming under discussion as this report is being written, that will create a truly college-wide plan to integrate technology into all teacher education programs. [http://it.coe.uga.edu/~lrieber/teachtechproposal/]
[http://www.coe.uga.edu/labs/]

To extend the faculty's own proficiency in educational technology, both to increase its effectiveness and to enhance its modeling of intelligent applications, the college instituted a mini-grant program to support faculty to integrate technology into curriculum and pedagogy. In 1999-2000, the college awarded $13,000 in mini-grants to its faculty for thirteen projects, seven of which were for InTech training (see below). In 2000-2001, the college will award $17,500 for 25 proposals.

To integrate the college's pre-service training with state-wide technology training, the college initiated a pilot program in 1999-2000 that gave 26 pre-service elementary education candidates the same technology integration professional development that state in-service teachers are receiving state-wide. This experience enhanced the pre-service teachers' job opportunities and eliminated the requirement that they receive this training after employment. Given the success of the pilot project, Elementary Education is seeking funding to extend the program in the near future.

The college is also improving technology use among in-service teachers. In collaboration with the State Department of Education, two Technology Training Centers, one at the College of Education and one at its satellite site at the Gwinnett Center, provide comprehensive curriculum, administrative and technology support training for educators. Last year, these centers provided technology-related instruction to 565 teachers and 2,741 other educators in Northeast Georgia. The program, INtegrating TECHnology in the Student-Centered Classroom (InTech), is intended to foster changes in teaching and learning in Georgia's classrooms. [http://ttc.coe.uga.edu/index.html]
[http://ttc.coe.uga.edu/intech-intro.html] [http://www.coe.uga.edu/annual_report/1999/, pp. 47-50]

Commitment to Candidate Proficiencies Aligned with Professional and State Standards

Since 1997, the college has taken leadership in aligning its teacher education programs with subject-matter standards as enunciated by national professional organizations, working in close collaboration with arts and sciences faculty and P-12 educators (see above, pp. 6-7, STEP). That initiative received further funding in 2000. Its goal of ensuring that prospective teachers gain the content and pedagogical skills related to national subject-matter standards is being addressed through a thorough process of curriculum alignment in four targeted curricular areas: English and language arts, science, mathematics, and social studies. See STEP documents, PSC/NCATE room.

The importance of that process of curriculum alignment led the college to move toward a more comprehensive systemic teacher education reform process while continuing its Standards-Based Teacher Education Project. The Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Project, with multi-million dollar funding, will bring two other Georgia universities into the process of curriculum alignment. Further, the college has begun an extensive process of identifying and evaluating all current candidate outcomes and current modes of candidate assessment, identifying further outcomes based on careful analysis of PSC, NCATE, and national standards, and creating authentic, performance based assessments for all outcomes. See Section 3 for more details. The exact alignment of the college's conceptual framework with state and national standards is illustrated in Unit Outcomes for Candidates (see Table 3, appendix). That table summarizes standards from the Georgia Board of Regents Quality Assurance Principle, National Board Standards, INTASC Standards, and NCATE 2000 standards. See individual programs for assessment matrices, data summaries and plans. See GSTEP documents, hard copies in PSC/NCATE room.

In summary, the College of Education has a record of a decade of committed, multifaceted work to increase its diversity and to prepare its candidates to work in a diverse, global society. Similarly, it has spent nearly a decade to become more technologically adept, with cutting-edge infrastructure, and with expanding opportunities for its candidates and its faculty to gain full proficiency in the use of educational technology and to become advocates for expanded technological capacities in the schools they will serve. Finally, the college has not merely given lip-service to standards-based teacher education, but has taken national leadership in the movement toward that goal.



SECTION 3: THE STANDARDS

  1. I. CANDIDATE PERFORMANCE

    Standard 1: Candidate Skills, Knowledge, and Dispositions


    Candidates 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 learn. Assessments indicate that candidates meet professional, state, and institutional standards.

    Element One: Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates


    The college takes a strong stand in favor of its candidates' thorough grounding in content knowledge. Admission to the University of Georgia is competitive and selective. Several departments in the college have restricted applications and all require exemption from or a passing score on Praxis I. All candidates must pass Praxis II, Subject Assessments, before certification is granted. A remarkable 94% of the college's candidates passed this demonstration of content mastery in 1999.
    Through well-supervised field placements and clinical experiences, the faculty is able to assure itself that its teaching candidates do not simply have content knowledge, but can translate that knowledge to learners in age-appropriate ways. As detailed below, all programs give candidates multiple opportunities to demonstrate their content knowledge in teaching situations.

    Not satisfied with rough approximations of content knowledge and classroom expectations, however, the college began several years ago to work with its colleagues in the arts and sciences to align content knowledge more precisely with the standards recently promulgated by national subject-area professional organizations, as described in Sections 1 and 2. Georgia's Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) content is aligned with the courses candidates take in the arts and sciences and in education for secondary majors. In 2001-2002, the STEP project will align standards with curriculum for elementary majors. Currently, QCC content is evident in course syllabi. See STEP Standards Alignment tables, hard copy in PSC/NCATE room.

    Element Two: Content Knowledge for Other Professional School Personnel

    The college is dedicated to excellence in the content knowledge of all educational professionals. School social work, school counseling, school administration, and other professional preparation programs are offered exclusively at the graduate level to assure strong content preparation.

    Graduate study at the University of Georgia is known for its rigor and high standards. Admission is competitive; GRE verbal and quantitative scores of over 1000 and a 3.0 undergraduate record are required for consideration to the Graduate School. Beginning with strong candidates, the programs that prepare professionals for educational positions outside the traditional classroom setting require rigorous coursework that roots their candidates firmly in the concepts and modes of inquiry central to their field. Virtually all programs offering training for these candidates are affiliated with national organizations whose standards guide all aspects of their programs. In the nature of graduate study, with its close, collaborative work between students and faculty, candidate outcomes in these programs are constantly monitored and assessed. See Table 2, appendix.

    Element Three: Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates

    Pedagogical content knowledge comprises that specialized knowledge of the metaphors, examples, analogies, drills, and explanations that exemplary practitioners employ to translate or represent their content knowledge to learners. It rests fundamentally on thorough content knowledge; hence the college's strong emphasis on full grounding in subject matter. But the skilled turn from content knowledge to pedagogical content knowledge is the key to transforming a knower into a teacher. This is the domain of teacher education curriculum and instruction. Importantly, there can logically be no unit-wide stipulation of the pedagogical content knowledge of all the unit's candidates. By definition, pedagogical content knowledge differs by subject matter; it differs by the developmental levels of learners; and it differs by the practitioner's understanding of the diverse cultures of the learners and the modes of meaning-making and stocks of cultural experience nurtured within those cultures.

    To maximize this domain, the programs within the college require sequences of courses that vary depending upon the subject matter and grade level. Elementary Education, divided into programs in Early Childhood Education and Middle School Education, have an extensive sequence that introduces the pedagogical content knowledge essential to the multiple subject matter of elementary school classrooms, along with other courses that modify and integrate that knowledge. Secondary education programs and such K-12 programs as music or art build upon subject matter majors with course sequences that move candidates from content knowledge to pedagogical content knowledge and introduce professional pedagogical skills and knowledge. Special areas such as vocational education have special subject matter requirements as a foundation to the specialized pedagogical content knowledge and skills required for their areas.

    Mastery of the coursework in the various programs is insufficient, however. Exemplary practitioners of any craft achieve that status only through carefully supervised practice. All teacher preparation programs in the college provide multiple opportunities, through peer teaching settings, tutoring, small group instruction, and whole class experience, for practice under the professional supervision of mentor teachers and university faculty. Moreover, the candidates practice their pedagogical content knowledge with a diversity of learners - urban and rural, minority and majority, poor and prosperous, differentially abled and differentially gifted.

    At many points within the teacher education program, from gaining content knowledge through transforming that knowledge into pedagogical content knowledge to supervised practice, candidates observe master university faculty reflecting on ideas and teaching, receive instruction on the multiple contexts for professional reflection, and are guided in a variety of ways to reflect upon their own knowledge and their own practice. In the field experience component of many programs, candidates learn to engage in formal, written reflections on the intent of their lessons, the actual event, its outcomes, and what they would do differently; in some programs, they are encouraged to link their daily experiences with the ethical and social issues explored in Foundations of Education classes. A few programs require portfolios of one sort or another, all of which are intended to promote reflection on intentions, means, ends, and contexts.

    Element Four: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates

    The college distinguishes between pedagogical content knowledge, defined above, and professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. The former refers to the modes of representing content knowledge for learners; professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills refers to the myriad strategies, activities, and contingencies that exemplary practitioners employ daily in the process of representing content knowledge. It includes modes of classroom orchestration, patterns of interpersonal behavior, skillful and appropriate deployment of educational technologies, habits of planning and contingent realization of plans, and mobilizing other pedagogical and professional skills to achieve learning for all children. It also includes the ability to carry out those multiple tasks while bearing in mind issues of contexts, diversities of learners, ethical and moral imperatives, and other overlapping lenses that create the constant indeterminacy of the teaching moment. For example, in Foundations of Education, candidates encounter conflicting ideas regarding the means and ends of schooling, examine the contradictions between ideals of equity and democracy and the workings of class, race and power in actual schools, and explore the implications of the history and sociology of education in relationship with their own aspirations as teachers.

    In their statements of candidate outcomes regarding professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, teacher education programs in the college use one form or another of the language of "mastery of pedagogy" for specific subject matter in specific contexts. They stress planning and using instructional strategies, activities, and materials geared to learners' development, and expect candidates to know and apply a variety of strategies. They expect candidates to know and be able to apply learning theories and the principles of the growth and development of learners. Most programs stress self-monitoring and adjustment in the midst of the teaching moment. Candidates are expected to reflectively apply their understandings of the mediating effect of cultural and social differences on learning in order to maximize learning.

    Programs within the college employ multiple means to assess candidates' stock of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills. All put an emphasis on evaluation of lesson plans. Many speak in one way or another of pre- and post-lesson self-assessments. Some evaluate candidates' efforts to assess and respond to particular teaching contexts, such as culturally or racially diverse classrooms or communities. The college's insistence upon reflective practitioners is echoed throughout the programs in assessment modalities that include various forms of candidate reflection on the adequacy and appropriateness of applying particular pedagogical skills and knowledge in concrete contexts. Above all, programs expect to most accurately assess these knowledges and skills in field experiences, where supervisors, with candidates, can accurately gauge the exact application of the knowledge and skill, and judge the impact on learning and classroom climate.

    Element Five: Professional Knowledge and Skills for Other School Personnel

    Given the divergence in foci across programs preparing educational professionals other than teachers, it is not surprising that there is little commonality in the professional knowledge and skills expected of their candidates. Educational leadership, for example, sees such knowledge and skill as primarily a "practical problem-solving perspective on and action orientation to leadership," while School Counseling speaks of the application of knowledge drawn from specific national standards and from systems theory. School Social Work defines professional knowledge and skill as centered on theories of family life and human behavior and the construction of interventions based on those theories. Other programs are similarly diverse.

    There is less divergence in modes of assessing these knowledges and skills. Some programs evaluate candidate performances on activities drawn from national professional standards, or employ role-play, simulation, reflective journals, and evaluation of classroom discussions. All, however, rely in one way or another on formative and summative evaluations of field experiences, practica, and internships, along with the traditional modes of assessments embedded in thesis and dissertation processes.

    Element Six: Dispositions for ALL Candidates

    Professionals inevitably have skills, but one of the attributes that sets them apart from other skilled workers is dispositional. Professionals have what is referred to earlier in this report (see page 14) as habits of mind and habits of the heart - dispositions, attitudes, value orientations, and habitual ways of being that inform the application of their skills and that condition their relationships with one another and with all with whom they come into professional contact.

    The faculty of the college values and seeks to nurture the professional dispositions of exemplary, reflective practitioners. It considers the following as the core dispositions of such practitioners:
    The college promotes those dispositions through a range of means. First, its faculty models those dispositions in its daily interactions with candidates, with mentor teachers and others in field settings, and with one another. Second, through its insistence on strong scholarship in content knowledge the college expects candidates to gain positive attitudes toward ideas and intellectual rigor. Third, many of the college's own courses explicitly embed specific dispositions, particularly those related to diversity, democracy, professionalism, and attention to the contexts of educational activity. Some of those dispositions are planted in courses infused with diversity content, many in foundations of education courses, some in curriculum and instruction courses. Fourth, few teacher educators spend time with educational professional candidates without engaging in, essentially, direct instruction regarding professional dispositions; it is simply in the nature of being passionate about fostering exemplary practitioners to advise, admonish, and direct candidates toward dispositions appropriate to the profession.

    Assessing candidate dispositions has been more problematic than identifying them, not only in the college but throughout teacher education's history, and particularly in the last half century. Much of the effort to create a science of education carried with it the implicit assumption that if an attribute could not be reliably taught to all, and accurately measured objectively, the attribute was not a proper objective to expect and assess. The move away from process-product thinking and research in education has allowed colleges of education to move back toward an understanding of the moral nature of teaching that was more fully embraced earlier in the twentieth century. So, too, at the University of Georgia. Although the programs are at different places in identifying the dispositional outcomes they expect of their candidates, all are committed to elaborating those outcomes in the next year, and many have already completed the task; conceptualizing the means of adequately assessing dispositions will take longer, since this is an area that has not had sustained research and practice, and an area that is fraught with legal and ethical issues that must be approached with care. Nonetheless, within two years, the college will have in place clear dispositional outcomes and assessments that demonstrate candidates' habituation to those dispositions.

    Element Seven: Student Learning for Teacher Candidates

    Nearly all teacher education programs include among their candidate outcomes the expectation that their candidates can demonstrate an impact on student learning. Nearly all struggle to determine exactly how one demonstrates that, however. Some progress is being made as the faculty and candidates struggle with portfolio and other forms of alternative assessment, and talk together about what counts as evidence of learning. There is also a sense across most programs that assuring student learning depends upon solid pedagogical knowledge and skill, and hence the faculty speaks under this heading about candidate self-monitoring and adjustment, being skillful in applying a broad range of pedagogical strategies, and so on. Some programs stress the need for candidates to possess many modes of formal and informal assessment of student learning. Assessment of student learning occurs in various sites for candidate reflection and in evidence from field experiences.

    Element Eight: Student Learning for Other Professional School Personnel

    Although further removed from student learning than classroom teachers, there is an expectation in most programs that all educational professionals have responsibility for enhancing the learning experience of students through the services each render to the educational enterprise. As with other aspects of these programs, assessment occurs in practica, field experiences, and internships.


    Standard 2: Program Assessment and Unit Capacity

    The unit has an assessment system that collects data on the applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the unit and its programs.

    Element One: Assessment System


    As indicated in the Overview, the College of Education has long held to a strong departmental model of organization, and has just recently begun the slow process of moving toward a sense of itself as an integrated, collaborative entity primarily through the efforts and philosophy of the new dean. Given its history, it is not surprising that there has been no unitary assessment system in place. The various departments and programs do share some assessment processes, particularly the Praxis assessments. For the most part, however, the college's assessment system is a work in progress, indeed a work just initiated in the last year.

    That work-in-progress began in earnest during the last academic year, when every department involved in the certification of educational professionals, both inside and outside the College of Education, began an intensive process intended to yield a plan to align current assessment practices with PSC and NCATE standards. That process was designed in such a way as to indicate graphically to the departments and to the college as a whole exactly what candidate outcomes each program had already identified and which standards do not yet have outcomes associated with them. Further, the process was designed to indicate graphically which outcomes are currently being assessed, and which of those assessments are traditional pencil-and-paper assessments and which are performance-based. Through that process, departments and programs began to elaborate further outcomes, to refine and rethink existing outcomes, and to assure themselves that all of the PSC and NCATE standards are addressed through specific, measurable outcomes. That process of outcomes analysis will continue into next year as programs align their candidate outcomes with institutional, state, and national standards. See individual program assessment data on website.

    The next step in the process of moving toward a college-wide assessment system requires that each department and program evaluate the ways it assesses each intended candidate outcome, and that it begin to create assessment procedures that are more performance-based. The college expects this step in the process to take two to three years to fully develop, and at least an additional year of implementation, evaluation, and revision. Throughout the process, departments and programs will be encouraged to collaborate and share assessment ideas, with the long-range goal of reaching a level of commonality in assessment procedures. This college-wide process is facilitated by the recently constructed PSC/NCATE website where all program documents are public and faculty can collaborate with others across programs. See individual program assessment data.

    The college's assessment plan is linked to its conceptual framework and to state and national standards in the following ways. Exemplary candidates are carefully selected by each program area utilizing criteria such as GPA, Praxis I scores, and, in some programs, specific life experiences. Each program has assignments and projects that require candidates to reflect on their own learning as well as the learning of their students during student teaching. The curriculum of each program infuses awareness and understanding of cultural diversity as part of the college's cultural diversity requirement, course work on diverse learners, field placements in diverse settings, and student teaching in diverse locations. The college faculty just completed a process of examining programs in light of the conceptual framework, state and national standards, as well as the NCATE 2000 standards. As part of this process, program faculty constructed assessment plans that will enable them to (1) specifically assess what their candidates know and can do through multiple performance measures, (2) summarize that data at the program level at the end of each year, and (3) use the summarized data to make specific improvements in their programs. See Tables 3 and 4, appendix.

    Element Two: Data Collection, Analysis, and Evaluation

    Programs are at a variety of points in assessing how well candidates perform in working with diverse populations of P-12 students. The degree of alignment of the assessment instruments with the institutional (conceptual framework), state (Board of Regents Standards), and national standards (NCATE 2000 and specific national program associations) varies by program. Some programs have a thorough set of assessment procedures that are closely aligned with the standards at all levels and use multiple forms of traditional and performance assessments, while others are working toward that goal. Efforts of the programs and college as a whole to address the PSC and NCATE 2000 standards can be examined through an analysis of assessment plans, summary data, and assessment time lines at both the program and unit level on the PSC/NCATE website.

    All of the college's candidates are provided with teaching experiences through course assignments, field placements and clinical practice assignments. The scholarship of candidates is assessed from multiple sources: (a) the very high pass rate for candidates on Praxis II (94% at the bachelor's level, 99% at the post-bachelor level in 1999-2000); (b) multiple assessments of their ability to teach prior to graduation (portfolios, student-teacher evaluations, oral and written tests, ratings from supervising teachers); and (c) high placement rates when the candidates exit the programs. Many candidates are involved in outreach activities in their individual programs, highlighted by service learning courses.

    College candidates are likewise involved in partnerships in that their placements for field experiences and student teaching takes place in partnership schools. In the past, partnerships with local P-12 schools and other community agencies were informal. There are a variety of models of partnerships in the college with many that are longstanding and intimately linked to the work of the program. For example, the Middle School Program was constructed through the collaborative efforts of school and college faculty working together. Many programs use advisory boards to reinforce the collaborative nature of their work. However, the college is radically revising the form and content of its partnerships. See Standard 3, Element 1 for a full description of its latest initiative in college-school collaboration.

    The unit maintains an assessment system that provides regular and comprehensive information on applicant qualifications, candidate proficiencies, competencies of graduates, unit operations, and program quality. This system uses multiple data sources that are regularly and systematically summarized and analyzed to improve program quality, and consequently to improve candidate quality. Since the college decided to pilot the NCATE 2000 standards, college efforts have been aimed toward coordinating all assessment efforts required for the university, state, and national associations into one major effort. Specifically, the college has instituted benchmarks to evaluate prospective candidates as well as to evaluate candidate's progress through their programs of study. Those benchmarks were created in response to a 1993 university-wide plan to create a system of assessments for all undergraduate programs. Since that time, all undergraduate programs annually submit a report of their progress in studying and evaluating their programs. As part of this system, programs were asked to use data to report on their programs and to improve their programs. The University Undergraduate Assessment Reports for 1998-1999 and for 1999-2000 are available for examination (paper copies in PSC/NCATE room).

    The work in the college is now focused on coordinating the university system with expectations for the integration of state and national standards. Portions of that work antedate the current PSC and NCATE review (see particularly the college's STEP effort, described above, page 6). The college is preparing to extend the STEP effort to all certification programs. At the graduate level, the university required all programs to submit the student outcomes expected in each program and begin to develop assessment plans and collect student summary data at the graduate level. A report on each of the graduate programs was due to the Graduate School in November 2000.

    Benchmark Data: While each certification program in the college has developed its own set of assessments linked to the learning outcomes of its candidates and to the college's Conceptual Framework, the college has a corresponding set of major benchmarks that are used systematically to assesses candidates at critical points in their education. Graduate program benchmarks are established by the Graduate School, and are summarized in Table 4, appendix. The undergraduate benchmarks are described in detail below. As part of the PSC and PSC & NCATE Assessment Plan, the college has added an additional benchmark assessment; it intends to follow teacher candidates during their induction years as new professionals in the school setting. The benchmark data collected and used for program improvement are summarized below for undergraduate certification programs:

    Benchmark #1: Admission to the college. At the initial level, all candidates must pass either ACT, SAT, or Praxis I as part of admission to all certification programs. At the advanced level, minimum GRE scores determine admission.

    Benchmark #2: Admission to a major. All candidates must have at least a 2.5 GPA with some programs requiring higher averages (English 2.6; Middle School and Communication Sciences and Disorders 2.7). Additional requirements vary across programs, including essays, interviews, resumes, videotaped presentation, completion of specific courses, and other measures (see individual program websites). Some programs work with a cohort system, restricting admission to a certain number of candidates; such programs rank candidates by GPA and admit candidates based on their rankings in this pool. The GPA within these programs is typically higher than 2.75. In several programs, such as Social Science Education, Special Education, and Early Childhood Education, candidates are required to complete fifty to sixty hours of pre-professional field experiences and construct a portfolio of their experiences.

    Benchmark #3: Admission to Teacher Education. Formal admission to the status of Teacher Education requires a separate application after passing the Regents 1 Exam, completing sixty semester hours (including at least nine semester hours of residence credit), achieving a overall GPA of 2.50 (with differing requirements for some programs), completing Educational Psychology 2020 and Educational Foundations 2030 with a grade of C or above, completing specific core curriculum requirements, and demonstrating acceptable speech and communication abilities. The Regents' Exam is completed after taking two courses in English composition (English 1101 and 1102) and by the time candidates have completed 45 hours. This Regents exam is required of all UGA undergraduate students.

    Benchmark #4: Student Teaching. All candidates must maintain at least a 2.5 GPA (higher in some programs) to be able to begin student teaching .

    Benchmark #5: Certification. To apply for certification, all candidates must complete the program of study and requirements of individual programs, and pass Praxis II.

    Benchmark: #6: Induction Year Follow-up. The college will be developing assessment procedures for the induction year during the 2001-2002 academic year.

    In addition to university assessment system requirements, the Georgia Board of Regents requires the college to submit an annual report that analyzes the extent to which the unit is meeting the Board of Regents Quality Assurance Principles. The college submitted the second annual report in the Spring, 2000, in response to this requirement. [http://ncate.coe.uga.edu/coedocs.html]

    Student Evaluations of Faculty: The college routinely collects course and teacher evaluation data from students each semester on every course taught. These evaluations are completed during the last two weeks of the term. The forms are scanned by the Test Scoring and Reporting Office and the results are returned to the individual faculty with a copy to his or her department. The data are in the form of numerical summaries (means, standard deviations, and percentages) for each item plus any written comments the candidates provided. In anticipation of the PSC and PSC & NCATE review, the Test Scoring and Reporting Office prepared unit-wide summaries of this data. The summaries are mean faculty ratings across all items for a given department, a given school, and for the college. These data will be used within the college to study teaching effectiveness as viewed by the candidates in these courses. Spring, 2000, evaluation data report college-wide mean scores of 4.03 on "overall value of course" and 4.11 on "general teaching ability" (with 5.0 as the highest score). Mean scores for the four schools within the college ranged from 4.03 to 4.33 for "overall value of course" and from 4.0 to 4.36 for "general teaching ability." See website, Standard 5.

    These faculty evaluation data are used in annual reviews of faculty for merit pay within departments and at the school and unit level. These data are also used as part of the information collected when new faculty members undergo third-year review, and the data are a part of a faculty member's dossier for promotion and tenure. Student evaluation data on faculty are also used when academic programs undergo university review or reviews by their professional associations.
    [http://www.uga.edu/vpaa/polproc/apt/main.html]

    Student Teaching Exit Surveys: As part of a college-wide effort initiated Spring, 2000, data were systematically collected during student teaching using a survey of all candidates regarding their satisfaction with a number of aspects of their education. The survey was developed and the data analyzed by Educational Benchmarking, Inc. (EBI). Completed responses were received from 544 candidates across all the units in the college; 92% of respondents were white, 78% were female. See website under Standard 2. The survey results indicated that:

    1. 1. COE candidates were somewhat more satisfied with their educational experiences than those from the comparator institutions (chart 9), although the African American candidates at UGA were somewhat less satisfied (chart 11). When satisfaction is studied by teaching level, UGA candidates reported greater satisfaction than the comparator institutions, especially early childhood majors (chart 19). When satisfaction was considered by subject area, the candidates in art/music, English/language arts, health/fitness showed the greatest level of satisfaction (chart 20).
    2. 2. Looking across the mean responses from the comparator schools and the overall mean of the universities, UGA candidates expressed greater levels of satisfaction with the quality of teaching in the college (chart 1), felt their course work better addressed state standards (chart 12), and felt better able to use multimedia technology in the classroom (chart 29).
    3. 3. Candidates seem equally prepared to teach students of diverse backgrounds (chart 37) compared to the candidates from comparator institutions. Candidates rated education courses and non-education courses as equally challenging, whereas the quality of teaching in education courses was rated higher than the teaching in non-education courses (chart 69).


    New Components of the College Assessment Plan: Activities and Timelines

    Accreditation Leadership Committee.
    In 2001 the college will put into place a College of Education Accreditation Leadership Committee. This will be a standing committee of the College Faculty Senate whose function will be:

    Database Committee. In Autumn, 2000, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs appointed a committee of faculty, administrators, and technology staff to plan the development of several college-wide databases to be used to monitor and provide assistance to many of the programs in the college, including the dean's office. For example, there is a need to maintain records on graduates to conduct follow up surveys of how effective their education was, reports from employers, etc. Likewise, there is a need to be able to link admissions data with how candidates are progressing in their programs, as well as be able to electronically compute GPAs and other criteria for approval to graduate. A central database system will enable faculty and staff to electronically monitor candidate progress as well as program and unit progress in meeting the candidate outcomes. The college expects to implement a unit-level technology-based system by Spring, 2002.

    Element Three: Use of Data for Program Improvement

    In summary, the unit has systems of assessment at the program level that are aligned with institutional, state, and national standards. The programs use multiple forms of assessment to monitor candidates at appropriate benchmarks to evaluate their progress. The programs submit annual summaries and interpretations of their assessment of candidates to the university in the form of annual reports. The college, in turn, uses these reports and data it collects to develop the university-mandated annual self-assessments report of undergraduate and graduate programs, and annual reports to the Board of Regents. In addition there is a periodic external review of each program in the college at the university level. Where appropriate, programs have asked to be reviewed by national professional associations. At least annually, individual faculty, departments, and the college use student evaluations of faculty to improve practice. All of these efforts provide college and program faculty with opportunities to assess their candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions, as well as their own teaching and the efficacy of the college programs. This data is analyzed and interpreted for use in continual improvement of programs. (See specific program websites for examples of improvements made in response to multiple forms of data). The PSC and PSC & NCATE effort provides a vehicle to assist the college in integrating these ongoing assessments into one continuing cycle of evaluation and improvement of programs.


  2. II. 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.

    Element 1: Collaboration between Unit and School Partners


    The College of Education has used signed contracts with school partners for at least 25 years that have guided field experiences and defined other aspects of college-school collaboration. These "Memoranda of Understanding Concerning Affiliation of Students for Educational Field Experiences," renewed annually, now exist for 69 school systems. It has been increasingly clear, however, that these highly traditional contracts were inadequate to achieve the level of partnership equity that the college and the schools desired. Consequently, in Autumn, 1999, the dean of the College of Education and his staff began holding meetings with the superintendents and staff of all the school districts in which the college typically places certification candidates. A major component of these meetings was discussion of mutual needs and concerns of the districts and the college. Each meeting has resulted in an agreement to establish a new contractual partnership understanding. To date, seven agreements have resulted in signed contracts; ten other contracts are pending. The typical contract includes the following components:
    Not specifically mentioned but subsumed and understood within each component of the contracts is the understanding that research and publication of the results of the collaboration is a necessary component of the contract.

    Because of the size and diverse nature of the University of Georgia's teacher education programs, these agreements will be implemented in different ways, with at least four general models presently being implemented:

    1. Whole school model - Some programs such as Early Childhood and Middle Grades Education have a focus on all subjects related to their respective grade levels. This allows the development of entire school as partner schools.
    2. Professional development faculty model - Some secondary programs and those programs that focus on preparing teachers for K-12 disciplines (e.g., art, physical and special education) must work with dozens of schools in order to obtain the types and numbers of placements necessary for their programs. Some of these programs have chosen to create a professional development faculty (PDF) as a structural and not a geographic entity. Instead of working with all the teachers in a particular school, these programs work with selected faculty across many schools. English education is the most mature program of this type; its PDF includes education, A&S, and 7-12 faculty who work as a group.
    3. Professional development department model - Other secondary and K-12 teacher preparation programs have chosen to work with all faculty from one discipline within a particular school. For example, the science education program is working with the science teachers at Madison County High School. It is developing this site as a professional development department.
    4. Hybrid professional development department/faculty model - In many cases neither a professional development faculty nor department model will suffice to meet the needs of a program. In these cases departments are creating a professional development faculty from many schools and developing one or more professional development departments at selected area schools. Science is one program that is beginning to implement this model.

    To further promote collaboration between the unit and K-12 schools, the college has recently taken several other steps. It has, for example, instituted a new position, the Associate Dean for Educator Partnerships, to institute and nurture partnerships with schools and other entities. Likewise, the college is currently revising its contractual relationships with school districts. In one instance, a district is providing $100,000 per year for the education of mathematics specialists at its middle school level; the college's Mathematics Education faculty will train two teachers in each of the district's middle schools via a master's or specialist degree. Finally, the college is working in collaboration with Valdosta State and Albany State Universities to develop, among other things, cooperative partnerships between universities and school districts to increase student achievement and improve teacher education.

    Individual programs are actively promoting greater collaboration with public schools. For instance, Early Childhood Education, the largest program at UGA with over 100 graduates per year, has worked since 1994 to restructure its program, and has developed a cadre of 26 elementary partnership schools. Program interns are placed in only these particular schools. The partner schools provide mentor teachers who supervise and support candidates during field experiences and make presentations to classes at UGA. The school principals are also involved, providing candidate placement, as well as presenting occasional seminars and mock interviews for candidates. Key to the continued development of the early childhood partnerships is the provision of professional development opportunities to school personnel. The university offers summer seminars, funded through grants, to the school faculty on topics such as mentoring and mathematics teaching. .

    Middle Grades Education, the second largest program with over fifty graduates per year, has worked since 1993 to develop 27 partner schools. The partners share teaching resources, personnel, and space at the schools and on the campus. Mentor teachers give presentations in UGA classes and all mentor teachers provide feedback and suggestions for improving the quality of teacher preparation. University faculty has a clear presence in the schools, working with pre-service teachers, consulting with liaison and mentor teachers, and communicating with the school principal. As a result of this presence, numerous projects with partner schools and their teachers have arisen. These include facilitating an after school book club for African-American girls, facilitating faculty discussion groups, co-teaching in middle grades classrooms, implementing community service learning projects, and organizing an after-school tutoring program for ESOL students. This year, university faculty and teacher liaisons are collaboratively designing a model assessment component for pre-service teachers. They have also begun a second program to implement the "critical friends" process to improve middle grades school assessment practices. In addition, university middle grades faculty has offered in-service courses in the areas of science and mathematics using Eisenhower funds.

    The English Education program has pioneered the concept of a discipline-based professional development faculty. Instead of working with all the teachers in a particular school, this program has worked with selected faculty across many schools. A group of university and K-12 faculty began to revise the English Education program in 1994, based on principles of co-reform and pedagogical content knowledge. Processes used to connect the activities of university and K-12 faculty include a university-published weekly bulletin, regular mentor teacher meetings, three-way dialogue journals, and cross-site visits by all participants. Professional development of the participants is tied to an inquiry ethic. Recent results of the continued partnership within English Education include the successful completion of NBPTS certification of three partnership teachers and a $150,000 grant from a private foundation focused on assessment of student learning to be implemented by the professional development faculty group. Other educational professional training programs in the college have pioneered other models of collaboration.

    Element 2: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Field Experiences and Clinical Practices

    All programs require multiple field experiences of various kinds and durations. Because of the size of the college, there is not a single pattern for all candidates. Three distinct models are followed by the three levels of teacher education within the college: early childhood, middle grades and secondary programs.

    Candidates in Early Childhood Education must show evidence of having at least fifty hours of work in a school or child-related activity prior to being admitted into the program. Through program courses (EDEC 4010L, EDEC 4020L, and EDEC 4030L) candidates obtain another 280 clock hours with children prior to full time student teaching. Student teaching lasts for ten weeks.

    Middle School Education candidates spend over one hundred hours in classrooms during their subject matter and methods courses; the exact amount of time varies depending on the major and minor chosen. During student teaching, each candidate works full time in a middle grades classroom for twelve weeks. Thus, each teacher candidate spends a minimum of 480 clock hours in a middle grades classroom during student teaching. The total amount of time spent in schools equals or exceeds six hundred hours.

    Most, but not all, secondary programs have a pre-admission requirement similar to those mentioned for early childhood and middle grades programs. All programs also require field experience during their methods and curriculum coursework. The minimum student teaching placement is ten weeks in secondary education programs. Beyond that, the programs vary. In English Education, candidates are required to demonstrate that they have completed fifty clock hours of work with young adults in some capacity for admission to the Advanced Professional Education Course Sequence. They then gain a minimum of eighty clock hours in supervised field experiences during the semester before they begin student teaching. Those hours are embedded in two required courses, ELAN 4460 and ELAN 4470. Mathematics Education candidates gain field experience in EMAT 5360 and EMAT 4360 before their student teaching.

    All Science Education candidates must provide evidence of working fifty clock hours with children prior to student teaching. They gain an additional fifty hours of field experience before student teaching. In Occupational Studies, clinical experiences begin early and continue throughout the professional sequence. These experiences include observation and assistance in public education classrooms, peer teaching and coaching, group teaching, and reflective practice. They are conducted in more than one education environment (i.e., middle school, high school, and technical institutes) and with students from diverse populations. Candidates enroll in a minimum of two practica for a minimum of 64 supervised clock hours of classroom exposure before student teaching.

    Field experiences for most programs are arranged through the Educational Field Experiences office within the School of Teacher Education. However, some programs, because of special arrangements they have made with partnership schools, make their own school placements. The largest program of this type is Early Childhood that works directly with the teachers and principals to make placements. Field placements take place in local public school classrooms with multiethnic student populations. Most candidates experience more than one kind of placement, including experience in rural, suburban and urban schools; experience with majority and minority students of various socioeconomic backgrounds; and experience with gifted students and as those with exceptionalities. The largest school partner is the Clarke County School System with a student population that is more than fifty percent African American. See school district demographics chart, Standard 4, website.

    During field placements, candidates have various responsibilities and tasks to perform. These include, observing experienced teachers, grading papers and projects, working with individuals and small groups of students, teaching lessons to full classes, attending teacher, parent and school board meetings, performing classroom-based action research projects, and completing case-studies of individual students or classes. Completion of these assignments allows candidates to reflect upon and practice various aspects of the teaching profession. It allows them to practice using the various teaching strategies learned in their classes and to assess outcomes related to their use.

    Teachers in partner schools are considered college clinical faculty who share in the responsibility of evaluating candidate progress during field experiences, especially student teaching. To ensure proficiency in this task, many teachers participate in professional development activities associated with being faculty in a partner P-12 school. Field supervisors are employed who themselves have prior classroom teaching experiences and who the faculty consider to be exemplary teachers. In some programs, graduate teaching assistants are assigned to supervise student teachers. All of these supervisors who are not full-time faculty are assigned to a faculty mentor/coordinator who does have this experience. These experienced faculty assist the supervisors with documenting progress of field-based candidates and problem-solving with supervisors as problems occur. The primary method for mentoring is working collaboratively with the field supervisor using an apprenticeship model. In this model faculty demonstrate supervision skills in the field and work with the graduate assistants as they gradually increase responsibilities as the field supervisors. All graduate teaching assistants are evaluated annually by the faculty on their assignments. Cooperating teachers and teaching candidates evaluate all field supervisors.

    Element 3: Candidates' Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions to Help All Students Learn

    University faculty and the P-12 faculty who supervise field experiences assess candidates' knowledge, skills, and dispositions to help all students learn. In classes and during early field experiences, this assessment is formative and determines what the candidates need yet to learn. During student teaching, the assessment of candidates' abilities becomes summative, and a decision as to whether a pre-service candidate should be recommended for licensure is made. This decision is made cooperatively between the university and P-12 supervisors, and includes consideration of the candidates' abilities and dispositions to facilitate learning for all students.


    Standard 4: Diversity

    The unit designs, implements, and evaluates curriculum and experiences for candidates to acquire 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 and exceptional students in P-12 schools.

    Element 1: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences


    The multifaceted Multicultural Education Initiative demonstrates the college's commitment to teacher preparation that provides the knowledge, skills and experiences necessary to help all students learn and to foster respectful, supportive learning environments. It also represents the college's ability to reach consensus on the proficiencies related to diversity that candidates should develop during their professional preparation. The college's Cultural Diversity Requirement specifies both the "knowledge of application" and the "conceptual knowledge" candidates are expected to demonstrate; however, the requirement respects the uniqueness and disciplinary specificity of the individual departments and does not prescribe specific experiences or courses common across the college. Rather, it suggests that the requirement can be met through curricular experiences in the form of departmental diversity-specific courses, through courses with diversity content fully infused with discipline-specific content, or through extra-curricular experiences with diversity, such as academic service learning projects.

    A specific course common to all pre-service teachers is the EFND 2030, Foundations of Education. This course is aligned with the national standards of the Council of Learned Societies in Education that require that pre-service programs provide "interpretive, normative, and critical perspectives on education and learning that engages candidates in reflective study on education within its historical, philosophical, cultural, and social contexts" (CLSE, p. 10). This is not a traditional methods course, but rather a course incorporating content that helps candidates understand the importance of establishing a school climate and classroom ethos that values diversity. Through the examination of the history, philosophy and socio-cultural influences on education, EFND 2030 challenges candidates to examine past and current educational issues through different lenses, and to reckon with how practices and policies have often impeded education, learning and access for some students, in particular students of color and students with disabilities.

    Each department has a diversity plan and outcomes for diversity in their assessment plans, and evaluates their courses and programs as well as the experiences of candidates as described in those documents. At the unit level, departmental diversity plans and candidate outcomes for diversity are evaluated and approved by the college's Curriculum Committee. See individual programs under Standards 2 and 4.

    Element 2: Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty

    The College of Education has the largest percentage of faculty of color of any college at UGA. Within the School of Teacher Education, over twenty percent of the faculty is members of minority groups. The college has demonstrated its commitment to increasing the number of minority professional education faculty through its aggressive position toward recruitment in conjunction with the establishment of the Multicultural Education Initiative in the college. During the first five years of the initiative, the college's faculty of color increased 50%, tangible evidence of the college's efforts to increase its faculty of color.

    Increasingly, faculty are prepared to work and teach effectively in diverse environments due to engagement in their own research efforts related to diversity, as well as the on-going professional development offered all faculty in conjunction with the Multicultural Education Initiative. Through seminars, workshops and college-wide conferences, faculty members are exposed to local, regional and national scholars and leaders in the field of multicultural education, and subsequently to diverse practices and ways of teaching and conceptualizing. In part due to the college's growing reputation on campus as a leader in multicultural education, faculty of color and others skilled in diversity content from across campus are receptive to invitations to participate in or lead professional development opportunities, to collaborate on projects and funded initiatives, and to serve on peer and student review committees and panels. This serves to increase the pool of diverse professional resources for students, professional staff, and faculty. Thus, candidates have increasing opportunities to work with faculty from diverse backgrounds, and with faculty who have thought carefully about and studied issues of diversity in education.

    Element 3: Experiences Working with Diverse Candidates

    The undergraduate student of color population in the college is not yet a reflection of the diversity of the state or regional demographics. As noted earlier, roughly ten percent of undergraduate teacher education majors are from minority groups. It follows that there are not many opportunities for teacher candidates to interact with teacher candidates of color. However, the college has taken steps to compensate for this reality. For example, the Middle School Education program collaborates with the middle