NCATE ANNUAL REPORT

1995

N-1. Additions/Deletions of Programs

Sylvia -- the only program addition I know of is the foundations venture (Ph.D.) which has been underway for some time. I have planned to treat that (including course changes; e.g., history of education re-emergence and the refinement of the undergraduate course) and the revisions in educational psychology as examples of on-going program improvements since '89.

N-2. Changes in the Professional Unit

Rarely do we devote much time and effort to build an understanding of specific situations in which programs to prepare education professionals are developed and delivered. Historically we have concentrated our efforts in the accreditation arena in codifying a set of standards and a system for ensuring reasonably equitable application across a training system in higher education that is widely known to be quite disparate. When institutions are aggregated for descriptive purposes, i.e., we have land grant institutions, state colleges and universities, and private liberal arts colleges. Our standards, of necessity, are either cast in quite abstract language requiring each word to be defined in context; e.g., "the unit collaborates with ..." (NCATE Standards, 1994, Standard I.I, p. 8) or as a highly specific number; e.g., "..... and successful completion ........ with at least a 2.5 grade point average (GPA) on a 4-point scale" (NCATE Standards, 1994, Indicator (25) for Standard II.A, p. 8).

We do change the processes, however; most of us would say we make progress, albeit slowly. The new (1994) NCATE standards document (under which the continuing accreditation process is being conducted) represents an improvement over the 1980's redesign; e.g., indicators is a significant advancement over criteria for compliance. Indeed, the move to continuing accreditation from re-accreditation is viewed by most participants involved in preparation as a quantum leap in a positive direction. Trained NCATE visitors (members of the Board of Examiners), an outcome of the 1980's redesign development, may be the single most important change in the approximately 50-year history of national accreditation in professional education. That mechanism, with its related policy and accreditation decision making structures, has seemed to both enhance the perceived fairness of the process across different types of institutions and increase the value of a positive decision within the professional community, generally.

These trained examiners have the responsibility of determining whether standards have been met (for initial accreditation) and whether there are on-going efforts at improvement (for continuing accreditation) in particular contexts. Even so, their training is (appropriately) focused on helping them distinguish between authentic and contrived evidence and seek out manifestations of quality in different settings rather than developing in-depth understandings of those individual contexts. Indeed, there is a very fine line between understanding which enables professional judgment and understanding which substitutes for that judgment. When all is said and done maybe that distinction comes down to the weight of the evidence, with or without the understanding. Value added by the deeper understanding of context may be most helpful in making sense out of strategies employed, visions articulated, and rates of change rather than evaluating any of the specifics. It is against this perspective (on the status of where we are in our efforts at constructing our professional systems of quality preparation and accountability) that a brief historical statement about the College of Education at the University of Georgia is offered. Understanding the post-World War II history of UGA's College of Education makes its present story even more impressive.

From 1960-1980

Like many schools/colleges of education, UGA's College of Education was dramatically affected both by the growth explosion as the baby boomers reached school age in the 60's and 70's and the unparalleled decline once that cohort had moved through schools. The roller coaster-like nature of the demand for teachers and other elementary and secondary professional education personnel placed all of higher education in a period of frenzied activity. The dramatic nature of this particular gyration of demand bore in on professional education units as the country was still dealing with sharp attacks on professional educators in general and educationists in particular. It was also accompanied by the cultural conflict of the 60's and the revolution in civil rights initiated by Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954 (see, e.g., Ravitch, 1983). In 1962 when Joe Williams became Dean of the College, there were 78 faculty members. In five years, there were 167 and after ten, more than 300. The peak of about 350 was reached in the mid 70's (Jerrolds, The History of the College of Education, 1989, pp. 312, 338, 368, 383, respectively).

More important than number of faculty members was the concurrent function and form character of life that developed in the College during that time. From an emphasis on instruction-to-research-to-service to instruction, research, and service might be the oversimplified but generally accurate way of capturing the flavor of the tugging and pulling associated with "what's most important" to do since then. It is the case, of course, that all three functions were always important. In one sense, a change in emphasis meant an addition to not a "leaving one and going to another."Instruction was first among equals when demand for educated teachers was first and foremost. Research moved into the spotlight as national attention was achieved. Service, much less well defined, took center stage when heavy student demand faded. As the University and College came to be seen as national and international leaders, the instruction-research-service signature emphasis of the first-line American research and development institution became a reality. The University of Georgia, like the College of Education, truly became a national leader among its research and development peers since 1960.

The style flavor of the College is both simpler and more complex than the size phenomenon. It derived from the vision and style of "builder of the College," Joe Williams (Dean, 1962-1980) and the nature and abundance of opportunity. The independent, autonomous professional became the defining characteristic of organizational life in the College as it flourished. It was a perfect match for the university's drive for national and international reputation as a level one research university. That character is cleanly captured by Dean Williams' philosophy of administration: "I tried to find the people who could do the job that needed to be done. Then I tried to support them and leave them to do the job" (Jerrolds, p. 410).

From 1980-1995

Without retreating from the goal of being a recognized leader among colleges of education in research universities, the dominant feature of life in the UGA College of Education since about 1980 has been change in size, structure, and style. While a decline in the number of faculty had begun before 1980--because of reduced student demand, a slow down in federal support of higher education, and the emergence of other academic areas within the university, e.g., business, the decade of the 80's was marked by a decline in faculty size from 350 (or so) to 240 (or so). The Institutional Self-Study Report prepared for the 1989 NCATE visit and Annual Reports submitted for 1991-1994 identify the number of faculty at 230-245.

The formal administrative (operational) structure in the College as this new period of internal change began consisted of upwards of 30 "strong" academic departments loosely linked through program and personal relationships all equally accessing a strong dean. After 15 years, structural change has now been largely completed and (approximately) 20 departments are organized within four schools whose directors work with the dean, a coordinator/leader/chief executive officer for the College. Program, budgetary, and personnel matters (see attached chart) of departments within schools are more or less coordinated via the person and role of school director. While this structure has been in place since 1993, the nature and extent of agreements and formal policies continue to be defined, thus new norms become clearer as time goes on.

Changes in the nature of professional, administrative positions within the Office of the Dean were described in the 1994 annual report (Section N-2). These new titles appear on the attached organizational chart of the College of Education. Essentially, resources in support of two associate dean positions (research and service) have been used to create four one-half time administrative positions. Individuals in those jobs as assistants for the Dean and College remain in faculty roles for the other one-half of their time. All of the individuals are focused on strengthening coordination relationships between the College and the faculty.

Certain of the developments, smaller units of change, that occurred within the last ten years are identified in annual reports since 1989; e.g., department mergers and division structures. Some have disappeared; e.g., divisions were merged and renamed and a Council of Department Heads (Appendix G, Rejoinder to 1989 Report of the Board of Examiners) has been replaced by a College Council (see attached chart) comprised of faculty representatives from each school, department heads, administrative staff, and the President of the Faculty Senate. This group regularly meets with the Dean and functions primarily as a communication medium.

Finally, a College Senate that was formed in 1978 as the College prepared for deanship succession has become increasingly involved with the planning and policy processes in the College. All of these changes have occurred as the University has responded to the vagaries of annual state appropriations and changed public expectations. University strategic planning, initiated in the late 1980's is now an annual process. A new system of internal program reviews was developed over the last five years (see 1994 Annual Report, N-3).

Life in the College was tumultuous during most of these 15 years. As the College moved through the student, faculty, and resource decline--the first two more gradual and the last a dramatic jolt in the early 80's, the overall style of organizational life also changed. From clear, usually satisfying relationships that rested on agreements of like-minded people, structural and resource disruptions were accompanied by uncertainty. Where there had been understandings, policies and procedures were developed. Fractious relationships among faculty developed as the administrative style changed with the structures, with the structural changes usually resulting from actions of administrators.

Now, a formal organizational governance and management structure is essentially in place. The purpose of it is to add cooperative and collaborative dimensions to college life without destroying the positive features of the dominant characteristic of the independent, autonomous professional. A high quality college with many of the features of an organization grown around a charismatic leader has transitioned into a high quality college in the early days of formal rationality.

Summary

This College has moved through difficult periods of leadership succession and structural change all the while learning the whys and hows of new and competing needs and demands: higher standards for individuals; collaboration internally and externally; continual redefinition of the professional community; and on-going attacks on all levels of schooling. Refocusing, constantly seeking better ways to develop, disseminate, and extend the use of knowledge is an apt depiction of the College of Education at the University of Georgia. This process moves faster sometimes and in some units than others. Differences in language, differences in people, differences in perspective, and change in the environment are all factors in the speed with which this process moves. A culture that explicitly and constantly emphasizes multiple functions and prizes individuality while learning collaboration is more complex and slow to change. But its very nature impels it to do so.

Research that helps define and extend knowledge strands represented in the College, programs that prepare individuals to excel in their professional practice, and public and professional service that help identify and solve problems are all represented in this College. Indeed, as the College moved to this multi-emphasis state, all three functional areas were strengthened.

N-3. Evaluations of Programs

To myself: Check with Harriet Hair, Music Education, David Kurtz, Social Work; Pam Paisley, Counseling; Marilyn Newhoff, Communication Sciences; ?

Re: When their respective associations reviewed programs. I know that the first two were completed within the last two years. None have showed up in annual reports since 1990.

Sylvia: Do you know others? Have decided I will solicit all Heads.

N-4. Standards Not Met in 1989 Review

I-A. Design of curriculum (basic only)

The unit ensures that its professional education programs are based on essential knowledge, established and current research findings, and sound professional practice. Each program in the unit reflects a systematic design with an explicitly stated philosophy and objectives. Coherence exists between (1) courses and experiences and (2) purposes and outcomes.

Two explanations were offered in the 1989 NCATE Action Report:

1. There is no model for curriculum design.

2. There is no evidence of collaboration on a regular basis in the design, delivery and evaluation of the curriculum.

My strategy:

• Treat the two explanations together.

• Acknowledge no one model college-wide.

1. School of Teacher Ed, through its existence and intra-advisory council (noted in AR, 1991, p. 5) continues to increase collaboration and model clarity as it gains experience working together, especially with respect to basic programs. Cite examples of on-going clarity and collaboration at program level; e.g.,

   Elementary Ed

   Mathematics Ed

   Social Science

   Coca Cola Initiative (see Taxel's material in Cont. Accred. Outline)

2. Other programs not in School of Teacher Education, Music, e.g., are subjected to other reviews (their assn.)--and receive accreditation.

3. College-wide efforts such as Program for School Improvement (L. Allen preparing a file), technology (Calder to get me an evidence file), multi-culturalism (Oliver to get me an evidence file), Coca Cola Initiative (already cited via Taxel), while not focused on seeking one model and its application, enhance clarification and collaboration.

VA. Governance

The governance system for the professional education unit ensures that all professional education programs are organized, unified, and coordinated to allow the fulfillment of its mission.

Two explanations were offered in the 1989 NCATE Action Report:

1. There is a lack of systematic involvement of teachers, professional educators, and students in policy-making.

2. The unit does not clearly exercise full responsibility for programs.

My strategy:

Re: (a) College Adv. Council finally underway--get folder/file from Don Schneider.

(b) Document dept'l adv. groups, i.e., have an evidence file that includes names, mission statements, meeting schedules, etc. for all that exist.

( c) Departments, e.g., Special Education, obtains and uses data from students.

Re: (b)

1. As pointed out in Rejoinder (January 1990, pp. 15-16) and consistently in Annual Reports (1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994) the unit stops short of (literally) "exercising full responsibility for programs." Intra-unit structures, i.e., unit directors meetings, College Council--replacement for the Council of Department Heads, Curriculum and Course Committees, are regularly used. Inter-unit (College and sub-units with other Colleges and sub-units) relationships develop through mutual interests emerge as macro policy questions arise (cite cross college committee in 92(?) to respond to the Report and Recommendations of the University System of Georgia Review Committee on Teacher Preparation --- Sylvia, I need your help on digging this out.)

2. There is evidence (references files from Math Ed and Social Science Ed, e.g.) of collaborative influence between (unit) education faculty and "major" departmental faculty.

3. It is the case that at UGA the unit does not have and, thus, cannot "exercise full responsibility for the implementation of professional education programs (including admissions, monitoring, completion, and evaluation) which lie outside the College of Education" --- Sylvia, I will visit with Don Schneider about Art Education and Music Education to see if there is anything else that can be said since those two and Social Work are the only two/three instances of programs that "lie outside the College of Education." Can you help think of any other points to note?)

N-4. Weaknesses Cited in 1989

Standard I.A. Design of Curriculum (Advanced Only)

Explanation offered:

There is a lack of a college-wide mechanism to monitor the integration of subject matter content from specialty areas outside the college with pedagogical and research components of the advanced degree programs.

Sylvia --- I don't know anything to say here other than restate, in my own words, the response that Associate Dean Lindsay made in AR, 1991.

Standard II.A. Clinical and Field-Based Experiences

Explanation offered:

Student teachers lack opportunities with culturally diverse populations.

While it is the case there is no unit policy requiring that student teachers experience cultural diverse populations, it would be unusual if that did not happen. As reported in each Annual Report since 1990 (1991, p. 9; 1992, p. 5; 1993, p. 4; and 1994, p. 3), the practice of program after program strongly attests to that reality.

Standard III.A. Admission

Explanation offered:

There is a lack of recruitment from culturally diverse populations.

As noted in each annual report since 1990 (1991, pp. 9-10; 1992, p. 6; 1993, pp. 4-5; 1994, pp. 3-4) the unit and individual program units work at this task with some slight increase in the total number of non-white, non-Hispanic origin graduates in basic and advanced programs since 1990. Data reported in Section B-5 of the AACTE/NCATE Annual Reports reveals a gradual increase in graduates of diverse racial/ethnic origin from basic programs (see below). A more complex pattern of increase is presented for graduates of advanced programs.

Standard IV.A. Faculty Qualifications and Assignments

Two explanations offered:

1. The composition of the faculty lacks cultural diversity.

2. There is a lack of training in supervision for field experiences.

My strategy is to treat separately ---

Re: (1) Not to argue the point but the definitional/linguistic complexity in addressing Standard IV.A. (The unit ensures that faculty in professional education ... also reflect cultural diversity.) is enormous. Data reported (and monitored) relate to gender and racial/ethnic origin, is a conservative measure of cultural diversity since White, not Hispanic origin is no more an undifferentiated mass than is Asian/Pacific Islander. There are long standing accepted cultural differences between men and women of Jewish origin and men and women identified as WASPs. Nonetheless, the unit has made some progress, small though it is, in the numbers and proportions of full-time faculty representing diverse groups reported on the annual reports since the 1989 accreditation visit. Data from Section B-5 of the AACTE/NCATE Reports for 1989, 1991-1994 are reported below for visual inspection.

Departments, the College, and the University continuously seek to increase the cultural diversity of faculty. (SYLVIA: perhaps specific reference [and file] here to policies and programs). In addition, the College is literally in the midst of a deliberate sustained effort, deriving from faculty, to strengthen diversity in curriculum, faculty, and student body. (See Multi-cultural file--that will be prepared.)

Re: (2) By design, the unit has a mixed responsibility system for placing and supervising students for field experiences, including student teachers. An Office of Educational Field Experience essentially now makes arrangements; i.e., runs administrative interference, for most departments except elementary education to have student teachers in school districts. Pre-student teaching field experiences are similarly handled. Departments assume responsibility for identifying and assigning university supervisors for all experiences. Elementary education, agricultural education, and one or two other units assume total responsibility, however.

As reported in Annual Reports 1991-1994, and consistent with departments having responsibility for assigning supervisors, there is some variation across departments. It would be unusual for a student to be supervised by a faculty member or graduate student with no experience/instruction in carrying out the responsibility.

Standard V.B. Resources

Explanation offered:

Some buildings are not accessible to the handicapped. SYLVIA: Don't know what to say here other than reference previous AR's. There is a little confusion about the matter (in my mind, anyway).

1. The 1989 Institutional Self-Study contains the statement: "The main College of Education building, Aderhold Hall, the PE Building, and Stegeman, are completely accessible" (bold added).

2. The 1989 Accreditation Report, where the weakness is delineated, contains the sentence, "The Fine Arts Building and the Physical Education Building were noted" (bold added).

3. Neither the Rejoinder nor any of the Annual Reports have referred to either of the buildings.