Educational Policies Committee
Tuesday, March 1, 2005
Members Present: Corinne Winter (Chair), Ragene Gwin, Bill Hixon, Tom Hill, Martin Hansen, Mara Adams, Barb Wiese, Lori Rodriguez-Fisher, Brenda Peters, Jeremy Burke, Dan Zeimet, Kim Bennett, Kari Rogers
Guests: Chuck Manges, Bob Ristow, Rick Dienesch
Excused: Dave O’Connell
1. Approval of Minutes
Motion to approve the minutes of February 22, 2005: B. Hixon; Second: T. Hill
Note: B. Peters approved the general education materials submitted at the last meeting by the Music Department for their 5-Year Review
NOTE: IN THE FUTURE, GENERAL EDUCATION MATERIAL MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE 5-YEAR REVIEW MATERIAL 2 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED DATE WITH EPC. NOT DOING SO WILL RESULT IN THE REVIEW BEING DELAYED.
Minutes approved
2. Educational Leadership Program – New program approval
Motion to approve: R. Gwin; Second: B.Wiese
Following are some of the written highlights of the Executive Summary as submitted to EPC.
LORAS/ST.
AMBROSE CONSORTIUM FOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP (LSACEL)
Executive Summary
The Loras/St. Ambrose Consortium for Educational Leadership (LSACEL), representing a collaborative agreement between Loras College and St. Ambrose University, is seeking approval for a school administrator preparation program at the graduate level. The purpose of the LSACEL program is to provide aspiring school leaders with strengthened core knowledge, skills, and abilities, to develop candidates capable of effecting improved student achievement, and to prepare highly qualified administrative candidates with the capacity to lead elementary and secondary schools through the 21st century.
Loras College and St. Ambrose University have a rich tradition of serving undergraduate and graduate students in the state of Iowa and those from other states desiring the educational experience provided by a private college grounded in the Catholic tradition. Both institutions have succeeded in leveraging that feature to their advantage and the advantage of the students by focusing on creating supportive, nurturing, personal relationships. While the personal contact with students is a key feature of the undergraduate program, it will also provide a compelling reason for aspiring administrative candidates to seek a graduate degree through the LSACEL preparation program. The creation of this collaborative arrangement provides an opportunity to leverage the resources of both institutions to ensure that sufficient full-time, clinical, mentor, and adjunct faculty are involved in delivering a program of high quality, and that continuing evaluation and strengthening of the administrator preparation program is viable.
Governance of the LSACEL preparation program will be accomplished through equal representation by administrators from Loras College and from St. Ambrose University consisting of:
|
Representing St.
Ambrose University |
Representing Loras
College |
|
· Robert Ristow, Dean, College of Education and Health Sciences |
· David Salyer, Chair, Division of Education and Graduate Program Director |
|
· Lori Rodrigues-Fisher, Vice President for Academic Affairs |
· Cheryl Jacobsen, Vice President For Academic Affairs |
|
· Edward Rogalski, President St. Ambrose University (Ex Officio) |
· James Collins, President Loras College (Ex Officio) |
Charles Manges, Program Director, will facilitate the collaborative program based on the guidelines provided by the governing board.
Vision: Developing
leaders to ensure that all students learn at high levels
Innovative components
of the LSACEL program include:
·
Integrating clinical experiences with academic
courses.
Curriculum and Instruction
The academic course sequence includes:
|
Ed Admin 1: Visioning and School Administration: The
School as a Professional Learning Community (3.0 credits) (Including completion of Self-assessment Standards
Survey) |
Ed Admin 2: Legal and Ethical Foundations of
Educational Leadership (3.0 credits) |
Ed Admin 3: Educational Research (3.0 credits) |
|
Ed Admin 4: Leadership in Curriculum I: Teaching,
Learning, and Instructional Assessment (3.0 credits) |
Ed Admin 5: Current Issues Addressing Students with
Special Needs (3.0 credits) |
|
Ed Admin 6: Leadership in Curriculum II:
Instructional Assessment and the Professional Learning Community (3.0
credits) |
Ed Admin 7: Personnel Administration and
Professional Development (3.0 credits) (Including completion of 2nd
Self-assessment Standards Survey and submission of request for internship.) |
|
Ed Admin 8: Sustaining the Professional Learning
Community through School and Community Relations (3.0 credits) |
Ed Admin 9: Elementary/Secondary
School Principalship (3.0 credits) (Including completion of 3rd
Self-assessment Standards Survey) |
|
Ed Admin 10: Supervision of Instruction and the
Learning Environment (3.0 credits) |
Ed Admin 11: Section 1 Supervised Internship Field
Experience (2.0 credits) |
|
Ed Admin 12: Masters Research Project Comprehensive
portfolio presentation (2.0 credits) |
Ed Admin 13: Section 1 Supervised Internship Field Experience (2.0 credits) |
(End of written submission highlights.)
B. Ristow provided some addition information concerning the history of this program.
The Education Leadership program from 4 years ago did not receive full state approval due to changes in the State’s requirements after the program was begun. (Note: Students already in that program were allowed to finish and receive their degree / endorsement with state approval.) R. Ristow and L. Rodriguez-Fisher worked with Loras to develop an agreement to formulate a joint Education Leadership program from both campuses that would be created to meet the new State requirements. C. Manges was hired in August and began work to develop a program that would meet the extensive new requirements.
C. Mangus continued with further highlights of the program which is currently being reviewed by the State. A consortium model for both schools is used to enable the utilization of combined resources. The 36 hours Masters program leads to a K-12 with Special Education Aministrative license. The program’s goal is to develop competent, caring, and reflective leaders for K-12 parochial and public schools to enhance student learning. The conceptual framework involves emphasizing the administrative decision making process using the skills of investigation, reflection, leveraging, and framing. Scoring rubrics to evaluation the professional student’s progress are built into the program. Law and Research courses are offered early-on to provide a foundation for understanding. Four Portals along with evidence are established to help ensure that individual students receive the support and feedback that they need along the way. The program aligns with the six State standards for Iowa school leaders. A cohort model will be used with an anticipated enrollment of 24 candidates total from both SAU and Loras. Clinical experience is emphasized starting with the first courses. A total of 400 field hours (aligned with specific courses) will be completed by the end of the program. There will be a heavy emphasis on mentors and principals in the field who will receive training. Scaffolded leadership experiences are expected. The program requires 2 years with 3 summers to complete. C. Mangus provided a handout entitled LSACEL Program Assessment Flow Chart.
Questions / comments from EPC with Responses
Is this designed for currently practicing teachers? Response: Yes. Based on State requirements.
How will teachers work clinical hours into their teaching schedule? Response: Here is where we will rely on help from the principals. Teachers may already be involved in some of the required work (e.g., curriculum committee). Now they will need to function in a leadership capacity.
Is this double dipping? Response: Teachers are usually not being paid extra for their committee work. The work will extend what they are already doing.
Will each principal in the teachers’ buildings be a mentor. Response: That may not always happen, so we may have to look elsewhere. Some work will occur in the summer.
How will student candidates be identified? Response: We already have a pool of individuals who have identified interest. We will also contact principals for suggestions. They will be asked for references for the candidates they suggest.
L. Rodriguez-Fisher mentioned the student will enroll at the institution of their choice.
What if a student drops out of the cohort? Response: We have factored in some attrition. Numbers may affect whether adjuncts or tenure-track faculty are hired. Some students may want to join later, having taken classes at other institutions.
What new resources are needed here at SAU to support this program? Response: We need 4 FTE positions to service the program across both instititions. Adjuncts will be able to serve in some of this capacity. The intent will be to hire new faculty based on revenues of the program. The previous program lost accreditation from the state due to this issue. (U of I and many other institutions throughout the state also lost their accreditation due to this issue.) Based on enrollment numbers, portions of salaries and expenses will be pro-rated from each institution. This is an existing program that we are changing to meet State requirements. This program has been through the SAU planning committee / process.
Is this targeted for parochial school teachers? Response: We will recruit diocesan teachers along with public school teachers.
Is it possible to get an endorsement without a Masters Degree? Response: No. There really would not be any advantage or way to do so.
Have you established a number of hours that you will allow to be brought in and credited? Response: Right now we are looking at 9 - 12, but this will be determined at the first Portal.
Will there be a consistent tuition rate for both institutions? Response: Yes. The student must make an initial decision as to where they will register.
Is the licensure for Iowa? Response: Yes, but Illinois students could take one additional class for their Illinois license.
In what ways is the program being assessed (besides in terms of finances)? Response: At each Portal, the candidates are being assessed, which also leads to program assessment. We will discuss program fidelity.
Who conducts the review? The Program Advisory Council (PAC) will look at each candidate at each Portal.
How does the vision of the program fit in with the candidate population being targeted? In other words, are you going to try and convert people to the Catholic tradition as is emphasized in the mission statement. Why does it say the mission is grounded in the Catholic tradition? Response: All of our programs at SAU are based on that mission / vision statement. The same would be true for this program as well. The reflective and caring nature of the development of education leaders matches well with this
grounding in the Catholic tradition. The ethics in the program also align with this tradition.
Motion approved
3. Discussion with Deans about EPC and Minors
P. Koch was unable to be at the meeting, but has discussed the issue with the other 2 Deans.
Discussion:
L. Rodriguez-Fisher indicated that EPC should review minors based on University policy.
R. Dienesch: Minors are significant entities within the institution and we need to ensure they extend programs, fit in with available resources, and fit with the overall mission of the University. It is healthy for Departments to bring this forth for EPC to offer further input and support.
M. Adams: Should there be a set standard applied to all minors? Dienesch: No, but they should be professionally sound.
B. Peters: What about inclusion in the 5- year review? What are the goals and objects?
B. Ristow: These should already be contained within the existing assessment plan within the Department.
Should every minor have a mission statement? B. Ristow: No, but there should be a rationale and outcome based objective. Dienesch: This would help to determine the effectiveness, resources, etc. for each minor.
How do we assess minors that are not declared by the student until the end of their studies here at SAU?
Response: It should occur along with the Department’s assessment plan?
Many students are not tracked in terms of their minor, whether it is an intentional or unplanned minor. Examples discussed: Psychology and Biology minors.
Departments should look at their minors. Students are locked into their majors. Minors are less structured. Students are often peripheral to the programs. Try surveying graduates with declared minors for all areas. This will add to departments looking at the soundness of the minor(s) they are offering. Questions on minors could be put on the University’s assessment plan.
Motion to rescind the previous motion to not review minors: Moved: R. Gwin; Seconded: B.Hixon .
Discussion continued with concerns from EPC. What is a minor? Should EPC determine that? We can ask the Department questions. How do we determine if it is justified?
R. Gwin did previous data collection across campus programs for EPC as to number of hours required for minors. The results showed 12 to 24 hours.
How does EPC know what is a sufficient number for each program? The Deans felt we don’t need to worry about numbers.
Motion to table the motion to rescind the motion to not review minors. Moved: B. Hixon.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Further discussion resulted in a summary. EPC could consider the following questions when reviewing a minor:
What is the rationale? What are the goals (student objectives)? Is it logical in how it is put together? How will it be assessed?
This needs to be added to the EPC website as a required part of the 5-year Review process.
C. Winter called the question for the motion to rescind the motion to not review minors.
Motion approved.
4. Upcoming meetings and topics
Next meeting will be on March 22nd.
Agenda: Computer & Information Sciences Program Review; College of Business Proposals
Motion to adjourn: B. Hixon; Second: M. Hanson
Motion approved
Adjournment: 4:30
Submitted by Barb Wiese