Docstoc

Reading

Document Sample
Reading Powered By Docstoc
					            NATIONAL RECOGNITION REPORT
       The Preparation of Reading Education Professionals

                         Grand Valley State University, MI
                                  March 1, 2005

NCATE recognition of this program is dependent on the review of the program by
representatives of the International Reading Association (IRA).

This report is in response to a(n):

 Initial Review         Revised Report      Response to Condition

Program(s) Covered by this     Program Type                    Award or Degree
Review                                                         Level(s)

Reading\Language Arts          Reading Specialist              Master’s




PART A—RECOGNITION DECISION (see Section G for specifics on decision)

A.1—SPA Decision on NCATE recognition of the program(s):

   Nationally recognized
   Nationally recognized with conditions
   Recognition decision deferred
   Not nationally recognized


A.2—Test Results (from information supplied in Assessment #1, if applicable)

The program meets or exceeds an 80% pass rate on state licensure exams:

         Yes       No         Not applicable      Not able to determine

Comments:
A.3—Summary of Strengths: The program has established a portfolio system to assess
candidates as they progress through the program. Faculty are using data collected to evaluate
the program The State of Michigan’s exam seems to align fairly well with IRA standards. There is
a high passage rate. A substantial number of credit hours in this degree focus on the specifics of
Reading and Reading instruction, and not just general education topics.




PART B—STATUS OF MEETING SPA STANDARDS
M = Met          NM = Not Met

                                           Specific             Specific         Specific           Specific
           IRA Standard                  Program or           Program or       Program or         Program or
                                            Level1               Level            Level              Level
Standard 1. Foundational Knowledge. Candidates have knowledge of the foundations of reading and
writing processes and instruction. As a result, candidates:
Standard 1.1. Demonstrate              M
knowledge of psychological,
sociological, and linguistic
foundations of reading and writing
processes and instruction.
Comment: This standard is addressed in the course assignments and program portfolio. The MCCT
assessment, which is closely aligned with IRA standards, also measures candidates’ performance in this
area. In addition, faculty have developed assignments that support data collected from the MCCT, which
require candidates to reflect on their content knowledge and show interrelationships.
Standard 1.2. Demonstrate                M
knowledge of reading research and
histories of reading.
Comment: See comment under 1.1.
Standard 1.3. Demonstrate                M
knowledge of language develop-
ment and reading acquisition and
the variations related to culture and
linguistic diversity.
Comment: See comment under 1.1.
Standard 1.4. Demonstrate                M
knowledge of the major components
of reading (phonemic awareness,
word identification and phonics,
vocabulary and background
knowledge, fluency, comprehension
strategies, and motivation) and how
they are integrated in fluent reading.
Comment: See comment under 1.1.
Standard 2. Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials. Candidates use a wide range of
instructional practices, approaches, methods, and curriculum materials to support reading and writing
instruction. As a result, the candidates:

1
 More than one column may be used for standards decisions if the program report encompasses more than
one program.
                                           Specific           Specific           Specific        Specific
           IRA Standard                  Program or         Program or         Program or      Program or
                                            Level1             Level              Level           Level
Standard 2.1. Use instructional         M
grouping options (individual, small-
group, whole-class, and computer
based) as appropriate for
accomplishing given purposes.
Comment: Even though this element is met because the assignment clearly focuses on instructional
grouping options, the reading specialist/literacy coach level requires that candidates actually use their
knowledge to support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals. Writing an essay that explains how
candidates “would assist other teachers” does not demonstrate that candidates actually follow through and
assist other teachers. Data will need to be provided to demonstrate that candidates actually use their
knowledge to support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals. Also, more than one third (37.5%) of the
candidates performed unsatisfactorily on this standard. The program needs to provide data that
demonstrates that steps taken by the institution to improve candidate performance has resulted in a higher
percentage of candidates performing at a satisfactory level.
Standard 2.2. Use a wide range of M
instructional practices, approaches,
and methods, including technology-
based practices, for learners at
differing stages of development and
from differing cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
Comment: Even though this element is met because the assignment clearly focuses on using a wide range
of instructional practices, approaches, and methods, the reading specialist/literacy coach level requires that
candidates actually use their knowledge to support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals. Writing an
essay that explains how candidates “would assist other teachers” does not demonstrate that candidates
actually follow through and assist other teachers. Data will need to be provided to demonstrate that
candidates actually use their knowledge to support classroom teachers and paraprofessionals. Also, more
than one third (37.5%) of the candidates performed unsatisfactorily on this standard. The program needs to
provide data that demonstrates that steps taken by the institution to improve candidate performance has
resulted in a higher percentage of candidates performing at a satisfactory level.
Standard 2.3. Use a wide range of M
curriculum materials in effective
reading instruction for learners at
different stages of reading and
writing development and from
different cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
Comment: Even though this element is met because the assignment clearly focuses on using a wide range
of curriculum materials with respect to developmental, cultural, and linguistic differences, the reading
specialist/literacy coach level requires that candidates actually use their knowledge to support classroom
teachers and paraprofessionals. Writing an essay that explains how candidates “would assist other teachers”
does not demonstrate that candidates actually follow through and assist other teachers. Data will need to be
provided to demonstrate that candidates actually use their knowledge to support classroom teachers and
paraprofessionals. Also, more than one third (37.5%) of the candidates performed unsatisfactorily on this
standard. The program needs to provide data that demonstrates that steps taken by the institution to
improve candidate performance has resulted in a higher percentage of candidates performing at a
satisfactory level.
Standard 3. Assessment, Diagnosis, and Evaluation. Candidates use a variety of assessment tools and
practices to plan and evaluate effective reading instruction. As a result, candidates:
                                          Specific          Specific          Specific          Specific
          IRA Standard                  Program or        Program or        Program or        Program or
                                           Level1            Level             Level             Level
Standard 3.1. Use a wide range of      M
assessment tools and practices that
range from individual and group
standardized tests to individual and
group informal classroom
assessment strategies, including
technology-based assessment tools.
Comment: The case study is a strong assessment, but the reading specialist/literacy coach level also
requires that candidates actually use their knowledge to support and assist classroom teachers and
paraprofessionals.
Standard 3.2 Place students along M
a developmental continuum and
identify students’ proficiencies and
difficulties.
See comment for 3.1.
Standard 3.3. Use assessment           M
information to plan, evaluate, and
revise effective instruction that
meets the needs of all students
including those at different
developmental stages and those
from diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
See comment for 3.1
Standard 3.4. Communicate              NM
results of assessments to specific
individuals, (students, parents,
caregivers, colleagues, adminis-
trators, policymakers, policy
officials, community, etc.).
Comment: It needs to be made clear in the course assignments that are part of the program portfolio how
candidates will communicate the results of assessments to stakeholders.
Standard 4 Creating a Literate Environment. Candidates create a literate environment that fosters
reading and writing by integrating foundational knowledge, use of instructional practices, approaches and
methods, curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments. As a result, candidates:
Standard 4.1. Use students’            M
interests, reading abilities and
backgrounds as foundations for the
reading and writing program.
Comment: : Even though this element is met because it focuses on using students’ interests, reading
abilities, and backgrounds as foundations for the reading program is evident, data is needed to demonstrate
that candidates actually assist the classroom teacher and paraprofessional regarding this element.
Standard 4.2. Use a large supply         M
of books, technology-based
information, and non-print materials
representing multiple levels, broad
interests, cultures and linguistic
backgrounds.
                                            Specific         Specific          Specific           Specific
           IRA Standard                   Program or       Program or        Program or         Program or
                                             Level1           Level             Level              Level
Comment: Even though this element is met because it focuses on using a large supply of books,
technology-based information and non-print materials to address developmental, cultural, and linguistic
differences is evident, data is needed to demonstrate that candidates actually assist the classroom teacher
and paraprofessional regarding this element.
Standard 4.3. Model reading and         M
writing enthusiastically as valued
life-long activities.
Comment: Even though this element is met because it focuses on modeling reading and writing, data is
needed to demonstrate that candidates actually assist the classroom teacher and paraprofessional regarding
this element
Standard 4.4. Motivate learners to M
be life-long readers.
Comment: : Even though this element is met because it focuses on moivating learners, data is needed to
demonstrate that candidates actually assist the classroom teacher and paraprofessional regarding this
element.
Standard 5. Professional Development. Candidates view professional development as a career-long effort
and responsibility. As a result, candidates:
Standard 5.1. Display                   M
dispositions related to reading and
the teaching of reading.
Comment: The candidate performed at the distinguished level on this standard for Assessments #4 and #5.
Standard 5.2. Continue to pursue M
the development of professional
knowledge and dispositions.
Comment: The candidate performed at the proficient level on this standard.
Standard 5.3. Work with            M
colleagues to observe, evaluate, and
provide feedback on each other’s
practice.
Comment: The one candidate submitting assessment #5 was rated as proficient.
Standard 5.4. Participate in,       M
initiate, implement, and evaluate
professional development programs.
Comment: professional development is evident.



PART C—EVALUATION OF PROGRAM REPORT EVIDENCE

C.1—Candidates’ knowledge of content

Candidates possess content knowledge as shown by assessments #1 and #2. Although two
candidates were rated as “progressing” (the lowest possible acceptable score) for two areas of
foundational knowledge on assessment #2, 100% of the candidates passed the MCCT, which is
aligned with the IRA standards.

C.2—Candidates’ ability to understand and apply pedagogical and
professional content knowledge, skills, and dispositions
A major component of the IRA Standards that address the role of reading specialist is coaching
role that provides support for teachers and paraprofessionals in the application of pedagogical
and professional skills and dispositions. The assessments presented demonstrated a clear focus
on working with students, but in many cases they did not include the actual coaching
responsibilities by supporting and assisting classroom teachers and paraprofessionals. The
assignments and rubrics also need to be clearly aligned with these components of the standards.
Data needs to be provided to demonstrate that candidates are able to use their knowledge to
support and assist classroom teachers and paraprofessionals to apply pedagogical and
professional content knowledge, skill, and dispositions through individual course assignments and
portfolio entries.

The portfolio rubric submitted in the report is extremely broad and did not specifically evaluate
candidates’ application of pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The
report stated that the actual rubrics used to evaluate the candidates were not included in the
report due to their extensive nature; however, samples of these rubrics are needed to determine
that candidate performances with regard to meeting specific standards and elements are actually
being addressed and that there are clear distinctions between levels of performance.

C.3—Candidate effects on P-12 student learning

The portfolio rubric submitted in the report is extremely broad and did not specifically evaluate
candidates’ application of pedagogical and professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The
report stated that the actual rubrics used to evaluate the candidates were not included in the
report due to their extensive nature; however, samples of these rubrics are needed to determine
that candidate performances with regard to meeting specific standards and elements are actually
being addressed and that there are clear distinctions between levels of performance.
Additional information is needed on the types of data collected and how the candidates are
analyzing that data using the K-12 Student Assessment rubric.



PART D—EVALUATION OF THE USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS

D—Evidence that assessment results are evaluated and applied to the
improvement of candidate performance and strengthening of the program (as
discussed in Section V of the program report)

It is evident that faculty are using data collected to review their program and take steps for
improvement.




PART E—AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

The portfolio seems to be an effective assessment, but since virtually all sections of the portfolio
are tied to class assignments – or cluster of class assignments - the reviewers felt that it is
important to submit the actual assignment rubrics so that greater details regarding alignment
with standards and elements would be included.
Data is needed to demonstrate that candidates are actually meeting the reading
specialist/coaching role by supporting and assisting classroom teachers and paraprofessionals.



PART F—ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

F.1—Comments on context and other topics not covered in sections B-D:

While this appears to be a strong program, there are concerns about faculty without terminal
degrees teaching in a Master’s level program and the absence of faculty with terminal degrees in
reading or literacy. . .

Section V of the institution’s report states that because two faculty do not have terminal degrees,
they may not be as fluent in articulating the connection between theory and practice as other
faculty members. Although the faculty suggested beginning a dialogue so that they might better
articulate these connections to the candidates, the institution needs to provide a systematic
method for accomplishing this.

Section V also states that some candidates who did not perform as well as others on the
assessments were not practicing teachers. The report did not include steps that the program will
take to improve the performance of these candidates.


F.2—Concerns for possible follow up by the Board of Examiners:
Concerns for possible follow-up by the Board of Examiners are as follows:

Based on the report, the BOE should examine:
1) How the institution is beginning to collect data regarding the reading specialist/coaching role.
2) Steps the institution is taking to improve candidate performance in those areas where
weaknesses were identified.




PART G: TERMS AND SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS FOR DECISIONS

 Program is nationally recognized with conditions. The program is recognized through
spring 2007. The program will be listed as nationally recognized on websites and/or other
publications of the SPA and NCATE. The institution may designate its program as nationally
recognized by NCATE, through the time period specified above, in its published materials.
National recognition is dependent upon NCATE accreditation.
Subsequent action by the institution: To retain accreditation, a report addressing the
conditions to recognition must be submitted within 18 months of the date of this report, no later
than September 15, 2006. The report must address the conditions specified in the box below.
Failure to submit a report by the date specified above will result in loss of national recognition.

For further information on due dates or requirements, contact program review staff at NCATE
(202-466-7496).
 National recognition with conditions: The following conditions must be
addressed within 18 months (see above for specific date):
Provide data that demonstrate candidates are actually meeting the role of the reading
specialist/literacy coach.
Provide data that demonstrates that candidate performance has improved in noted areas of
weakness as a result of steps taken by the institution.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:28
posted:7/20/2011
language:English
pages:8