2002 Institutional Report for NCATE Accreditation

PART I: OVERVIEW

In his September 21, 2001, installation address to the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh community, Chancellor Richard C. Wells publicly recognized the critical role of the College of Education and Human Services (COEHS) as the vital link between the University’s noble roots and achieving the University’s future vision. He acknowledged in times of uncertainty “all of our social institutions must take center stage” and reminded the audience “universities like UW Oshkosh with noble Normal School roots have an established legacy. Our tradition is one of fulfilling very challenging and unmet social needs.”

Announcing, “We are ready to serve”, Chancellor Wells engaged the university community in the process of identifying strategic governing ideas for the future of UW Oshkosh. They identified a Mission “Serving People” and defined the Vision as “a national model as responsive, progressive, and scholarly public service community known for its accomplished record of engaging people and ideas for common good”. These statements are clearly compatible with the noble roots and future directions of COEHS. Achieving this vision is dependent upon the time, energy, talent, and resources of the candidates, faculty, staff, and partners of COEHS.

The importance of this connection is clearly seen in examining the history associated with the formation of the University. In his remarks, Chancellor Wells explained, “Normal Schools were created in service of public education…service in support of democracy. Normal School roots are nothing short of revolutionary. They changed the face of public education and higher education helping to bring about equality of opportunity for members of excluded groups. We represent a transformational force that helped shape our democracy. This is our legacy. This will also be continued.” With these origins and future directions, COEHS makes a significant contribution to UW Oshkosh.

SYSTEM: UW Oshkosh is one of twenty-six institutions that makeup the University of Wisconsin System. The System enrolls about 156,975 students distributed among two doctoral institutions, eleven comprehensive four-year universities in a non-doctoral cluster, thirteen two-year colleges, and statewide programs in the University of Wisconsin Extension.

Back to Top Of Page

Immediate governance of the UW System is statutorily granted to a Board of Regents, comprised of fourteen citizens and one UW student nominated by the State Governor and approved by the legislature, one representative of the Wisconsin Technical College System, and one representative of the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). In the past ten years, the Board has demonstrated its commitment to macro management with focus on broad policy direction; supported goals stressing quality over access; retained the commitment to program review processes; and supported the development of new academic programs; and shown a strong commitment to P-16 initiatives in supporting public education at all levels.

Mission: UW Oshkosh is bound by and committed to the System mission statement that addresses the development of human resources, acquisition and spreading of knowledge both within and beyond campus borders, development of sensitivities and expertise in students, and a sense of value and purpose; also inherent are methods of instruction, research, extended education, and public service designed to educate people and improve the human condition. Although UW Oshkosh shares this core mission, it adopted its own select mission as well.

Goals and Shared Principles: In 1993 a university-wide goal-setting exercise resulted in the acceptance of eleven goals and five shared principles. To carry out the mission of the University and to achieve the agreed upon goals requires all UW Oshkosh community members to understand and respect their mutual obligations. See summary in Figure 1 for further explanations of these and other level elements.

Planning Process: Since the development of the stated mission, goals, and shared principles, three significant events transpired: 1) COEHS initial accreditation visit from National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) resulted in development of Conceptual Framework; 2) Dean Coballes-Vega engaged COEHS in a strategic planning process resulting in a redefined mission, vision, values, and directions; 3) the university community redefined the Institution mission, vision, and governing ideas.

INSTITUTION: UW Oshkosh is located in the city of Oshkosh (Winnebago County) and in the heart of the Fox River Valley, the fastest growing region in Wisconsin. Oshkosh (63,000), bordering Lake Winnebago, is one of a chain of cities with a combined population of close to one million people including the surrounding rural area. According to 2000 US Census Data, Winnebago County, population 156,763, is profiled as 95% of its residents as white. County diversity includes residents who are African American (1.1%), American Indian (.5%), Asian (.2%), Hispanic or Latino (2.0%), and Multi-racial (.9%). Situated in the near northwest section of the city, UW Oshkosh is a modern campus comprised of more than 35 buildings, arranged along a central mall and boulevard and bordered on the west by the Fox River.

Of the comprehensive universities, UW Oshkosh is the largest. During Fall 2001, a total of 10,777 students were enrolled in COEHS, College of Letters and Science (COLS), College of Business Administration, College of Nursing, Graduate School, and Division of Continuing Education. About 1370 baccalaureate and 335 master’s degrees are granted annually.

During the 2000-2001 academic year, leadership at UW Oshkosh changed. Richard C. Wells was appointed Chancellor Fall 2000; Keith T. Miller appointed Provost and Vice Chancellor Fall 2001. Additional changes in the administrative structure are reflected in the Administrative Organizational Chart referenced in the Overview Notebook on site

Back to Top Of Page

UNIT: The College has a strong tradition in public post-secondary education. The COEHS Legacy started with the initial application to become the third teacher training institution. Oshkosh Normal School became official in 1871 with George Albee as first president and Rose Swart as teacher in the primary department. The Bachelor of Education Degree, a four-year curriculum, was implemented (1926) and Graduate Education to follow three decades later. The COEHS Planning Committee established in 1986 these six departments: Counselor Education, Curriculum and Instruction, Educational Foundations, Human Services and Professional Leadership (HSPL), Reading Education, and Special Education.

Initial Preparation Program
The Professional Education Program (PEP) encompasses the initial preparation program in COEHS. While designed to provide an undergraduate degree in four years, it encourages a fifth year of graduate study leading to licensure. This design addresses the concerns of the field by intensifying high performance standards, strengthening liberal arts and professional education requirements, extending field experiences, tightening candidate assessment throughout the program, and providing additional licensure alternatives.

A major in education can lead to Bachelor degrees of Science in Education, Music Education, or Fine Arts. PEP offers seven majors: Elementary Education, English as a Second Language (ESL), Broadfield Natural Science, Broadfield Social Science, Special Education Cross Categorical, Dual Elementary 1-6 and Special Education Cross Categorical, and Dual Early Childhood P-3 and Special Education Birth through Age 8. Candidates seeking licensure at the secondary level (early adolescent to adolescent) must major in a content field. PEP offers licensure opportunity in over forty areas. In addition it offers minors in eight areas: Elementary Language Arts, Elementary Social Science, Elementary Science, Library Science, Reading, ESL, and Bilingual Education (Spanish or Hmong). Departments within COLS offer additional licensable minors.

Back to Top Of Page

Advanced Preparation Programs
Master of Science in Education (MSE) – Counseling: The Counseling Graduate Program prepares counselors for schools K-12, for higher education settings, and for community counseling agencies. Three emphases – community, school counselor, and student development in higher education – are offered and were accredited since 1992 by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). In accordance with CACREP standards, the curriculum is based on eight common core areas and clinical courses: Professional Identity, Social and Cultural Diversity, Human Growth and Development, Career Development, Helping Relationships, Group Work, Assessment, and Research and Program Evaluation. All candidates are required to complete the core curriculum, six credits of emphasis-specific course work, an eleven-credit clinical sequence, and three credits in either chemical dependency or family counseling. A thesis is not required; however candidates may elect a thesis option within the program.

Master of Science in Education – Curriculum and Instruction: This program provides licensed teachers with the opportunity to expand their knowledge of teaching and education by offering a strong curriculum basis in various subject areas for interpreting and formulating educational research, engaging in scholarly writing, and expanding professional knowledge, but does not offer preparation for any advanced licenses. The 36-credit program is comprised of twelve core credits, six foundation credits, an elective, and teaching emphases courses. Non-licensure is available for those interested in improving their teaching when their needs are not met by other teaching emphases. Licensure requires enrollment and successful completion of the practicum within two years of completing their course work. Candidates may elect to pursue ESL/Bilingual/Bicultural Education licensure or add licensures for other age levels with the required credits applicable to the MSE degree.

Master of Science (MS) – Educational Leadership: Educational Leadership prepares professionals for leadership and change-agent roles in various educational and helping settings while providing wide latitude in student/advisor program planning. Candidates select from a variety of prescriptive emphases such as library/media certification, technology, supervision, and curriculum. The program is comprised of core courses, emphases, electives, and culminating experience. Half of these 36 credits are designated to core courses: Supervision of Instruction, Educational Research, Organization and Administration of Educational Systems, Curriculum for Leaders, and Multicultural Education for Leaders. Candidates take remaining program credits in courses more pertinent to their own unique settings and/or career ambitions. A capstone and comprehensive semester is required as part of Seminar; however, the option of writing a thesis in place of Seminar exists. Enrollment for the comprehensive exam is required. Licensure options are Director of Instruction and Instructional Library Media Specialist or Supervisor. In addition, the department developed an articulation agreement with UW Sheboygan, a two-year campus, to offer this program at their site. Initiated in Spring 2001 and specifically targeting licensed teachers, the program models the use of a learning community approach. Department faculty primarily teach the courses and the Program Director has reassigned time to assist candidates.

Master of Science in Education – Reading: The Department of Reading Education offers a MSE providing certified teachers with the opportunity to develop expertise in literacy education. The 36-credit program is designed for those who wish to be licensed as reading teachers (MSE completion not required) or who wish to prepare for service as reading specialists (MSE required). The department also holds the entitlement for a cooperative MSE with UW Green Bay. Plans of study include Reading Education and Graduate Achievement Program (GAP Reading Education). Twenty-four core course credits are required with an additional three to six credits for those in the thesis option; electives fill the remaining needed credits. Candidates may elect to complete a thesis or not. The GAP in Reading is a 15-hour post-graduate program allowing teachers with a master’s degree in education to do advanced graduate work in an individualized program to meet specific educational needs or goals.

Master of Science in Education – Special Education: This program, designed to provide a master’s degree, includes teaching licensure in the elective portion of the program. Three elective emphases in combination with the MSE degree are offered: 1) Non-licensure/Degree only; 2) Cross Categorical Special Education Licensure: Middle Childhood through Early Adolescence; and 3) Early Childhood Special Education. Culminating experience choices are Thesis or Field Report. Fifteen credits are required course work and 15 are electives; at least one half of the minimum 30 graduate credits are required from graduate-only courses. Majority of candidates pursue licenses as their primary objective; however, candidates may choose the non-licensure option, designed to meet the needs of professionals in related fields or those not seeking additional licensure.

Ancillary Programs
In addition to the six departments previously identified, COEHS has a number of ancillary programs (Figure 3). Three community outreach programs are Head Start, Center for Career Development and Employability Training (CCDET), and Continuing Education (CE) and Outreach. A coordinator serves as college liaison with the UW Oshkosh Division of CE and Extension. Providing university-wide support for students are Reading Study Center and Project Success. The Educational Media Collection (EMC) and Cooperative Educational Service Agency (CESA) 6 Media Center (CMC) are instructional support services for the Departments of Reading and/or Special Education. Fox Valley Writing Project (FVWP) provides assistance with the development of writing for teachers on- and off-campus.

Back to Top Of Page

PART II: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Dottin (2001) emphasized the Conceptual Framework articulates a philosophy that gives meaning to the unit’s existence and directs its actions in decision-making. Continuing our commitment to the preparation of "The Educator as a Caring Intellectual", the COEHS Conceptual Framework serves as the catalyst for our efforts to enhance and strengthen both the initial and advance preparation programs provided for educators.

This Framework was developed as a part of the preparation process for the 1997 Initial Accreditation visit. Since then, COEHS continues to reflect on the best thinking, scholarship, and research in teacher education. Changes are reflected in the actions of the COEHS Conceptual Framework Task Force. This group updated the knowledge base for supporting the embedded Framework ideas, provided more inclusive language where “teacher-focus” language seemed too restrictive, addressed updated standards and assessments of external groups, and added vignettes profiling real educators illustrating key Framework aspects. Since our initial visit, COEHS has taken additional steps to use the Conceptual Framework to further align the components of PEP and Graduate Programs both internally and with external expectations in the accreditation and program approval process.

Consistent with this mission, vision and purpose, COEHS reevaluated and refined its Conceptual Framework “The Educator as a Caring Intellectual”. Using both narrative comment and illustrative vignettes of exemplary professionals, the Framework communicates dynamic and complex relationships of the knowledge, skills, and dispositions at the center of such preparation. The knowledge base can be found on site in the scholarly works referenced in Conceptual Framework Notebook and articulated in the following description.

COEHS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
I. Mission of the Institution
The select mission of UW Oshkosh as stated in the Overview section is consistent with the mission of the COEHS unit as stated below.

II. Mission of the Unit
The Mission is to be a community of inquirers working collaboratively to make living a humane and hopeful experience for all. Our ultimate Purpose is to prepare professionals in education, counseling, and human services who are caring, intellectual visionaries.

III. The Unit’s Philosophy, Purposes, Professional Commitments, and Dispositions
Our Vision is that COEHS will be an intellectually rigorous and diverse community dedicated to the development of caring professionals who powerfully impact education and social programs in our global society.

VI. The Knowledge Base (Theories, Research, Practice, and Education Policies)
Educator as a Caring Intellectual: The educator as a caring intellectual is a professional rooted within two realms of educational discourse – the realm of educator as caring and the realm of educator as intellectual. In the instance of caring, "...education from the care perspective has four major components – modeling, dialogue, practice, and confirmation (Noddings, 1995, p. 190)". In the instance of the educator as intellectual, "...Teachers should become transformative intellectuals if they are to educate students to be active critical citizens. Central to the category of transformative intellectual is the necessity of making the pedagogical more political and the political more pedagogical (Giroux, 1988, p. 127)".

Back to Top Of Page

The Educator as a Caring Intellectual signifies the combining of the ethic of caring with the belief in the educator as a transformative intellectual. “As a caring person the educator” embodies these principles: 1) is aware of her/his role as a model; 2) is aware of her/his role as a person engaging students in dialogue; 3) offers students opportunities to practice caring in order to help students develop the capacity to care for themselves, for others, the physical and human environment, and for ideas; and 4) engages in the act of confirmation.

The educator who affirms the ethic of caring models or engages in inclusion, according to Noddings (1984), means the one who cares view of the world includes the perspective of the cared-for. The principles of inclusive care giving are inherent in true understanding and appreciation of diversity. Diversity is found in the realms of exceptionality, race, gender, ethnicity, affectional orientation, and in the interconnectedness of our globalized economy.

“The educator as intellectual” embodies these principles: 1) is best prepared through engagement in a challenging study program; 2) is both a knowledgeable person and producer; and 3) understands professional practice is not confined within institutional boundaries.

V. Performance Expectations for Candidates
The following ten outcomes form the basis for a set of institutional standards for candidates and are aligned with Professional and State standards. The COEHS Unit Assessment System tools and processes are used to regularly assess candidate performances in these areas.

A. Candidate Knowledge Base
Three interrelated circles signifying knowledge of: 1) culture, 2) content, and 3) learning depict the structure for communicating critical knowledge of the Conceptual Framework.

1. Knowledge of Culture. Culture refers to the ideals for conduct – collective perceptions, beliefs, knowledge, customs, skills, arts, technologies, language, and values – passed from one generation to another within an identifiable group. It sets standards and expectations for behavior; determines our views about social relationships; influences our interactions with nature and other species; defines our ethics; and molds our identity. Culture determines not only what we learn but also how we learn; it defines acceptable procedure for new knowledge production. Educators must understand effects of culture on students’ frames of reference and acknowledge how different types of cultures impact diverse students’ approaches to learning.

Ruby Middleton Forsythe. Knowledge of culture may be seen in the teaching of Mrs. Ruby Middleton Forsythe – the central focus of research conducted by Dr. Parks, who describes “Miss Ruby” teaching in this way: My first visit to Holy Cross-Faith Memorial School at Pawley’s Island, South Carolina was at 4:00 p.m. A few students had gone home, a few were on the playground, and the rest were still in the classroom. Around me were students, desks, books, and boxes. My first impression was of pandemonium. A “regular” classroom with this atmosphere would leave one thinking the teacher had lost control, which was far from the truth. Some students were walking around, an older student was passing out papers, and a few were seated. In the midst of active children, Miss Ruby looked up at me, and smiled.

Miss Ruby was an African American woman whose teaching career spanned 64 years. Trained at Avery Normal Institute in Charleston, South Carolina during a time when few African Americans received any formal education, Miss Ruby remained an educator until cancer claimed her in 1992. When she first arrived at Holy Cross-Faith Memorial she was an outsider, a “city girl.” She had trouble with the language (Gullah), acceptance by the adults, and the silence of the nights, not with students. Miss Ruby can trace her success by the number of students who later graduated high school and went beyond, to become lawyers, doctors, teachers, nurses, and working members of society.

One was inspired by her dedication to both her students and her profession. Miss Ruby met each student where they were, academically, culturally, and emotionally. After spending two months teaching along side her, isolating the most important aspects of her teaching style was difficult. But one can say, irrevocably, a major reason for her success was her complete understanding of her students. The perceived pandemonium that afternoon was nothing more than six different grades of students (P-4) actively learning in one room. Her understanding of the students - not only as African Americans, but also as southerners, descendants of slaves, and students living in an impoverished section of society - enabled her to teach them what all students need to know, learning is important, relevant, and possible. “The most important thing for any child before they can accomplish anything, they are going to have to discipline themselves. I always tell my children, “Never say ‘I can’t,’ always say, ‘I’ll try.’”

2. Knowledge of Content. Content refers to subject matter knowledge, some of which is framed as interdisciplinary and connected to out-of-school daily life. Educators must be knowledgeable about a range of content to be well educated. Likewise, educators must have considerable depth of understanding and appreciation of the content likely to be part of the curriculum they will teach, develop, supervise, and advise. Content depth and appreciation is necessary for educators to skillfully focus simultaneously on content, teaching strategies, and students, while planning, teaching, and post-reflection.

Margaret Edson. One exemplary example of knowledge of content is illustrated in the work of Margaret Edson. It must be somewhat surprising to learn that Margaret Edson, who won the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for Drama for her play Wit, was a kindergarten teacher. As I watched her play Wit, I was moved deeply by her account of the life and death struggles of Vivian Bearing, Ph. D. - an English professor with ovarian cancer. What became apparent was the depth and breadth of playwright Edson’s knowledge base when it came to the subject matter in which she grounds her play. By choosing to make her protagonist an expert of 17th century English poetry, Edson demonstrates an understanding of a field representing the humanities. By setting most of her story in a hospital as her character battles terminal cancer, Edson also demonstrates an understanding of a field representing the natural sciences. To be able to bring these two diverse areas of scholarship together in a way brings the recognition of audiences and critics far removed from her classroom, Edson has also found the magical balance of content and process. Imagine a kindergarten teacher who is as knowledgeable about the metaphysical sonnets of John Donne as she is about the variations of cell divisions seen in diseases like cancer. Margaret Edson exemplifies what the COEHS Framework describes as “both a knowledgeable person and a knowledge producer”.

3. Knowledge of Learning. Learning can occur as the result of an experience in one or more processes such as the association of events, cognitive processes, modeling, observations, and changes in antecedents and/or consequences. Teachers facilitate learning by effectively applying their knowledge of these learning processes, providing a supportive and interactive learning environment. In addition, student learning may be facilitated by the teachers’ effective application of knowledge of human development, individual differences, student diversity, student motivation, classroom management, teaching strategies, and assessment of learning outcomes. Educational leaders facilitate learning more indirectly by providing a supportive environment in which those working directly with students can interact to inform their thinking and improve their practices to grow in their development as professional.

Back to Top Of Page

Marie Clay. When I returned to the first grade classroom after a thirteen-year absence, one of the most noticeable differences in my practices was in the way I interacted with students. My questioning techniques were heavily influenced by the work of this New Zealand educator who had developed the constructivist-based literacy intervention program called Reading Recovery. Clay convinced me my role as a teacher was to focus on students – not materials, methods, or teaching – but on what was being learned. Her work in early literacy provided me with ways to get inside the students’ heads to figure out where they were at. Her work provided me with information on where my students needed to be. She helped me to see my role as now providing scaffolded instruction to bridge those two points for my students. Clay suggests that we never do for children what they can do on their own. Asking the child questions that help the self-construction of knowledge facilitates learning best. In both her model of how to help readers with difficulties and teachers learning to help readers, Marie Clay exemplifies an understanding of learning that should be seriously examined by others.

B. Relational Knowledge Produces Candidate Understanding
Relationships between the critical knowledge concepts of the Framework produce understanding of new concepts: culture and learning knowledge produces 4) understanding of diversity; culture and content knowledge produces 5) understanding of curriculum; and learning and content knowledge produces 6) understanding of pedagogy.

4. Understanding of Diversity. Understanding of diversity moves beyond tolerance to true celebration of differences, empowering one to embrace the rich mosaic of the human community. Deep understanding of diversity includes knowledge at the cognitive level – accurate, factual, and authentic appreciation of constituents and their struggle for recognition, livelihood, and acceptance. At the affective level knowledge includes willingness to critically analyze preconceptions, stereotypes, and prejudices. Knowledge of human behavior is needed to promote effective and empathetic interaction with members of diverse groups. Philosophical knowledge includes awareness of the dynamics inherent in the interaction of different groups as well as sincere appreciation for such interaction. Deep and complex understanding of diversity requires all of the above to promote the celebration of community.

Katie Hinz. The teaching of Katie Hinz, a COEHS graduate now teaching in Princeton, WI, illustrates the understanding of diversity. As a European American growing up in Oshkosh, Ms. Hinz did not see a great deal of cultural diversity. Nevertheless, I was able to observe the development of her commitment to diverse students and families in her project of working with newcomer students from Iraqi Kurdistan struggling with their high school courses. Not only did Katie provide valuable academic and social support for these students, she became one of their most trustworthy advocates. In a following class Katie interviewed an extended family of Kurdish refugees and documented their story on videotape and in an ethnographic research paper. Most clear is the close relationship she forged with these refugees from the other side of the world. She established strong working relationships with Hmong, Latino, Bosnian, Kurdish, and other students during the academic year. Katie presented her research nationally, and among other awards, earned the Chancellor's Award for Excellence. Her relationships with diverse students and families continue to the enrichment of all involved. She cares about students, especially those marginalized because of language and culture.

5. Understanding of Curriculum. Curriculum includes the totality of classroom life, or of the learning environment as teachers and students together experience interaction and attention to skills, understandings, appreciations, emotions, analyses, and critical thinking. Attention is given to content – some, but not all of which must be inter-disciplinary and connected to student learners’ out-of-school daily lives and futures. Educators must strive to provide curriculum that is democratic, fair, socially just, and both visionary- and reality- based so as to enhance the likelihood of academic and social success by all student learners. To this end, the following questions help educators think about curriculum in reflective and democratic ways: “What counts as school knowledge?” “Whose knowledge is of most worth?" and "Who wins and who loses with a particular conception of school knowledge?" (Apple & Beane, 1995).

Tim Handrich. Understanding of curriculum is exemplified in the work of Tim Handrich, a Counselor Education program graduate. Tim found the school counselors in his district operating a very traditional program. Students would go in and see the counselors for things like test scores and score interpretation. Counselors primarily provided responsive services to children who were experiencing problems impacting about the 20% of kids who were really struggling. There was a group of 60% or so who could really benefit from the services offered through a comprehensive developmental guidance model. As guidance director for a district Tim spent time identifying existing strengths and areas needing change. With time, patience, and through involving teachers, administrators, parents, and students, Tim saw a working comprehensive developmental guidance program come into existence. Recognizing that the guidance curriculum ties in to a student’s life outside of school, extensive efforts are taken toward educating parents about what the students are learning in school and what is going on at school. Every three years the district completes a comprehensive assessment of strengths and weaknesses. Counselors at the elementary, middle, and high school levels work together with this data to make an action plan with a timetable. Tim has clearly created and implemented a prevention curriculum focused to assist students.

6. Understanding of Pedagogy. Shulman (1987, p. 15) states, “...the knowledge base of teaching lies at the intersection of content and pedagogy”. Pedagogy includes the dialogues and/or activities an educator initiates with a group to bring about student learning. Effective pedagogy should create an intellectual environment in which students’ conceptions may be challenged in a non-threatening way. Likewise, it should encourage students to revise their conceptions in a reflective manner. This pedagogical approach requires that students be challenged to develop or adopt a set of criteria to make judgments about the conceptual revisions they are making. By adopting the criteria of their field of study, they begin the process of socialization into the culture of that field of study. This pedagogical approach recommends reflective, student-centered teaching strategies such as collaborative learning, critical thinking, problem solving, Socratic dialogue, and journaling. It would selectively minimize adult-centered strategies such as a reliance on lectures, recitation, and work sheets.

Doug Buehl. Understanding pedagogy, the art and science of teaching, is a lifelong pursuit and entails assuming an informed critical lens and requires teachers to focus within and outside of the classroom. Doug Buehl, Reading Specialist at Madison East High School, is a model of lifelong growth in pedagogy related to literacy. Doug understood the crucial role of how reading, writing, and all of the language processes play in the acquisition of content knowledge. As Doug grew in this understanding, he became an expert in wedding theory and research in literacy with his beliefs and practices in teaching the social sciences. Having received his masters from UW Oshkosh, Doug’s pedagogical knowledge and ability to integrate theories of learning and practice allowed him to think systemically about using literacy processes in service of learning.Doug’s inquiry into theory and practice led him to be a prominent and powerful model of sound pedagogy. His book, “Classroom Strategies for Interactive Learning”, has become a handbook for secondary content area teachers throughout the country and world. His work on text frames, critical literacy, and written inquiry are solidly rooted in classroom practice and serve to remind us all the purpose of our theoretical work is to improve our pedagogy. Although he shares his knowledge of pedagogy with teachers and researchers around the world, he spends his days in classrooms working with teachers and students to live his ideals and to look for ways to improve his pedagogy.

Back to Top Of Page

C. Qualities of the Caring Intellectual
Encompassing the interrelated circles of the Framework are four educator characteristics the program seeks to nurture. Arrows situated between each convey dynamic interaction. In this way, 7) lifelong learner, 8) change agent, 9) reflective professional, and 10) skillful practitioner represent the teacher who is the educator as a caring intellectual.

7. Lifelong Learner. The lifelong learner is one who seeks to discover new ideas, explore issues and problems, develop hypotheses, evaluate conjectures, create connections, and work in cooperation with others in the pursuit of skills, understandings, and appreciations. In short, they find pleasure in learning and assume responsibility for their own learning. Learning becomes an intellectual act of self-care giving rise to joy. The educator who values and engages in lifelong learning recognizes how and why one learns are as important as what one learns. They recognize today’s students must be prepared to cope with an ever-changing and increasingly complex society, and that societal survival is dependent upon the ability and inclination of students to learn, contribute, and celebrate in ways that are life sustaining.

Doris Phipps. Lifelong learning certainly characterizes the professional career of Doris Phipps recently recognized at the turn of the century as one of the 100 most influential people in Sheboygan County. Beginning as a teacher her self, her influence grew stronger as she serves as the long-time supervisor of teachers. One of the teachers she mentored was Neva Hodge - the first principal with whom I worked with while teaching in Sheboygan County. I had the opportunity to speak with her again at a local reading council meeting for which I was a speaker. As I was presenting, I watched Doris as she reached into her purse and grabbed a pencil and a small notepad of paper; I was flattered. After a career in education spanning eight decades and had taken her all around the world, she was still prepared to grab one more idea, insight or resource that she could share with others. For me, there is no better image of what it means to be a lifelong learner than to remember eighty-year-old Doris sitting up front at that meeting with paper and pencil in hand ready to learn at least one more thing. The COEHS Conceptual Framework describes learning as “an intellectual act of self care that gives rise to joy”. My sense is that type of joy filled Doris’s life.

8. Change Agent. As an agent of change the educator is committed to a vision of education striving for a democratic society in which exceptionality, gender, social class, ethnicity, race, and affectional preference are included and affirmed in all realms of social and political democracy. The educator as a democratic visionary and an agent of change sees change as a progressive force extending civic and citizenship rights to all. This vision transforms curriculum and teaching practice in order to reflect democracy. In his book, Experience and Education, Dewey situates democracy as an integral part of education and proposes that in a true democracy it is not the will of any one person which establishes order, but the moving spirit of the whole group. “This moving spirit” is the spirit of democratic agency for change.

Greg Voelz. A leader is more than a manager. A manager is hired to maintain the status quo. Leaders are hired to make change. One characteristic of effective leaders is the notion of "gambare" as defined by Thomas Sergiovanni. “Gambare” means ‘to persevere, to do one's best; to be persistent; to stick to one's purposes; to never give up until the job is done and done well.’ Sergiovanni (1990) personified the spirit of gambare and perseverance in this example: “When [Greg] Voelz became principal he found a competent staff hard at work, but a staff that was inclined to be complacent about its presumed quality, rarely reflecting on what it was doing and why, and rarely striving to be better. […T]he staff’s attitude was as follows: ‘We are already the best school in the district. We aren't broken, so don't try to fix us.’ Not satisfied with this…he reminded the faculty of the importance of humility as they evaluated themselves and cautioned them about ‘flying high’ regarding their presumed accomplishments and standing. He acknowledged that without question they were good - very good! He made it clear, nonetheless, that part of being good was being committed to getting better. He then announced that for the upcoming year everyone's present grade level teaching assignment was up for grabs. Each person would have to win back his or her assignment by arguing compellingly for it. He asked each teacher to meet with him to explain why he/she should stay in the same assignment. As part of the interview each teacher was asked to reflect on her or his teaching habits and routines they had taken for granted; and by acknowledging areas in which they would like to grow, as well as new directions they would like to pursue. Greg persevered; he showed gambare. He was a transformational leader who focused on people's values.” Greg Voelz was a change agent, personified.

9. Reflective Professional. A reflective professional is not something one becomes when one graduates from college, is granted some license, or awarded tenure, but rather a career-long effort. It is a goal one continuously works toward rather than something actually achieved. An important reflective professional characteristic is the continual commitment to define the form and function of an educator, which entails understanding and differentiating between the roles of an educator and the roles of other professionals. Reflective professional educators develop mastery over the basic theories of teaching and learning and acquire a sound understanding of both the substantive and the syntactic structure of their field. They use theory and knowledge to resolve problems arising in practice and willingly share with colleagues and students what is learned through practice and affirmed by research. Reflective professionals are guided by ethical practice, grounded in a formal code.

Jeffrey Wilhelm. The teaching of Jeffrey Wilhelm illustrates what it means to be a reflective professional. Now a professor of literacy education at the University of Maine, Jeff grounded his scholarship in his work as a middle school reading teacher with the Beaver Dam School District. Having just completed his sixth book, Jeff not only practices what he preaches; but he preaches what he practices. His first book “Gotta Be the Book” emerged from his classroom teaching with reluctant middle school readers. Powerfully told stories of his teaching and his students’ learning provided the evidence that this was a teacher who reflected deeply and frequently on the impact of his teaching. He was the first recipient of the Regie Routman Reflective Practitioner Award presented annually by the IRA. As a COEHS graduate student he approached me about setting up an appointment. I have long since forgotten what he wanted to talk about; however, I can still remember vividly that each square on his teacher planning calendar was filled with tiny meticulously written notes about what had happened in his classes on those days. While he couldn’t always write extensively about his teaching each day, he always recorded a few notes to serve as a catalyst for his writing analysis at a later date. Jeff not only developed mastery over the basic theories of teaching and learning but is contributing to them by sharing with colleagues and students the knowledge and techniques learned through his practices and affirmed by research. His latest book “Improving Comprehension with Think-Aloud Strategies” is the first of a series to assist teachers in effectively teaching comprehension in classroom literacy programs.

Back to Top Of Page

10. Skillful Practitioner. A skillful practitioner assesses how students learn and develop and translates that information into instructional approaches adapted to fit the needs of diverse learners; employs instructional approaches supported by research results, while maintaining an inquiring mind open to innovation; attends not only to students’ academic needs but also to social and emotional needs; uses an understanding of human learning to create an environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation; and provides instruction based upon knowledge of subject content and pedagogical principles as well as student culture and learner characteristics.

Amy Hildebrandt Barseghian. One of the most successful skillful practitioners I’ve had the pleasure of working with as a UW Oshkosh professor was a Special Education student, now an educator in West Bend Public Schools. Amy Barseghian showed exceptional ability to assess individual students needs and individualize her teaching to meet those needs. She is very creative and skillful at establishing rapport with her students and designing materials and activities actively engaging them in the learning process. She did a research project dealing with meeting diverse needs of students in inclusive settings. Amy was named to the USA Today’s Academic Team in 1998 and earned the Chancellor’s Award for Excellence at UW Oshkosh that same year. She recently was guest lecturer in my classes dealing with assessment for instructional planning. She shared how she took the Wisconsin Teacher Standards and developed a system for tying them directly to students’ Individual Education Programs and a way to monitor each student’s progress. Amy emphasized the importance of communication skills with other teachers and parents to create the best learning environment possible for students. Amy is and will continue to be an outstanding skillful practitioner.

When a potential applicant indicates an interest in a COEHS program, he/she is introduced to the “The Educator as a Caring Intellectual” Framework. A summary is shared with potential applicants and/or their families at initial meetings. The Framework is carefully explored in gateway course work and is fully integrated into programs.

For all new or significant changes in courses and programs proposed for COEHS, faculty detail on a Curricular Alignment Form how the course will address the identified aspects of the Conceptual Framework before the Curriculum Committee will consider the proposal. Expected outcomes and performance assessment aspects of existing courses are identified more extensively on the Form. These changes mean a more genuine, visible presence of the Framework in curriculum and instruction. Forms are updated on a regular basis. All field practices now involve the use of self-assessment and/or external assessment forms also aligned with the Framework. Candidates, cooperating teachers, and supervisors are now focused on critical aspects of the Framework in assessing fieldwork. Assignments for clinical experiences evolve from the Framework and are standardized for alignment. The newly developed and implemented assessment system is grounded in the Framework with critical aspects assessed holistically or discretely either at Admission I, Admission II, or Program Completion, providing insights about our candidates achieving the outcomes as well as insights about our program across candidates.

As evident in the Conceptual Framework previously described, a commitment to knowledge in three areas – content, learning, and culture – is clearly articulated in outcomes related to being a lifelong learner. The subsequent interaction of these elements leads to understanding of curriculum, pedagogy, and diversity each at the heart of teaching competence with outcomes related to being a skillful practitioner. Student learning is overtly defined in the learning aspect of the Framework and is further understood as an element in curriculum, pedagogy, and diversity, and also seen in a skillful practitioner and a reflective professional. The earlier uses of vignettes, profiling the professional lives of real educators, illustrate the Framework’s commitment to knowledge, teaching competence, and student learning.

Embedded in the Conceptual Framework is a set of dispositions best described as: Caring Intellectuals are engaged in democratic, passionate, critical, and ethical practice. They reflect contemporary research, theory, and practice in the preparation of professionals and are integrated into current program-wide assessment tools and processes. (See Standard I.)

COEHS has intentionally embraced a Conceptual Framework in which knowledge of culture and understanding of diversity are distinctly identified and defined while embedded in all aspects of our program – curriculum, instruction, field experiences, clinical practice, assessments, and evaluations. First, all proposed changes in program or courses must address aspects of culture and diversity as indicated in the required Curriculum Alignment Forms reviewed by the departments and the COEHS Curriculum Committee. Second, all course instructors are required to address these aspects while describing their instruction on the Forms. Third, specific field experiences were designed to foster insights, issues, and ideas about culture and diversity (e.g., Level II Human Relations Code Requirement). Evidence is documented by candidates in their portfolios, verified by external partners, and reviewed by the COEHS Human Relations Committee. Fourth, additional field experiences (e.g., Level III Clinical and Level IV Student Teaching) are supervised using processes and tools with attention to these aspects.

Demographic information from field experiences is carefully collected and analyzed to inform our thinking as we evaluate and improve programs. Finally, a careful examination by the COEHS Unit Assessment System reveals culture and diversity are central aspects of our assessment and evaluation tools and processes. The commitment to culture and diversity may be seen further in reviewing initiatives discussed in Standard V and VI.

Back to Top Of Page

COEHS deliberately developed a Framework in which technology is embedded in all aspects of our program. We demonstrated how technology fits into the Framework and how it aligns with ISTE standards. Commitment to preparation in technology is identified in these efforts: 1) development of a college-wide technology plan; 2) hiring of internal technology support personnel; 3) aggressive pursuit of external funding through the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) federal program; 4) improvement and addition of classroom facilities; 5) addition and improvement of hardware and software access for faculty, staff, and candidates; 6) expansion of professional development opportunities for faculty and staff; 7) support and encouragement for individual faculty and staff initiatives; and 8) strengthening of internal governance structures regarding issues related to technology. These initiatives resulted in a greater, more genuine integration of technology throughout curriculum and instruction. Focus of PT3 grant efforts is on field experiences and clinical practice. Discussions are being held on how to best integrate technology into the assessment system. Current piloting of electronic self-assessment tools is providing direction for how to integrate technology into the evaluation of candidates.

COEHS worked to develop a coherent, well-articulated vision in its Conceptual Framework. It is the catalyst for all decisions especially as they relate to developing and assessing candidate proficiencies. The Framework aligns with the state standards of Wisconsin and professional standards such as the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). Individual aspects of the program also give serious consideration to Specialty Professional Association standards (SPAs), e.g., CEC, CACREP, and IRA.

Conceptual Framework and Initial Preparation Program
The Conceptual Framework drives decisions made for PEP program improvement. Since our initial visit, the following steps were taken to operationalize the Framework within PEP: 1) program decisions must consider its aspects before recommendations are made; 2) individual courses within the program are designed to address the critical aspects; 3) performances of candidates both within individual courses and at the program level are assessed according to the critical aspects; 4) assignment directions and rubrics are developed to facilitate development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions defined; and 5) evaluation forms are redesigned to align expectations of clinical field experiences.

Conceptual Framework and Advanced Preparation Programs
MSE – Counseling: The COEHS Conceptual Framework is evident throughout the Counselor Education Program. Candidates are carefully selected for their potential as Caring Intellectuals. Course requirements all relate to Culture, Content, Diversity, Change Agent, Reflective Professional, and Lifelong Learning. Candidates in School Counseling learn to develop Curriculum and observe Pedagogy in caring and skillful classroom teachers. Clinical work requires all candidates to demonstrate their success in becoming Skillful Practitioners.

MSE – Curriculum and Instruction: This program includes courses grounded in aspects of the Framework adopted by COEHS. Candidates become familiar with this throughout the entire program. Woven throughout the program curriculum is the theory and practice of student diversity and its impact on teaching and learning. Candidates develop their expertise of incorporating technology into their teaching by enrolling in required and elective technology courses, program course assignments, and modeling provided by their course instructors. Also informing the program and its courses are the Wisconsin Teacher Standards and those of the various professional societies such as the National Association for Bilingual Education and Teachers of English and Other Second Languages.

MS – Educational Leadership: The Educational Leadership unit shares the COEHS philosophy of the Conceptual Framework. Professional standards are directly tied to it also. The Framework is shared with candidates as they enter the program (through advising), throughout the program (as discussed in courses), and at the conclusion of their program (Seminar capstone semester). In addition, candidates who choose library/media certification use ALA standards and the technology emphasis candidates are further guided by ISTE standards. All candidates use the Wisconsin Teacher Standards as a guide in their program.

MSE – Reading: MSE - Reading Education candidates exemplify the integration of four key roles: Skillful Practitioner, Reflective Professional, Change Agent, and Lifelong Learner. In each role, the individual who is a Caring Intellectual would have actively explored issues and ideas in the field of reading as they relate to culture, learning, content, diversity, curriculum, and pedagogy. The Framework clearly focuses on the knowledge base professionals should have and the actions reading professionals should take. Courses maintain a balance between pedagogy based in research and cutting-edge ideas with one specific aim – to facilitate the literacy development of young children and adolescents while enhancing the candidate's reflective, skillful practice. As caring intellectuals, all candidates are encouraged to make a commitment to deepening their understanding of literacy learners – not only the students with whom they work but also themselves and their colleagues.

MSE – Special Education: The Graduate Program responds to the needs of the people and institutions in this region by preparing licensed professionals who serve in educational and other community settings and by offering further professional development opportunities. The program curriculum and performance tasks are grounded in research-based best practices as well as in the Framework, CEC competencies, and Wisconsin Teacher Standards. While the course work and portfolio requirements for candidates in the licensure program aim for developing caring intellectuals, special emphases are placed upon the four components of the COEHS Framework depicted in the outside circle of the logo: change agent, lifelong learner, skillful practitioner, and reflective professional. Candidates are provided opportunities to enhance their capacities to function as change agents in school settings.

Back to Top Of Page

PART III: THE STANDARDS

Initial Preparation Program
Content Knowledge for Teachers: A critical focus for PEP is the content knowledge of teachers. The Conceptual Framework identifies knowledge of content as one significant program outcome. For secondary majors, it is the requirement to have both an academic major and minor; for elementary majors, it is an academic minor. Admission I addresses content knowledge in the following manner: 1) completion of general education course work expectations; 2) math, reading, and writing performances based on the Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST); 3) valuing of high GPA in general education course work; 4) recommendation from general education instructor; 5) inclusion of general education assignment and reflection on the experience; and 6) responses to oral interview questions from faculty and staff.

Admission II addresses content knowledge in these additional ways: 1) completion of course work in content major and minor; 2) satisfactory GPA (3.0) in content major and minor course work; 3) self-assessment of clinical experience; 4) outside assessment of clinical experience; 5) curriculum unit reflection and outside evaluation; and 6) satisfactory completion of external content area examinations (2004).

Program Completion addresses content knowledge in these final ways: 1) self-assessment of student teaching experience; 2) outside assessment of student teaching experience; 3) visual evidence – video, digital, or hard copy representation – of teaching with reflection and outside evaluation; 4) goal formation for pre-Professional Development Plan; and 5) final professional philosophical statement.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teacher Candidates: The Conceptual Framework defines an interaction between knowledge of content and knowledge of learning as an understanding of pedagogy. How to teach within a specific content area is addressed by content specific pedagogical course experiences. In the case of secondary majors, there are two separate content-specific pedagogical courses, one being integrated with a clinical field experience. For elementary and special education majors, there are separate content-specific pedagogical courses (language arts, math, social studies, science, music, physical education and art). Performances in pedagogical content are evaluated at the course-level using multiple assessments. At the program level, pedagogical content is assessed in evidence related to curriculum planning and classroom management primarily at Admission II. It is further assessed at Program Completion in evidence related to visual documentation of skillful practice. This evidence is integrated into candidates’ portfolios.

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates: Another critical focus for PEP is the professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills of teachers. The Framework identifies as significant program outcomes the following aspects: knowledge of learning and culture; understanding of curriculum, diversity, and pedagogy; and being a reflective professional and skillful practitioner. Setting our program apart from most others is our commitment to the importance of professional and pedagogical knowledge by requiring all majors to complete a core of graduate courses prior to program completion.

Admission I addresses professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills in this manner: 1) completion of gateway professional education course work; 2) valuing of final grade(s) in gateway professional education course work; 3) recommendation from general education instructor; 4) recommendation from a significant adult; 5) reflection in a personal statement; 6) responses to oral interview questions from faculty and staff; and 7) professional course work assignment and reflection.

Admission II addresses professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills in these additional ways: 1) completion of course work in licensure program; 2) satisfactory GPA (3.0) in professional course work; 3) self-assessment of clinical experience; 4) outside assessment of clinical experience; 5) curriculum unit reflection and outside evaluation; and 6) classroom management evidence.

Program Completion addresses pedagogical knowledge and skills in these final ways: 1) self-assessment of student teaching experience; 2) outside assessment of student teaching experience; 3) visual evidence of teaching with reflection and outside evaluation; 4) goal formation for pre-Professional Development Plan; and 5) final professional philosophical statement. At each level, candidates will assemble evidence in their portfolios.

Dispositions for All Candidates: As previously stated, COEHS intentionally embeds dispositions in the Framework. Examples found at Admission I: 1) recommendation from general education instructor – commitment to task, creative thinking, pleasure in discovering new ideas and exploring issues, and passion; 2) recommendation from significant adult – commitment to task, creative thinking, display of leadership, interpersonal skills, acceptance of diversity, and commitment to excellence; 3) personal statement – commitment to being a lifelong learner and potential for be a caring intellectual; and 4) oral interview by faculty – commitment to lifelong learning, understanding of issues and ideas related to diversity and culture, and demonstration of poise and demeanor. At Admission II, dispositions are addressed through candidate self-assessment of clinical experience, external assessment by clinical supervisor and cooperating teachers, and through a faculty review process. At Program Completion, dispositions are addressed through self-assessment of student teaching experience, external assessment by student teaching supervisors and cooperating teachers, final professional statement, and development of the pre-Professional Development Plan.

Student Learning for Teacher Candidates: The Conceptual Framework defines outcomes directly related to knowledge of assessment in instruction and skill by using evaluation. Knowledge of assessment is embedded in the aspects of learning, content, and culture and is expanded in the understanding of curriculum, pedagogy, and diversity. This becomes evident in the candidate as a reflective professional and skillful practitioner. Candidates demonstrate this knowledge and skill in a wide variety of course-based performances reflecting multiple strategies including technology. Knowledge and skills are assessed at the program level primarily at Admission II in evidence related to curriculum planning and classroom management, and also at Program Completion in evidence related to visual documentation of skillful practice. These areas can be viewed by examining individual candidate portfolios.

Back to Top Of Page

Advanced Preparation Programs
The evidence, that candidates are provided opportunities to learn in each of the Standard I areas, is seen in advanced program descriptions and Course Alignment Forms. (See Standard I Notebook.) Evidence of candidate assessment at course level is also documented on the Forms and at the program level in program assessment plans. (See Standard II Notebook.) Figure 4 provides an overview of this information. In addressing candidate performance in the advance preparation programs, distinctions need to be made among programs that focus on the professional development of teachers (MSE – Curriculum and Instruction and MSE – Special Education), the exclusive preparation of other school personnel (MSE – Counseling and MSE – Reading Education), and a combination of both (MS – Educational Leadership). All areas addressed by Standard I are explicit or implicit within the Wisconsin Teacher Standards and the COEHS Conceptual Framework.

Content knowledge is emphasized within the Conceptual Framework as well as Wisconsin Standards for both Teachers and Pupil Services. All programs provide candidates opportunities to learn as evident in their program descriptions and individual Course Alignment Forms. Performance assessments occur both within individual courses and at the program level. Assessments may include the use of internal comprehensive examinations (Educational Leadership) as well as external examinations (National Counselor Exam).

For teacher candidates, pedagogical content knowledge is reflected in the Conceptual Framework as “understanding pedagogy” seen visually in the interaction between knowledge of learning and knowledge of content. Programs are required to address this area and provide candidates opportunities to learn and assess their performances related to pedagogical content knowledge. Again, assessments occur in individual courses as well as in program-wide assessments. For example, ESL/Bilingual/Bicultural candidates submit evidence related to microteaching experiences and classroom applications of discipline specific strategies.

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills are at the heart of state standards for both Teachers and Pupil Services personnel and represented in many dimensions of the Conceptual Framework (learning, culture, diversity, curriculum, and pedagogy) particularly in becoming Skillful Practitioners and Reflective Professionals. All programs provide opportunities to learn as evident by reviewing program descriptions and Course Alignment Forms. Likewise, candidate performance assessments exist at both the course and program levels. For example, all programs use culminating experiences requiring candidates to integrate professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills in documenting their abilities to be skillful practitioners and reflective professionals. These experiences vary from supervised internships in Counseling to teacher action research projects and presentations in Curriculum and Instruction. Portfolios in Educational Leadership and the Reflective Journey Projects in Reading Education require candidates to use best sample examples of performances in individual courses as a means of documenting growth and change in the overall program.

The Advance Preparation programs assessment of dispositions requires candidates to have work habits observed within class and in the field, participate in interviews with faculty and staff, submit letters of recommendations, frame personal statements, and complete surveys. Dispositions are embedded within the Framework and also in performance assessments used within course assignments and program-wide experiences. Certain programs use initial meetings with candidates to inform them of explicit and implicit dispositional expectations. Expectations may also be seen in informational handbooks shared with candidates. Admission to candidacy serving as a transitional assessment point for most advanced programs provides an opportunity to further assess candidates’ dispositions and provide needed support for making changes as candidates move forward in the program.

The ability to effectively assess students implied in the student learning aspect is also specifically addressed by state standards for teachers and pupil service personnel. Student learning is a critical aspect of many dimensions of the Conceptual Framework particularly curriculum, pedagogy, and learning and is an essential element of becoming a skillful practitioner and reflective professional. Because of this, all advance programs provide candidates with opportunities to learn with course work specifically focused on measurement, testing, assessment, evaluation, diagnosis, and instructional implications. Candidates document their ability to impact P-12 learning in a variety of ways including simulations, field tests, case studies, and action research. All programs have experiences for candidates to work directly with students as described in Standard III. Again culminating experiences for all programs involve documentation of attempts to impact student learning. For example, it is observed directly in counseling internships and indirectly in the public presentations of classroom-based teacher action research projects in Curriculum and Instruction.

The Framework embraces the idea of the educator as Change Agent, seen by demonstrating impact on student learning. Documenting this area is required in culminating experiences such as the Portfolio in Educational Leadership; the Reflective Journey Project in Reading; and field reports and theses, ranging from improving collaborations between special education and regular education teachers to teaching conflict resolution techniques to Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities, in Special Education. The example of developing family-centered intervention programs including home visits and family portfolios showed this impact was not limited to traditional school settings.

Back to Top Of Page

Back to Top Of Page

STANDARD II: ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND UNIT EVALUATIONS

The COEHS Assessment System evaluates candidates, programs, and unit; the current plan is divided into two areas– initial and advanced preparations. The first area of the Assessment System focuses on all licensure areas within PEP. While slight variations were developed to accommodate specific licensure areas, all initial preparation candidates are subject to a defined standardized set of guidelines. The second area of the System addresses the five advanced preparation programs. For these candidates, each program has defined its assessment guidelines with some variation among programs. However, this area is unified by these elements: Each program 1) has an assessment plan grounded in the COEHS Conceptual Framework; 2) is aligned with the appropriate set of Wisconsin Standards; 3) has considered appropriate SPAs; 4) has met expectations for North Central Association review; 5) satisfies all university-wide policies as set by the Graduate School; 6) has defined entry, transitional, and culminating experiences; and 7) participates in the UW System Program Review process as part of a program evaluation and improvement cycle. The latter element becomes a critical part of the assessment data used at the unit level for evaluation and improvement.

Unit assessment includes response to external expectations from the UW System program reviews, DPI annual assessment reports, and US Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education Title II regulations. In April 2001 the Unit submitted the first Annual Institutional Questionnaire on Teacher Preparation: Academic Year 1999-2000 to DPI. The Unit reported 1013 candidates enrolled during 1999-2000 and 336 candidates supervised in student teaching by a total of 11.87 full-time employees (FTE). The candidate/faculty ratio was 28.3 to 1. Wisconsin is in the process of identifying and developing content tests for licensure areas which will not be in place until 2004. The Unit submitted its Assessment System for review to DPI in July 2001 and satisfied current expectations.

During this transitional period, COEHS is discussing how to improve the tracking of program completers as they move from our programs to employment situations. Currently, surveying candidates, alumni, and employers is a requirement of the UW System Academic Program Review Process. COEHS Initial and Advanced Preparation Programs are on a five-year cycle of data collection, review, and program improvement. Student satisfaction with programs is documented by surveys of alumni and students; placement and graduate school admission rates are cited. DPI requires employer evaluations of candidates. COEHS is intensifying the tracking of candidates through collaboration with the Career Counseling, Graduate School, Institutional Research, and Alumni Offices. We are assessing current efforts for coordination improvement, especially with the campus-wide implementation of the PeopleSoft System, and recommending additional steps to take in the future. Future directions will incorporate new licensure structures such as the initial educators’ requirement of pre-Professional Development Plans, electronic portfolios promoted through the PT3 VIVA grant, and campus-based electronic assessment tools developed in conjunction with CESA 6.

Initial Preparation Program
In accordance with Wisconsin PI 34 regulations and aligned with the COEHS Conceptual Framework, a dynamic assessment system was developed to collect and analyze data on applicant qualifications, candidate performance, and program operations to evaluate and improve PEP. It continues to evolve as COEHS moves through this transitional period. Working with all constituent groups, the assessment plan involves the external and internal voices of our professional community including COEHS faculty, staff, and candidates; COLS faculty and staff; university administrators; members of the higher education consortium, and P-12 partners. Completed work is shared with all constituency groups.

The catalyst for all decisions made for the assessment plan is the Conceptual Framework, in alignment with Wisconsin Teacher Standards and professional standards such as INTASC and other learned societies. Certain aspects of the assessment plan directly reflect state standards (e.g., the student teaching evaluation form) or SPAs (e.g., portfolio evidence based on CEC competencies).

The assessment plan includes a comprehensive and integrated set of evaluation measures, operating both to inform our thinking about candidate performance as well as program operations. It is based on multiple assessments made at three critical points in the PEP. At admission into the program, candidates must show eligibility by 1) meeting minimal standards on the PPST; 2) submitting disclosure statement and receipt for criminal background check; 3) completing a minimum of 40 credits; 4) maintaining a minimum 2.75 cumulative GPA; 5) earning a ‘C’ or better in Fundamentals of Speech; 6) filing a clear TB test; and 7) completing Admission I application indicating licensure area. Prior to application for admission, candidates are provided an orientation by the PEP Director and view a prepared video on specific requirements. Each candidate prepares a portfolio of evidence focusing on three critical aspects of the Framework – knowledge of content and learning, understanding of curriculum, and commitment to lifelong learning. Likewise, the evidence directly addresses other aspects of the Framework – knowledge of culture, understanding of curriculum and pedagogy, and ability to become a reflective professional. Portfolio evidence includes: PPST scores, general education GPA, recommendation from a general education instructor, recommendation of a significant adult, reflection on general education experience, personal statement, documentation of completed Human Relations Code requirement, reflection on professional education experience, and grade(s) from gateway courses. Two PEP faculty and staff review each portfolio and interview each candidate.

Candidate performance is also monitored at the next appropriate transition point prior to student teaching or Admission II. All candidates must demonstrate eligibility with appropriate GPA requirements and course work completion; verification of and reflection on Human Relations Code requirements; and successful passage of external content area examinations (in 2004). The central focus of candidate assessment will be on three aspects of the Conceptual Framework – knowledge of learning, being a skillful practitioner, and being a reflective professional. Proposed assessment approved for piloting in Spring 2002 includes this additional portfolio evidence: reflection and evaluation of curriculum unit; management case, log, study, or project; and self-assessment and successful completion of clinical teaching experience. Addressed evidence of other Framework aspects are: knowledge of content and culture, learning, diversity, and pedagogy; and being a lifelong learner. Candidates will be reviewed by PEP faculty and staff involved in the professional core courses through a system of faculty discussion, portfolio review, and candidate interview.

The final aspect of the PEP assessment plan being discussed is for Program Completion, including student teaching and a core block of graduate course work. Proposed evidence included in this portfolio is: self-assessment and successful completion of student teaching; development of working pre-Professional Development Plan; visual documentation of teaching abilities; refined philosophical professional statement; and final reflection on issues related to culture and diversity. The latter two pieces of evidence would be integrated in graduate course work and monitored by those instructors; other evidence would be from student teaching using the seminar infrastructure and monitored by university supervisors.

These changes are better predictors of a candidate’s potential success for admission in, continuation in, and completion of the programs. The Assessment Task Force, and PEP and Human Relations Committees are collecting, aggregating, and analyzing data generated by the assessment system to verify validity and reliability as it relates to candidate success.

Back to Top Of Page

Prescriptive directions and explicit rubrics were developed and shared with candidates and PEP faculty and staff in an effort to establish fairness, accuracy, and consistency, and to eliminate bias in performance assessments. Assessment tools were integrated into course work maximizing candidates’ ability to receive support and assistance. Additional help sessions are held for candidates. PEP systematically solicits faculty and staff feedback for refining the process to better insure fairness, accuracy, and consistency. All candidates have access to a well-defined appeals process to challenge decisions within the assessment system when fairness, accuracy, and/or consistency are in question. An impartial committee, not involved in the original decision-making, provides candidates a forum for their grievances.

During this transitional period, COEHS is developing and improving structures to maintain the assessment system to provide regular and comprehensive information on applicant qualifications, candidate proficiencies, graduate competencies, unit operations, and program quality. In place are multiple assessments from internal sources (course-level performance assessments and data generated by program level assessments) and external sources (PPST scores, content area examination scores, and recommendations from outside sources). COEHS continues to collect data from applicants, candidates, recent graduates, faculty, and other members of the professional community. These data are being regularly and systematically compiled, summarized, and analyzed to improve candidate performance, program quality, and unit operations. Without duplicating existing data collection, aggregation, and reporting efforts at the University level, COEHS is studying how best to use information technology to maintain the assessment system internally.

As each stage of the assessment system was developed, PEP asked four critical questions: 1) What data is generated? 2) How can it inform our thinking? 3) How should it be analyzed? and 4) How often should it be analyzed? By asking these questions, PEP began to develop a plan to regularly and systematically use data. For example, at the program level the aggregation of candidate data particularly from clinical experiences and student teaching evaluation tools allows faculty and staff to evaluate the efficacy of the courses and the overall programs. From data analysis faculty and staff initiated changes addressed in the Human Relations Code requirement procedures. In the second case, a task force was formed to explore the need for a discrete course in classroom management. This information is regularly shared with four key internal governance groups – PEP Committee, Human Relations Committee, Assessment Task Force, and Administrative Council, each of which has the charge of recommending changes to improve the program. Collection, aggregation, and analysis of these data feed into an internal university program review process used to analyze and evaluate all programs.

Advanced Preparation Programs
MSE – Counseling: The Program’s Assessment plan, first developed in June 1995, continues to be reviewed during department curriculum discussions. Measures used to assess each include: faculty observation, course requirements, portfolios, self-reports, evaluation of counseling skills, attendance records at professional meetings, eligibility for professional credentials, and the optional National Counselor Examination. The entire faculty also makes a group assessment when each candidate applies for Admission to Candidacy.

MSE – Curriculum and Instruction: This Assessment Plan, established in 1995, continues to be reviewed by the department as part of their assessment discussions. The Plan includes candidate assessment, a five-year program review cycle, and current candidate and alumni surveys. The transitional plan will also include a data collection and tracking system.

MS – Educational Leadership: The MS - Educational Leadership program implemented a comprehensive assessment plan with three critical checkpoints: 1) entrance interview with program coordinator; 2) admission to candidacy (assessment of progress); and 3) conclusion (enrollment in capstone seminar). Assessment occurs through the use of comprehensive examinations and professional portfolios.

MSE – Reading: The Reading Education Program developed a comprehensive assessment plan in 1996 and is continually updated. A plan refinement includes each required course listing its objectives with specific performance based evaluation measures linked to the COEHS Conceptual Framework, IRA standards, and the MSE Reading Program Assessment.

For overall program assessment, yearly graduate and employer surveys are conducted. This formal information, combined with informal feedback continuously solicited from candidates, identify areas or procedures needing refinement or modification. Constant contact is also maintained with professionals in the field. The program review completed on a five-year cycle, considers the compilation of data and allows for very specific program assessment and strategic planning. The program will be sent to the IRA for review in February 2002. For complete Assessment Plan and Program Folio consult Standard II Notebook.

MSE – Special Education: The department developed a comprehensive assessment plan in 1995. Recent efforts align the Plan with the Conceptual Framework, Wisconsin Teacher Standards, and the CEC Eight Common Core Categories. The Graduate Program recently began the first step to establish a database to monitor the progression and current status of all students in their portfolio assessment process. For overall Program Assessment, yearly surveys are conducted with current candidates and alumni. In addition, the department seeks program feedback from the Special Education Advisory Board on a yearly basis.

Back to Top Of Page

STANDARD III: FIELD EXPERIENCE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Initial Preparation Program
PEP candidates seeking teacher certification from COEHS are required to complete field experiences and clinical practica (Figure 6) to develop knowledge, skills, and dispositions defined by the Conceptual Framework: 1) Level I (Prior to Admission I) – previous self-initiated experiences working with children and youths: teaching, training, and supervising others; 2) Level II (In conjunction with gateway course work and as a condition for Admission I and II) – fifty hours of verified work in schools and community agencies with individuals and populations from ethnically/racially diverse groups and individuals and populations with disabilities in completing Human Relations Code requirement; 3) Level III (In conjunction with professional course work) – supervised clinical experience(s) in school settings for 42 hours over a UW Oshkosh semester; 4) Level IV (Prior to program exit) – minimum of a full semester of student teaching following the calendar of the district in which candidates are placed [Wisconsin statute 118.19(3)(a).]

Collaboration between Unit and School Partners: Effort was made to include school partners and other members of the professional community in designing, delivering, and evaluating field experiences and clinical practica. With Level I experiences, candidates must submit a Personal Statement in their portfolio describing experiences they had in working with children and youth: in training, teaching, and supervising others. These statements are developed with support as a part of gateway course work. They are evaluated as a part of the Admission I process and reviewed by faculty teams prior to candidate interviews.

With Level II experiences, COEHS has worked closely with the local school district and community agencies to define appropriate experiences for completing Human Relations Code requirements. On-site supervisors are responsible for designing the candidate experiences as well as verifying completion of their work. All candidates must submit evidence of satisfactory completion of the requirement as approved by the COEHS Human Relations Committee in their portfolios for review by faculty teams prior to candidate interviews.

With Level III experiences, COEHS faculty and staff worked closely with local school districts to design clinical experiences integrated with professional course work. For example, the learning community block format emerged from a series of conversations and collaborative meetings held with those district representatives. Initially, regularly scheduled meetings brought local teachers and COEHS faculty and staff together to discuss issues and ideas related to the clinical experience; the current format evolved from that collaborative effort. Cooperating teachers are involved in three-way conferences with candidates and university supervisors to evaluate candidate performances and provide program feedback.

Back to Top Of Page

With level IV experiences, COEHS coordinates the placement of student teachers and interns through the Office of Field Experiences (OFE). Placements are made in collaboration with faculty and staff in the respective university departments along with human resource directors and building principals in participating school districts. Two districts request personal interviews with candidates prior to placement. For intern placements, school administration and staff are sent materials on each candidate after the Director of Field Experiences and Internships reviews these materials, conferred with the faculty, and personally interviewed and ranked each candidate. The district in turn, interviews intern candidates prior to placement. These candidates are held to all Admission II requirements in addition to more rigorous standards related to GPA, recommendations, and completion of undergraduate work.

Partners provided input related to student teaching requirements, supervision, and evaluation. Cooperating teachers offered feedback on the new student teacher evaluation, based upon the Conceptual Framework, through use of surveys. Local administrators are invited on campus each semester to conduct mock interviews for student teachers providing an excellent exchange of information and philosophies. P-12 teachers and administrators also come on campus to offer in-service to our student teachers for four regularly scheduled Large Group Seminars. Topics include: first year of teaching, new state licensure requirements, conflict resolution, and management and discipline. In addition, Career Services provides regular support for career planning, resume building, and employment opportunities.

Design, Implementation, and Evaluation: PEP provides candidates with a variety of field experiences. Level I experiences ask candidates to place themselves in settings in which they work with children and youth: training, teaching, and supervising others. These contexts represent a wide range of education-related community activities from serving as teachers aides as high school students to summer camp counselors; from teaching swim lessons at local YMCAs to serving as coaches and officials for Special Olympics competitions.

Level II experiences place candidates in school and agency settings to tutor students and work directly with youth. These may include working with individuals in the Oshkosh Area School District after school program called SAIL or at agencies like Association for Retarded Citizens; Boys and Girls Club; or Big Brothers, Big Sisters.

Level III experiences place candidates in school settings in which they primarily assist teachers and other school personnel to work directly with students. Candidates are also encouraged to participate in other related school and community events during these experiences. These placements are designed as more intensive experiences integrated with professional course work. Candidates are evaluated on their ability to use their knowledge of content, learning, and culture; and their understandings of curriculum, pedagogy, and diversity to be skillful practitioners and reflective professionals.

Level IV experiences place candidates in school settings to primarily work directly with students. Candidates are also encouraged to participate in other school and community events. Student teaching is designed as the most extensive and intensive experience for candidates to demonstrate competence in areas defined by the Framework.

Clinical Faculty: Teachers must have a minimum three years of experience in their content area and participated in a supervision course designed and taught by COEHS faculty and staff in order to mentor student teachers. Records of the number of candidates mentored by each teacher from our extensive cooperating lists of over 15 districts are kept. Information about suitability of placements is provided to and noted by the OFE Director. Respective department chairs offer support to University supervisors. OFE offers, with funding from the Wisconsin Improvement Program, a summer training session for supervisors; in addition, a workshop is provided each semester. During these sessions supervision strategies are shared with use of videotapes and discussions and are a noted improvement to the field program.

Information sessions are provided for student teacher candidates before applications are due. Expectations, special programs, and assessment policies are outlined at this time. For both student teaching and internships, evaluation forms incorporating the Conceptual Framework and DPI standards, are shared with candidates. (See Standard III Notebook.) Candidates are required to provide Professional Goal Statements to their supervisors upon commencement of student teaching. They also must complete the self-reflection evaluation at least twice during their field assignment. At the conclusion of the placement, candidates write goal statements for their first job. Cooperating teachers are asked to complete the student teacher evaluation and provide a final narrative. UW Oshkosh is one of the only universities in the state requiring supervisors to visit candidates six times over the course of the semester. The university supervisor facilitates opening and exit triad conferences for each placement.

Development and Demonstration of Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions: Entry and exit criteria, grounded in the Conceptual Framework and aligned with state and professional standards, exist for candidates in all clinical practices. In examining these experiences collectively, one can see multiple assessments evaluate candidates’ performances and impact student learning. At Level I, the candidate is responsible for developing a personal statement reflecting on previous experiences in working with children and youth; often they are developed as a part of gateway course work. Statements are reviewed in the Admission I process by faculty teams prior to candidate interviews. During the interview, the candidate may be asked to reflect on those experiences and how they have impacted their career choices and their perspectives on education.

At Level II, candidates are required to work with individuals and/or populations with exceptionalities and from diverse groups. They are required to log time spent in each experience, submit verification evidence provided by an on-site supervisor, and submit a reflection on insights and ideas gained from the experience. COEHS faculty and staff as a part of the Admission I and II processes review this evidence. As part of the candidate interview process, candidates may be asked to reflect on their experiences.

At Level III, candidates are placed in clinical settings providing additional experiences with students with disabilities and/or from diverse groups. A variety of assessments document successful completion of experiences. Evaluations include: curriculum unit planning, implementation, and evaluation; classroom management project; and self-assessment. Three-way conferences among the candidate, cooperating teacher, and university supervisor evaluate performance at designated points throughout the semester. Evaluation tools focus effort, observation, reflection, and evaluation on defined knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

At Level IV, a rigorous screening of candidates takes place as a part of the Admission II process as previously defined in COEHS Assessment Plan. Candidates must meet all eligibility requirements; resubmit portfolios with additional evidence of curriculum planning, classroom management, and self-assessment; and receive faculty approval. Note: During student teaching 12 hours of Large Group Seminars are held on campus. Each supervisor meets with his/her cohort of candidates for a minimum of 16 hours of small group seminars, providing an opportunity to discuss candidate performances, classroom issues, portfolio development, and job search preparation. Each semester the COEHS Credit Examiner holds special seminars to assist candidates in filling out Wisconsin teaching licenses.

Back to Top Of Page

Several special programs to assist in professional growth were developed for candidates. To improve the quality of supervision and candidate experiences, out-of-area placements were restricted. At the same time, Urban Field Experience was developed for candidates desiring a setting with more student diversity. Candidates may request placement in one of four urban centers. These candidates are required to spend at least one day in an urban school and interview a teacher there, then submit a report to the OFE Director at the Student Orientation meeting prior to the beginning of placements. Candidates also provide weekly journal entries to OFE and meet as a group with the Director to discuss the challenges and successes of working in an urban setting. Feedback is gathered regarding placements and mentor teachers.

OFE promotes international student teaching which is arranged by a state consultant. These candidates spend a minimum of eight weeks stateside and ten weeks abroad. Weekly journals are required as are meetings with the Director prior to and after the experience.

Advance Preparation Programs
MSE – Counseling: Program candidates complete a five-credit Practicum experience following their initial counseling skills course. Practicum requires a total of 100 hours to include thirty hours of individual and ten hours of group counseling. Candidates meet with clients in an on-campus laboratory under the supervision of a faculty member. They also engage in limited counseling experiences in a school, community agency, or college setting under the supervision of experienced counselors. Candidates then complete a two-semester Internship in which they must accumulate 600 hours of supervised on-site work (240 hours of direct client contact) and attend on-campus seminars directed by faculty supervisors.

MSE – Curriculum and Instruction: MSE-Curriculum and Instruction candidates include licensed classroom teachers, teachers seeking licensure in secondary area, and persons seeking initial licensure and a master’s degree. For those pursuing licensure area, a practicum is required. Candidates already licensed are required to take teaching emphases courses. Each candidate must complete nine weeks of full-time or eighteen weeks of half-time teaching under direct supervision of a licensed on-site teacher and with the guidance from a COEHS faculty or staff member specialized in the licensure area. Members also comprise the evaluation team regarding the candidate's teaching effectiveness. Course and alumni surveys provide data as to Practicum outcomes. For example, candidates pursuing ESL, Bilingual/ Bicultural Education, or other additional regular classroom licensure programs experience Practicum as the culmination of these programs and application of program learning.

MSE – Educational Leadership: All candidates in the program may choose a field experience component as part of a culmination to their course work. For example, Practicum experience is required of all candidates pursuing DPI Library Media licensure and is required to complete 90 field experience hours on site of a school under the direct supervision of a certified school library/media specialist and with the guidance of a unit faculty member. Regional library media specialists offer direct input for the Practicum objectives.

MSE – Reading: This program acknowledges power of experience as a way for educators to become increasingly comfortable, competent, and confident while continuing to strengthen candidate practical experiences both through use of simulated experiences in pedagogical content courses and immediate contact with children in more experienced-based courses. In the latter case, faculty are responsible for supervision of candidates.

In Interactive Literacy Intervention, candidates are assigned to tutor a child in grades 1-4. Candidates are observed a minimum of five times with written and verbal feedback provided by the course instructor. Candidates in Readers’/Writers’ Workshop are assigned one or two students in grades 5-12 for a practicum experience. Workshop activities for individuals and small groups are prepared. The course instructor observes the teaching, reads and evaluates the lesson plans, and provides written and oral feedback. Class sessions allow candidates to share lesson planning and evaluation techniques.

The program understands skillful practitioners will use knowledge to make the best decisions in their unique settings. To advance their leadership field experiences Practicum candidates select from a menu of supervised activities. All experiences are documented and shared in a variety of venues that may include on-line technology, poster sessions, and public forums such as workshops. Examples of experiences include shadowing and interaction with a school-based reading specialist, program generation, and professional development planning.

MSE – Special Education: Graduate candidates pursuing licensure are required to take Teaching Experiences with Children and Youth with Disabilities and Advanced Practicum Experience in Special Education as pre-student teaching field experiences. Emergency licensed on-the-job teachers are required to take Field Experiences in Special Education instead. Candidates are also required to complete 18 weeks of student teaching through Student Teaching in Cross Categorical Special Education P-9 and 6-12. Elective options for field experiences exist for non-licensure candidates.

STANDARD IV: DIVERSITY

Back to Top Of Page

Initial Preparation Program
COEHS efforts are supported in part from new attention to diversity issues within the UW System and UW Oshkosh as seen in Plan 2008: Educational Quality through Racial and Ethnic Diversity (see www.uwsa.edu/multcult/plan2008/dpfinal), (NOTE: Web page no longer active as of 2/19/2008) having one specific focus – recruiting students from diverse backgrounds. The latter is seen in the UW Oshkosh Design for Diversity initiative, providing additional incentive and requiring annual accountability for efforts in this area. It is further supported by ongoing definition of the Governing Ideas. The Strategic Plan also identified diversity as a key area of focus. The COEHS Human Relations Committee now functions with new leadership and assumes the role of a de facto Advisory Council on Cultural Diversity to examine issues, insights, and ideas related to diversity of staff, candidates, and field experiences and make recommendations for moving PEP forward.

Design, Implementation and Evaluation of Curriculum and Experiences: For PEP, the Conceptual Framework identifies knowledge of culture and understanding of diversity as two critical institutional standards candidates are expected to develop. By retaining and tightening the DPI Human Relations Code requirement, attention to diversity and culture form an integral part of the PEP curriculum, beginning in the two primary gateway instructional experiences for candidates. During these courses, candidates begin work to complete 25 hours of fieldwork with populations representing racial and ethnic diversity and 25 hours of fieldwork with populations with disabilities. Since our initial visit, the Human Relations diversity requirements are more closely linked to the gateway course “Individual, School and Society”, integrated as a part of course expectations and reviewed more closely by individual instructors. Release time provides for a staff member to work with the Human Relations Committee to aggressively identify, recruit, and establish relationships with additional field experience sites. This effort made those sites more appropriate for complying with guidelines to better meet the requirements. Field Experiences Director Petesch and Associate Dean Ford met with Lorraine Sams to discuss diversity concerns with Oshkosh Area School District SAIL and after school programs – Human Relations sites for PEP candidates. In general, COEHS is more aggressive in monitoring the clinical field experiences of our candidates by redesigning forms to better collect demographic information on sites where candidates are placed. This data will also inform our thinking as we continue to plan and improve programs.

Expectations related to culture and diversity are now assessed as a part of the Admission I Performance-based Portfolio process for entrance into PEP. Concurrent enrollment in gateway courses is required for Admission I application ensuring more candidates having information, support, and supervision in completing Human Relations Code requirements. Candidates must provide evidence of completion and verification of the 25 contact hours working with diverse populations. Likewise, candidates must submit a detailed written plan for completing additional hours of contact with individuals with disabilities prior to program admission. Candidate reflection is required on the experience in light of the performance standards. These expectations are further reviewed for Admission II assessment when all candidates must submit evidence experiences were completed.

Experiences Working with Diverse Faculty: As stated, COEHS supports system and university initiatives related to Plan 2008 and encourages the use of System resources such as the Institute for Race and Ethnicity to support faculty efforts. For example, The College used System funding for a faculty seminar, featuring the reading Getting Beyond Race, which focused on issues related to race and ethnicity. Molefi Kete Asante, the internationally known author for Afrocentric Idea, was invited as distinguished professor and hosted a seminar. “A Visit with Molefi Asante” video won the Award Of Merit in the annual Wisconsin Association of Public, Education, and Government Channels competition. Another faculty initiative used Race/Ethnicity grant funding for a reading seminar to focus on issues related to creating a positive climate for language minority high school students, and involved the Acting Dean, faculty members, local teachers, and counselors in Saturday morning book discussions featuring two works – So Much to Say: Adolescents, Bilingualism & ESL in the Secondary School and Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy and Civic Courage. There is increased COEHS support for scholarship in the areas of multi-cultural, global, cross-cultural, and ESL issues including attendance at a variety of professional forums.

Likewise, COEHS also supports UW Oshkosh Design for Diversity, which focuses broadly on diversity issues and requires annual reporting of efforts. A new affirmative action officer, added at the university level, brings a renewed commitment to this role. She met with all COEHS departments involved in current searches for new faculty positions to discuss means for expanding the pool with a greater likelihood of attracting faculty from diverse backgrounds. An internal workshop on Affirmative Action was held. COEHS supports faculty attendance at international conferences to promote available positions within more diverse professional organizations. All faculty positions are posted in two publications: Black Issues in Higher Education and Hispanic Outlook and advertised directly with Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic-Serving Institutions and specialized professional organizations.

Most importantly, COEHS hired Dr. Coballes-Vega as Associate Dean in June 1999. As the first woman to serve within the College and also the first person of color to serve within the university in that position, she brings a strong commitment to and heightened awareness of issues in this area. Administrative Council time was used to carefully review affirmative action guidelines with department chairs and program directors.

The Professional Education Faculty and Administration profile includes 27 females and 24 males including five persons of color. Ethnic groups identified are two Asian, and one each of African American, Hispanic, and Native American. (See Standard V Notebook.)

Experiences Working With Diverse Candidates: COEHS supported initiatives:
Dr. Hones

• received five-year $1,186,134 Title VII ESEA for Bilingual Education Personnel training grant from the US Department of Education
• organized campus recruitment for bilingual high school students
• received $3500 grant from the UW System Institute on Race and Ethnicity for the Hmong Language, Culture, and Learning project
  Drs. Henn-Reinke and Hones
• met with area ESL Coordinators, High School Principals, and Deans to discuss the COEHS Bilingual and ESL programs concurrent with the First Annual UW Oshkosh Language, Culture, and Education Institute
  Dr. Petesch
• met with Director of the Fond du Lac 21st Century Community Learning Center to discuss potential collaboration projects focusing on Language Arts and Science providing positive learning experiences for members of the Hmong community
  Dr. Coballes-Vega
• received three UW Oshkosh Refugee Teacher Training grants ($93,606) awarded to 18 teacher education program candidates with refugee status for financial aid support
  Drs. Hankes and Fast
• presented “Anishinabe Teachers for Anishinabe Children Project” at University Celebration of Scholarship Week 2000
• sponsored Faculty College on “Education for Indigenous Learners” with Charles Lovitt and Matt Skoss from Australia
• received UW Oshkosh Diversity Innovations Grant program grant for the “Improving Mathematics Achievement of Native American College Students by Improving Reservation High School Mathematics Instruction” projects
  

Back to Top Of Page
Faculty members serve as mentors providing additional support for students of color. Students from Ghana participated in a three-week Teachers of Culture Internship Program spending one week at UW Oshkosh and two weeks in internships in area schools. COEHS supports university student organizations (Hispanic Cultures United, the American Indian Student Association, the Black Student Union, the Hmong Student Union, and the Asian Student Association) assisting students from diverse backgrounds and COEHS student organizations including Student Wisconsin Education Association (SWEA), Student Council for Exceptional Children (SCEC), Kappa Delta Pi (KDP) in their efforts to recruit and retain peers from diverse backgrounds. Several faculty presented for these organizations. For example, Dr. Hankes presented “Understanding Native American Culture” at the African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American Student Leadership Conference. The College also supports community events such as the Annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Citywide Celebration and the annual Oshkosh Area Race Unity Social of which Dr. Kisubi was a founding member of the organizing committee.

Experiences Working with Diverse Students in P-12 Schools: In an increasingly diverse community, efforts are made to strengthen candidates’ experiences working with diverse student populations. Opportunities to form partnerships with local schools for field-based courses such as the Learning Community Integrated Block, bringing together reading, science, and social studies methods courses in a clinical experience, are encouraged.

COEHS commitment is seen in this area by examining recent policy changes in out-of-area student teaching placement requests. The Urban Field Experience Program provides interested students the opportunity to student teach in Wisconsin's major metropolitan areas: Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, and Beloit. PEP Director Cook and Field Experience Director Petesch represented UW Oshkosh at the Urban Teacher World in Milwaukee.

In addition, faculty initiatives provided more opportunities for candidates: 1) “virtual” field experiences in diverse settings through the use of technology bringing candidates together with children in the Milwaukee Public Schools; 2) “urban corridor” initiatives provide more direct field experiences in school and agency settings serving children from diverse racial, cultural, ethnic, economic, and linguistic backgrounds particularly for students of early childhood, early literacy, and ESL programs; and 3) campus visits by educators like YW Global Career Academy Charter School (Milwaukee) Principal Buckingham. Dr. Wineberg lead an Urban Field Experience at the Academy and Dr. Genisio received a $97,463 federal grant to create the Greater Oshkosh Even Start (GOES) program, providing tutoring and teaching opportunities for pre- and in-service teachers with diverse families and children.

COEHS program candidates worked with P-12 students through the following projects:

• pre-college summer camp program for Native American high school students interested in becoming teachers
• three-day recruitment workshops for American Indian students from reservations in Wisconsin, including shadowing UW Oshkosh students
• two projects funded by the UW Oshkosh Diversity Innovations Grant program for “From the Valley to the Campus: Recruitment Visits for Minority Language Students” and “Understanding Hmong America: Twin Cities Field Experience for UW Oshkosh Students”
  
  COEHS also supported new international efforts. For example, Dr. Fiedler received a grant from the Vander Putten International Fund to establish a collaborative relationship with the Center for Special Education, University College Worcester, Britain. Dr. Koyzis also received a grant from the Fund to establish a collaborative relationship with the University of Thessaly (UT) in Greece. In addition, Director Petesch facilitated international field experiences with destinations such as Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia.

Advanced Preparation Programs
MSE – Counseling: A core value of the Counseling program is “social and cultural diversity”. Each program course focuses on knowledge of culture and understanding of diversity. Social and Cultural Foundations of Counseling focuses on this core value; however a foundation is built in initial course work as several multicultural theories of counseling are explored. At program level, a variety of diversity issues are examined: recognition of social, cultural, and political factors influencing mental health and interventions; factors of substance abuse which have particular relevance for distinct groups; misconceptions about working with diverse clients; consideration of career development concepts for individuals from diverse backgrounds; bias in assessment instruments and processes; and differences in communication styles and approaches. In both practicum and internship, candidates are assessed on their abilities to apply what they have learned to show effectiveness in working with children and adults from diverse groups. The program also shows its commitment to diversity in attracting and supporting candidates from under-represented groups and has graduated more candidates of color than most other graduate programs.

MSE – Curriculum and Instruction: Candidates in MSE-Curriculum and Instruction reside in the region, consequently, reflecting the overall population of the area. Through the Title VII Grant for the preparation of ESL and Bilingual/Bicultural Education teachers and