New York University Teacher
Education Program
TEAC Inquiry Brief
CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON TEACHING AND LEARNING
New York University Teacher Education Program
TEAC Inquiry Brief
Authors:
Robert Tobias
Director, Center for Research on Teaching & Learning
Member of the Teacher Education Working Group
Member of the Teacher Education Council
Clinical Professor of Teaching & Learning
Rosa Maria Pietanza
Coordinator of TEAC Internal Audit
Member of the Teacher Education Working Group
Coordinator of NYU School Partnerships
Master Teacher
Joseph P. McDonald
Chair, Teacher Education Working Group
Member of the Teacher Education Council
Professor of Teaching & Learning
Faculty Approval: May 27, 2011
(Evidence available at the NYU internal Blackboard site: STEINHARDT - TEACHER
EDUCATION ACCREDITATION COUNCIL (ORGSITE.STEINHARDT.TEAC)
Submitted to the Teacher Education Accreditation Council
Date: May 31, 2011
(Final Revision: November 15, 2011)
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Contents
1.0
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
1.1 Brief History...........................................................................................................................
1.2 Guiding Philosophy and Orientation .....................................................................................
1.3 Program Areas, Levels, Specialties, and Options ..................................................................
1.4 Program Demographics ..........................................................................................................
1
2
4
5
2.0
CLAIMS AND RATIONALE FOR THE ASSESSMENTS
2.1 NYU Teacher Education Claims ............................................................................................ 11
2.2 Rationale for Assessment ....................................................................................................... 13
3.0
METHOD OF ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................. 15
3.1 Domain Referenced Student Teacher Observation Scale (DRSTOS-R) Description ............ 16
3.2 New York State Teacher Certification Exams (NYSTCE) Scores Description .................... 18
3.3 Student Teacher End-of-Term Feedback Questionnaire (ETFQ) Description ...................... 20
3.4 Educational Beliefs Multicultural Attitudes Survey (EBMAS) Description ......................... 21
3.5 Grade Point Averages Description ......................................................................................... 23
3.6 Program Exit Survey Description .......................................................................................... 24
3.7 One-Year Follow-Up Survey Description ............................................................................. 25
3.8 Graduate Tracking Study Description .................................................................................... 26
3.9 Graduates’ Value-Added-Modeling (VAM) Effects on Pupils’ Standardized Test Scores
Description ............................................................................................................................. 28
4.0
RESULTS
4.1 Summary of Overall Findings ................................................................................................ 29
4.2 Detailed Results for Each Measure ........................................................................................ 32
4.2.1 DRSTOS-R ................................................................................................................... 32
4.2.2 New York State Teacher Certification Exams (NYSTCE) Scores ............................... 37
4.2.3 Student Teacher End of Term Feedback Questionnaire (ETFQ) ................................ 41
4.2.4 Educational Beliefs and Multicultural Attitudes Survey (EBMAS) ........................... 42
4.2.5 Grade Point Averages (GPA) ...................................................................................... 44
4.2.6 Program Exit Survey .................................................................................................... 46
4.2.7 One-Year Follow-Up Surveys ..................................................................................... 49
4.2.8 Graduate Tracking Study .............................................................................................. 51
4.2.9 Graduates’ Value-Added Effects on Pupils Standardized Test Scores ....................... 54
5.0
DISCUSSION AND PLAN
5.1 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 55
5.2 Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 56
5.2.1 Progress on the First IB Plan ........................................................................................ 56
5.2.2 The Plan Going Forward .............................................................................................. 58
6.0
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 60
i
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
7.0
New York University
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Internal Audit ....................................................................................................... 64
Appendix B: Capacity ................................................................................................................ 108
Appendix C: Qualifications of the Faculty ................................................................................. 125
Appendix D: Program Requirements .......................................................................................... 138
Appendix E: Evidence................................................................................................................. 144
Appendix F: Local Assessments ................................................................................................ 151
Appendix G: Accreditation of Professional Education Programs................................................ 174
ii
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.3
Registered Teacher Education Curricula Options 2010-2011
1.4a
Enrolled Students by Gender, Ethnicity, Registration Status, Full-time, Part-Time
Fall 2010
6
1.4b
New Student Enrollment in Teacher Education Undergraduate and Graduate
2006-2010
7
1.4c
Total Enrolled Undergraduate Majors, Fall 2010
8
1.4d
Total Enrolled Graduate Majors, Fall 2010
8
1.4e
Steinhardt Full-time and Adjunct Faculty, Fall 2008 – Spring 2011
9
1.4f
Teacher Education Faculty by Rank, Gender & Ethnicity, 2010-2011
10
2.1
NYU Claims Mapped to TEAC and NYS Standards
11
2.2
Summary of Measures, Standards, and Participants for Inquiry by Claim
14
3.3
Alignment between ETFQ items and NYU’s claims
21
4.1
Summary of Assessments of Claims
31
4.2.1a Percentage of Late-Placement Student Teachers Meeting Standards on the
Domain Referenced Student Teacher Observation Scale Revised (DRSTOS-R)
by Academic Year
5
34
4.2.1b Summary of Performance on DRSTOS-R Total Scores for Student Teachers in
Their Last Placements by Program Certification Areas, Fall 2006 – Spring 2010 37
4.2.2
Mean Scaled Scores, Effect Sizes, and Passing Rates for Steinhardt Teacher
Education Graduates on New York State Teacher Certification Exams (NYSTCE):
Graduates from 2006 – 2010
39
4.2.3
Mean Scores on the Claim Scales on the End of Term Feedback Questionnaire for
Steinhardt Students in Their Final Student Teaching Placement: Classes of 2006
and 2010
42
4.2.4
Mean Scores and Performance against Program Standards on the EBMAS for
BS and MA Steinhardt Teacher Education Program Completers in the
Class of 2010
iii
44
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
4.2.5a Mean GPAs of NYU BS Teacher Education Graduates by Claims Degree,
Classes of 2006 – 2010
45
4.2.5b Mean GPAs of NYU MA Teacher Education Graduates by Claims Degree,
Classes of 2006 – 2010
45
4.2.5c Mean CCT GPA by Certification Area Program, Classes of 2006 – 2010
46
4.2.6
Numbers and Percents of Steinhardt Teacher-Education Program Completers Who
Reported on the Program Exit Survey that Their Programs Prepared Them Very
or Moderately Well to Begin Teaching, Classes of 2009 and 2010
48
4.2.7
Numbers and Percents of Steinhardt Teacher-Education Program Completers Who
Reported on the One-Year Follow-Up Survey that Their Programs Had Prepared
Them Very or Moderately Well to Begin Teaching, Classes of 2007 – 2009
50
4.2.8a Comparison of the Demographics of NYC Schools in which NYU Graduates First
Taught and All NYC Schools Disaggregated by School Type, Sept.2004 – Sept.
2008 Graduates
52
4.2.8b Retention Status and Years of Teaching for Steinhardt Graduates Who Began
Teaching in New York City Public Schools within One Year of Graduation,
Classes of 2004 – 2008 (including Sept. 2008 graduates)
53
4.2.9
Mean Actual-Versus-Expected ELA and Math Test Gains for Pupils of Teacher
Education Graduates and Their Percentile Rank among All District Teachers with
Similar Years of Experience (NYU Graduates Teaching ELA in Grades
4 – 8 During 2008)
55
A.1
TEWG-Generated Answers to Internal Auditors’ Questions
B.1
[Table 5 data]: Capacity for Quality: A Comparison of Program and Institutional
Statistics
110
B.2
[Table 6 data]: Capacity for Quality: Intra-Institutional Statistics
117
B.3
Steinhardt Full-Time Teacher Education Faculty by Rank,
Fall 2010 – Spring 2011
122
Comparison of Full-Time Steinhardt and University Faculty by Rank
2009 – 2011
123
Comparison of Full-Time Steinhardt and University Faculty by Gender and
Ethnicity 2008 – 2011
124
B.4
B.5
iv
94
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
B.6
C.1
New York University
Comparison of Faculty Salary (Mean) for Steinhardt and the University
2008-2010
Full Time Teacher Education Faculty 2010 – 2011
124
125
D.1.1 Graduate and Undergraduate NYS Registered Teacher Education Curricula
Options with Credit and Course Requirements
141
G.1
174
Accreditation of NYU Professional Education Programs
v
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
LIST OF FIGURES
4.2.1a By-Item Percentage Passing for BS Late-Placement Student Teachers,
Fall 2006 – Spring 2010
35
4.2.1b By-Item Percentage Passing for MA Late-Placement Student Teachers,
Fall 2006 – Spring 2010
36
4.2.2a Mean Scaled Score for Most-Frequently Taken NYSTCE Content Specialty
Tests-B.S. Graduates 2006 -2010
40
4.2.2b Mean Scaled Score for Most-Frequently Taken NYSTCE Content Specialty
Tests-M.A. Graduates 2006 -2010
41
A.1
Cycle of Internal Audit
66
A.2
TEAC Internal Audit Chart
71
vi
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
1.0 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
1.1 Brief History
New York University (NYU) is one of the world’s leading research universities.
Founded in 1831, it has grown from a student body of 158 in its first semester to more than
50,000 students today, making it also one of the world’s largest universities. It is accredited by
the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, and is one of only 60 members of the
distinguished Association of American Universities. The faculty has over 3,100 full-time
members whose research and teaching encompass virtually the entire scope of the arts, sciences,
social sciences, and professions. NYU grants more than 25 different degrees, and enrolls
students from every state as well as 130 other countries. NYU students attend 18 schools and
colleges at six major centers in Manhattan and Brooklyn, as well as a new comprehensive liberal
arts college in Abu Dhabi. Manifesting NYU’s ambition to be the first globally networked
university, students also study at NYU campuses in London, Madrid, Paris, Berlin, and other
European cities, and in Beijing, Shanghai, Accra, Tel Aviv, and Buenos Aires. Despite its
vastness, however, NYU is also deliberately de-centralized in its teaching and learning
communities, which tend to be small to moderate in size, and centered on faculty-led programs
of study which exhibit unique characteristics. In this sense, New York University mimics New
York itself – vast city of mostly intimate neighborhoods.
The global ambition of NYU is distinctly 21st century, but it grows from an early seed.
NYU founder Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury in the Jefferson and Madison
administrations, aimed to establish "in this immense and fast-growing city,” as he put it, “a
system of rational and practical education fitting for all and graciously opened to all." He was
inspired in part by the founders of the University of London, with whom he communicated. As
they did too, he envisioned a university inspired by and imbued with the intense activity and
energy of city life and city commerce. He spoke of NYU as being “in and of the city,” but even
then a city linked with other parts of the world.
In 1890, following Gallatin’s logic, at a time of immense ferment in American schooling
and in the cultural make-up of New York, NYU opened the first university-based graduate
school dedicated to the advanced education of teachers and school administrators. Thus NYU
implicitly confronted what was then the prevalent idea – and is lately an emerging one – that
universities are not essential to the education of educators, and that practical knowledge alone,
rather than integrated practical and theoretical knowledge, is sufficient input for learning to
teach. The new school insisted otherwise. It was called the School of Pedagogy, and was the
forerunner of today’s Steinhardt School which remains the NYU home of teacher education.
Over the course of the twentieth century, the School also became the NYU home of graduate and
undergraduate professional education in media, applied psychology, physical and occupational
therapy, nutrition, music, and the visual arts. All of these programs emerged from an initial
focus on the learning needs of pre-collegiate youth. Meanwhile, the philosophy of teacher
education at NYU became gradually steeped in this unique institutional evolution of loosely
allied professional programs and academic diversity. It drew as well on the NYU history of
linking Gallatin’s “practical and rational” knowledge (or what we would call today practical and
theoretical/research-based knowledge), and also on his idea of drawing energy for education
from a city well connected with a larger world.
1
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
1.2 Guiding Philosophy and Orientation of NYU Teacher Education
NYU teacher education spans many areas and Steinhardt departments, as discussed
below, and each area has distinguishing values – repeating the NYU organizational pattern
mentioned above of breadth mediated by intimacy. These values range from a focus in science
education on hands-on “doing” science and informal outside-of-school settings for learning
science, to a special emphasis in elementary education on teaching children with disabilities, to a
focus in art education on the power of art to advance social justice. At the same time, the NYU
Teacher Education Program as a whole has a general pedagogical core (see Appendix D), an
organizational core (see below and also Appendix A), and at least five general program core
values, as follows:
1. To be in and of the city and engaged deeply in New York schools.
2. To integrate theory and practice pro-actively rather than expect students to do it on their
own.
3. To promote intercultural openness as a tool for teaching – and in this sense to be in and of
the world.
4. To value content knowledge (disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and inter-professional), and
also pedagogical knowledge as crucial for effective teaching.
5. To engage habitually in organizational self-scrutiny, and in the process to contribute to
the knowledge base for effective teaching and teacher education.
The first three of these core values are associated with Gallatin’s founding impulses,
while the fourth was evident in the 1890 decision to open a Graduate School of Pedagogy – at a
time when situating teacher education within a university context was a bold novelty. The fifth
is the product of more recent history – namely, the organizational demands of forming a new
Department of Teaching & Learning in the 1980s, the mandatory re-registration of all New York
State teacher education programs in the 1990s, and the accountability demands on teacher
education that have marked the early 21st century. It is also the product of NYU’s rise as one of
the world’s great research universities. These have all pressed the teacher education faculty to
articulate the program’s theory of action, to assess the value that the program adds to the
education of the students whom NYU teachers teach, and to participate in the effort to build a
deep and trustworthy scholarship of teacher education.
All five of these core values have shaped the claims presented in this brief, and account
for numerous features of program design– including recently developed ones. First, the
orientation to the city accounts for NYU’s successful project over the last five years to build a
large network of partner secondary schools in some of New York City’s poorest neighborhoods,
as well as its efforts launched this year to build a comparable network of elementary schools.
This orientation also accounts for the emphasis across the program’s core courses and fieldwork
on the role that even the poorest communities can play as resources for children, youth, families,
and teachers. Finally, it accounts for how NYU discharges its obligations under state registration
and TEAC accreditation to educate teachers to be caring professionals.
Second, the orientation toward pro-active integration of theory and practice accounts for
the extensive emphasis at NYU on scaffolded fieldwork (including recent changes to pre-student
teaching fieldwork), for the substantial number (including recent additions) of field-based
seminars and field-based courses, for a faculty whose members across ranks include many with
deep roots in and connections to practice, and for an emphasis on helping candidates learn how
2
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
to reflect in and on action (Schon, 1983, 1987). It also accounts for the program’s recent efforts
(in science education, social studies education, and English education) to experiment with what
are called residency models, or intense but scaffolded immersions in practice settings (Grossman
& Loeb, 2008; NCATE, 2011). Finally, it accounts for NYU’s embrace of what its first TEAC
Brief called dynamic tensions at the heart of teacher education – for example, between the
demands of content mastery and the uniqueness of each student, and between technical ends and
democratic ones (Taub, Tobias & Mayher, 2005). Programs that pro-actively work to integrate
theory and practice (as well as campus and field) must learn to live with dynamic tensions.
Third, the orientation to promote intercultural openness as a tool for teaching accounts for
the recent development of cross-national programs at NYU in the teaching of Spanish, Chinese,
and French; for an increase in the number of international teacher candidates; for plans to
develop study-away opportunities (including fieldwork) in teacher education; and for increased
efforts across areas to ensure that NYU teacher candidates gain proficiency in teaching English
language learners. It also accounts for efforts across the program core and program areas to
ensure that NYU teacher candidates acquire an ethic of cultural respect in the face of probable
cultural mismatch between their own backgrounds and the backgrounds of increasing numbers of
their students (Rogers-Sirin & Sirin, 2009). Today’s NYU candidates launch their teaching
careers amid the greatest mass migration of peoples and contact among cultures the world has
ever known (Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 2002). Being “in and of the city” of New York,
the city of immigrants, gives NYU a unique position for helping future teachers develop global
competence within and beyond US borders.
Fourth, the orientation toward equal attention to content knowledge and pedagogical
knowledge - evident in the 1890 launch of teacher education at NYU – has continued to shape it
in the century since. For example, NYU’s Steinhardt School houses art, music, and
communication programs, as well as teacher education in these areas. It also houses programs
in sociology, history, philosophy, psychology and the health sciences that generate and teach
knowledge crucial for teaching. This orientation also accounts for NYU’s efforts to build and
maintain strong connections between the teacher education faculty and the NYU Arts & Science
Faculty. These efforts include the establishment (now seven years old) of a joint oversight
committee of members from both faculties (the Teacher Education Council); participation in the
Carnegie Corporation’s Teachers for a New Era Network; participation in the Woodrow Wilson
Foundation’s scholarship programs in math and history education, and in the Math for America,
Noyce Scholarship, and Clinically Rich Integrated Science (CRISP) programs in math and
science; new joint efforts with the NYU campuses in Shanghai, Paris, Madrid, and London; and
co-teaching efforts between science and science education faculty, and between history faculty
and social studies education faculty. Knowing that out-of-school factors can impede or support
student learning and development, NYU promotes conversations between Steinhardt teacher
educators and Steinhardt health educators, and between Steinhardt faculty overall and the faculty
of the Silver School of Social Work. At the same time, NYU experiments with a number of nonuniversity teacher education partners – from The American Museum of Natural History to the
Great Oaks Charter Schools – in efforts to create new models of teacher education for the 21st
century.
Finally, the orientation toward organizational self-scrutiny accounts for NYU’s expansion
and refinement of measures of institutional effectiveness, as this Brief amply demonstrates. It
accounts too for the faculty’s enhancement of internal audit procedures, and its plans to expand
3
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
their use (see Appendix A). It accounts for data-informed program revisions underway – for
example, greater emphasis on fieldwork and on topics from classroom management to English
language learners to working with parents. And it accounts for the openness of the faculty to
systematic research studies of NYU teacher education. These include rigorous internal ones - for
example, those by Hummel-Rossi, Tobias & Ashdown (2009), Sirin & Collins (2009), Polleck &
Jeffery (2010), and Tobias, et al. (2008, 2009, 2010). And they include large external ones - for
example, those by Wyckoff, et al. (2008, 2009), Meier & Crowe (2009), and Poliakoff, Dailey &
White (2009). Today, as non-university teacher education programs proliferate, NYU remains
an outspoken advocate of the important role that research universities can play in the education
of teachers (Brabeck, 2008; Brabeck & Shirley 2003, Alter & Pradl, 2011). The fact that NYU
teacher education lives within a major research university gives it another tension to manage, but
also a huge opportunity to develop knowledge in teacher education. NYU faculty are now
studying how children learn science, how games can be used to teach science, how students
transition to high school, how teacher management and teacher care co-mingle in classrooms,
how schools manage discipline, how young black men progress through elementary and middle
school years, how school-university partnerships function, how the learning of English language
learners may best be assessed, how mathematics disability intersects or not with reading
disability, and much more of great usefulness to teacher education (see Steinhardt presentations
at AERA, 2011).
1.3 Program Areas, Levels, Specialties, and Options
The NYU Teacher Education Program offers curricula leading to New York State initial
and professional teacher certification at the baccalaureate degree level and the master’s degree
level. These curricula are housed in program areas within three departments: the Department of
Teaching & Learning, the Department of Music and Performing Arts Professions, and the
Department of Art and Arts Professions. The program overall is housed within the NYU
Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, where it is overseen by a
University-wide Teacher Education Council, co-chaired by the Deans of Steinhardt and the
College of Arts and Science, and by the Teacher Education Working Group (TEWG) – a
committee comprised of key faculty and staff who are appointed annually by the Steinhardt Dean
in consultation with the Dean of the College of Arts and Science and the chairs of the four
departments. There is no Director of Teacher Education at NYU, but the Chair of TEWG plays
an overall coordinating role.
Table 1.3 lists the undergraduate and graduate teacher education curricula that are
registered with the New York State Education Department
(http://www.nysed.gov/heds/IRPSL1.html). These curricula are delivered (depending on
program area) in several formats or options. Most have undergraduate and graduate formats,
though some have only graduate formats – for example, dance and TESOL. Several offer dual
certification – childhood or early childhood teaching with special education, English or social
studies with educational theatre, and a foreign language with TESOL.
Some, though not all, of the graduate curricula have a one-year or “fast-track” option, and
some have a recently developed residency option that puts greater emphasis on fieldwork. Most
have three-semester “regular track” options, though others typically take four semesters to
complete for full-time students. Most enroll part-time students also who complete the program
at variable rates. All of these curricular options share a core curriculum as well as the core
4
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
values described above. All comprise the NYU Teacher Education Program, and are the subject
of this Brief.
TABLE 1.3 2010- 2011 Registered Teacher Education Curricula Options
Teaching Educational Theatre, All Grades
Teaching Music, All Grades
Teaching Dance, All Grades
Teaching Art, All Grades
Childhood Education
Early Childhood Education
Teaching English, 7-12
Teaching a Foreign Language 7-12 (Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Russian, or Spanish)
Teaching Biology 7-12
Teaching Chemistry 7-12
Teaching Physics 7-12
Teaching Earth Science 7-12
Teaching Mathematics 7-12
Teaching Social Studies 7-12
Bilingual Education for Teachers
Literacy (B-6, 5-12)
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL)
Special Education
Dual Certification:
Educational Theatre, All Grades, with English Education 7-12
Educational Theatre, All Grades, with Social Studies Education 7-12
Teaching a Foreign Language 7-12 (Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Italian,
Japanese, Latin, Russian, or Spanish) with TESOL;
Childhood Education/Childhood Special Education;
Early Childhood Education/Early Childhood Special Education
1.4 Program Demographics
Students
The total enrollment at NYU as of spring 2011 is 50,917. The total fall 2011 student
enrollment at the Steinhardt School is 6,493. Of this number, 2,562 are undergraduates and
3931 are graduate students. In fall 2010, 1111 Steinhardt students were enrolled in teacher
certification programs - 504 at the baccalaureate level, and 607 at the master’s level. The
demographic characteristics of these students are detailed in Table 1.4a. The program
enrollment by level (2006 to present) is described in Table 1.4b. The total number of
undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in individual program options leading to
certification is listed in tables 1.4c and 1.4d.
5
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
TABLE 1. 4a
Enrolled Students by Gender, Ethnicity, Registration Status, full Time, Part Time Fall 2010
Program Area
Ethnicity
ASIAN
Childhood
Education
Early Childhood
Education
Literacy (B-6, 5-12)
BIRACIAL
5
4
2
BLACK
Gender
NO
DATA
HISPANIC
WHITE
Registration Status
Sum of
TOT FEM
Sum of TOT
MALE
Sum of
FT TOT
Total
Sum of
PT TOT
4
3
2
17
28
3
22
9
31
2
3
1
1
3
11
15
21
18
0
3
14
14
7
7
21
21
Science Education
18
2
4
13
22
16
33
5
38
1
Special Education
69
6
13
31
34
165
300
18
300
18
318
Teachers of English
to Speakers of Other
1
1
3
1
15
31
3
18
16
34
13
Languages
Teaching a Foreign
32
1
3
7
8
61
95
17
92
20
112
Language 7-12
Teaching Art, All
2
5
1
3
10
24
37
8
21
24
45
Grades
Teaching Dance, All
2
1
9
1
6
21
38
2
21
19
40
Grades
Teaching
Educational
4
2
8
3
11
83
85
26
92
19
111
Theatre, All Grades
Teaching English,
13
4
6
9
20
61
93
20
99
14
113
7-12
Teaching
Mathematics 7-12
22
4
6
9
32
43
30
64
9
73
Teaching Music, All
25
1
3
6
6
55
68
28
86
10
96
Grades
Teaching Social
3
2
3
7
8
35
36
22
45
13
58
Studies 7-12
Grand Total
212
25
61
82
123
608
915
196
921
190
1111
Notes: Teaching a Foreign Language includes FL/TESOL dual majors and the Teachers of French Dual Program with GSAS. Educational Theatre includes majors with
dual status: Educational Theatre and English, and Educational Theatre and Social Studies; Special Education includes dual majors in Special Education/Childhood, Special
Education/Early Childhood, and Childhood Special Education and Early Childhood Special Education.
6
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
TABLE 1.4b
New Student Enrollment in Teacher Education 2006-2010
Undergraduate and Graduate
Graduate
FAST TRACK ONLY
Master’s Initial
Certification
FALL NUMBERS
Master’s Initial
Certification
Master’s Professional
Certification
Sum 06
Sum 06
Sum 06
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
343
308
155
Sum 07
249
Sum 07
Sum 07
Sum 08
Sum 08
Sum 08
Sum 09
Sum 09
Sum 09
Sum 10
Sum 10
Sum 10
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
218
176
219
185
148
60
204
102
77
84
182
Fall 06
Fall 06
Fall 06
Fall 07
Fall 07
Fall 07
Fall 08
Fall 08
Fall 08
Fall 09
Fall 09
Fall 09
Fall 10
Fall 10
Fall 10
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
Applied
Accepted
Enrolled
555
460
175
679
555
218
587
483
174
641
508
191
725
560
207
96
87
32
134
124
51
116
100
44
124
105
39
116
99
33
Applied
Fall 2009
Accept
Undergraduate
Fall 2006
Accept
Applied
Enroll
Applied
Fall 2007
Accept
Enroll
Applied
Fall 2008
Accept
Enroll
Enroll
Applied
Fall 2010
Accept
Enroll
Teaching and Learning
Freshmen
Teaching and Learning
Transfers
Music Ed & Ed Theatre
Freshmen
516
290
107
470
284
115
393
234
79
418
249
97
420
242
85
127
87
53
123
75
44
83
61
29
105
68
36
88
72
40
110
51
25
95
35
23
108
52
27
117
51
25
133
57
28
Music Ed & Ed Theatre
Transfers
TOTAL
14
10
7
18
10
8
17
8
5
17
9
7
16
10
4
767
438
192
706
404
190
601
355
140
657
377
165
657
381
157
7
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
TABLE 1.4c
Total Enrolled Undergraduate Majors Fall 2010 (Program Options Leading to Initial Certification)
Majors Fall 2010
Educational Theatre, All Grades
Teaching Music, All Grades
Teaching English 7-12
Degree
BS
BMUS
BS
Teaching a Foreign Language
Teaching Biology 7-12
Teaching Chemistry 7-12
Teaching Physics 7-12
Teaching Earth Science 7-12
Childhood Ed/Childhood Special Ed
Major
ETHR
MUED
ENGE
(all languages
combined)
SBIO
SCHM
SPHY
SESC
CHSE
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
BS
24
9
6
2
1
142
Early Childhood Ed/Early Childhood Special Ed
ECSE
BS
Teaching Mathematics 7-12
Teaching Social Studies: 7-12
MTHE
SOCT
BS
BS
71
42
37
504
Total
40
64
66
TOTAL:
TABLE 1.4d
Total Enrolled Graduate Majors Fall 2010 (Program Options & Codes Leading to Initial or
Professional Certification)
Majors Fall 2010
Major
Degree
Total
Teaching Art, All Grades
ARED
BS/MA
3
Teaching Art, All Grades
AREI & ARTA
MA
Teaching Art: All Grades
Teaching Dance, All Grades
Teaching Dance, All Grades
Ed Theatre All Grades & English 7-12
Ed Theatre All Grades & Soc Stud 7-12
Educational Theatre, All Grades
Teaching Music, All Grades
Instrumental Performance/Teaching Music: All
grades
Piano Performance, Teaching Music: All grades,
TESOL All Grades
Childhood Education
Early Childhood Education
Teaching English 7-12
Teachers of English 7-12
AREP
DATC
DATP
ETED
ETSS
EDTA
MUSA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
B.MUS/MA
MSND
B.MUS//MA
MSPD
TSOG
CHED
ECED
ENGL
ENGP
All languages
combined
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
1
2
34
31
21
43
4
MA
18
FLTF/FLT
MA
FLTS
SBLY
SBLP
SCHY
MA
MA
MA
MA
Teaching a Foreign Language
Teaching French as a Foreign Language (Joint
Degree GSAS)
Teaching a Foreign Language/TESOL
Teaching Biology 7-12
Teachers of Biology 7-12
Teaching Chemistry 7-12
8
35
7
32
8
33
8
30
29
20
50
14
1
2
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Teaching Physics 7-12
SPHY
MA
3
Childhood Ed/Special Education: Childhood
CSEC
MA
64
Early Childhood Ed/Special Ed: Early Childhood
ESEE
MA
Special Education: Childhood
Special Education: Early Childhood
Teaching Mathematics 7-12
Mathematics 7-12
Teaching Social Studies 7-12
Teachers of Social Studies, 7-12
Literacy B-6
Literacy 5-12
SECH
SEEC
MTHE
MTHP
SSST
SSSP
LITB
LITC
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
32
8
1
27
4
18
3
18
3
607
TOTAL:
Faculty
The number of full-time and adjunct (part-time) faculty in the Steinhardt School for the
last three years (fall 2008 to spring 2011) is presented in Table 1.4e. Data for the Steinhardt
faculty as a whole are presented here because many Steinhardt faculty members teach education
students as well as others. The latter especially include faculty affiliated with the departments of
Applied Psychology and Humanities and Social Sciences in the Professions.
TABLE 1.4e
Steinhardt Full-time and Adjunct Faculty, Fall 2008 to Spring 2011
Academic Year
Full-Time
Part-Time
Adjuncts
Teaching Assistants/
Graduate Assistants
2008-2009
271
647
184
2009-2010
259
695
183
2010-2011
262
991*
0
Total
831
878
991
*As of 2010-2011, graduate students who teach are appointed as adjunct professors under a program implemented in 2010 called
Financial Aid Reform (3 FAR3), hence the sudden elevation of this statistic.
For full-time faculty, teaching load at Steinhardt involves four to six courses per academic year
based on tenure/tenure-track or clinical/master teacher status. Part-time (adjunct) faculty teach a
maximum of two courses per semester, and complement the full-time faculty, bringing special
expertise and experience to the teacher education program, including in some cases current
school-based teaching experience. In the 2010-2011 academic year, 48% of teacher education
program courses (excluding content area courses and liberal arts courses for undergraduates)
were taught by full-time faculty members. See Table D.1.2 on Steinhardt’s password protected
website (www.Steinhardt/secure/TEAC).
Although members of the NYU Faculty of Arts & Science are not listed in Appendix B,
Table B.3, it is important to note that they too play a role in NYU teacher education – in both the
liberal arts preparation of undergraduate teacher candidates and in their content preparation in
certain areas (notably math, science, English, history, and foreign language).
Despite the wide involvement of NYU faculty in teacher education – both within and
beyond Steinhardt - it is nonetheless valid to speak of a distinct NYU teacher education faculty.
Its members are principally focused on teacher education, and are highly likely in any given
semester to teach teacher candidates and in ways deliberately shaped to contribute to the content
9
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
knowledge and/or pedagogical knowledge these candidates need to become effective teachers.
We define this faculty group as all members of the Department of Teaching & Learning;
members of the Art and Arts Professions Department who are expressly affiliated with the art
education program area; and members of the Music and Performing Arts Professions Department
who are expressly affiliated with the program areas of music education, educational theatre, and
dance education. This is the group of faculty whose members taught 48% of the program’s
pedagogical and pedagogical content courses in 2010-2011, as noted above. It is also the group
that met on March 23, 2011, to discuss a draft of this Brief, and that approved the Brief in an
electronic vote finalized on May 27, 2011.1
Of the 262 full-time Steinhardt faculty members during 2010-2011, 61 (23%) constitute
the teacher education faculty as defined above. The full-time faculty/student ratio in teacher
education is therefore approximately 1:18. Teacher education faculty by rank, gender and
ethnicity is presented in table 1.4f.
TABLE 1.4f
Teacher Education Faculty by Rank, Gender & Ethnicity, 2010-2011
Rank Steinhardt Teacher
Female
Male Asian
African
Education
American
Number (%)
Professor
11 (18)
3
8
1
White
1
9
Associate Professor
13 (21.3)
11
2
Assistant Professor
10 (16.4)
6
4
Clinical Professor
2 (3.3)
Clinical Associate Professor
4 (6.6)
4
Clinical Assistant Professor
5 (8.2)
3
2
1
4
Teacher or Master Teacher
12 (19.7)
10
2
2
10
Music Associate Professor
0
Music Assistant Professor
0
Visiting Associate Professor
1 (1.6)
Visiting Assistant Professor
3 (4.9)
Other(Assistant
Professor/Faculty Fellow
TOTAL
2
1
Hispanic
3
2
9
1
1
7
1
4
1
1
3
3
0
61
40
21
2
9
2
48
Table B.3 in Appendix B shows the breakdown of full-time faculty by rank for Steinhardt
overall and for the teacher education faculty. It is important to note here that the teacher
education faculty is an integral part of Steinhardt, contributing to the broader mission of the
School, and that many of its members also teach students in other Steinhardt programs.
1
Progress in conducting the Internal Audit and preparing the Inquiry Brief was tracked by a large group of NYU
faculty and administrators by means of an online Blackboard site (home.nyu.edu/ORGSITE.STEINHARDT.TEAC).
This group could and did read drafts of the Brief itself as well as all appendices, and suggest changes – either by
means of a listserv or by contacting the TEAC Coordinators. However, only the 61 Teacher Education faculty
members were eligible to vote.
10
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
More specific information about the NYU teacher education faculty is included in
Appendix C. Comparisons of the Steinhardt faculty with the NYU faculty overall in terms of
gender, ethnicity, and rank are included in charts presented in Appendix B.
2.0 CLAIMS AND RATIONALE FOR THE ASSESSMENTS
2.1 NYU Teacher Education Claims
As described in section one, the NYU Teacher Education Program has expansive goals
that derive from its history and the philosophical orientations of its faculty across numerous
program areas. In diverse ways that include the faculty’s research agendas, NYU studies efforts
to realize these goals, and adjusts both goals and designs by the light of such studies. The
following claims are fundamental to these larger goals, and are the basis of NYU’s assertion of
overall program effectiveness, as well as worthiness of accreditation under TEAC Quality
Principle One.
Claim 1: NYU Teacher Education Program graduates are competent and qualified in
their content knowledge.
Claim 2: NYU Teacher Education Program graduates are competent and qualified in
their pedagogical knowledge and in their pedagogical content knowledge.
Claim 3: NYU Teacher Education Program graduates are competent and qualified in
their clinical knowledge, meaning their knowledge of school and classroom contexts and
of students.
Claim 4: NYU Teacher Education Program graduates are caring professionals. That is,
they interact with students in ways that unconditionally accept students as they are, and
work confidently and competently to address the students’ educational needs.
Table 2.1 maps these claims (as well as the TEAC cross-cutting themes) against the
TEAC Quality Principles, and the New York State Teaching Standards.2
TABLE 2.1
NYU Claims Mapped to TEAC and NYS Standards
NYU Claims
Claim 1: NYU Teachers are
competent and qualified in their
content knowledge.
TEAC Standards
Quality Principle I (1.1) Program
candidates must understand the subject
matter they will teach.
Quality Principle I (1.4) Cross-cutting
theme 1: Candidates must demonstrate
that they have learned how to learn. . .
that they have acquired the dispositions
and skills. . . that will support life-long
learning in their field.
2
Adopted by the Board of Regents on January 11, 2011.
11
State Standards
Standard II: Knowledge of Content. .
. . Element II.1 (Demonstrate
knowledge of the content, including
relationships among central
concepts, tools of inquiry, and
structures and current developments
within discipline(s).)
Element II.2 (Understand how to
connect concepts across disciplines.
. .)
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
Claim 2: NYU Teachers are
competent and qualified in their
pedagogical knowledge and in
their pedagogical content
knowledge.
New York University
Quality Principle I (1.2) Program
candidates must be able to convert their
knowledge of subject matter knowledge
into compelling lessons. . . .
Quality Principle I (1.4) Cross-cutting
theme 3: Candidates must be able to use
appropriate technology in carrying out
their professional responsibilities.
Standard II: Knowledge of Content
and Instructional Planning.
Elements II.2 – II-6 (Relate lessons
to real contexts, use broad range of
instructional strategies, align to
learning standards, provide multiple
pathways to achievement, attend to
prior understanding, use appropriate
materials and resources.)
Standard III: Instructional Practice.
Elements III.1 – III.6 (Use researchbased practices, have high
expectations).
Claim 3: NYU Teachers are
competent in their clinical
knowledge, especially of
contexts and of students.
Quality Principle I (1.2) Program
candidates must
be able to convert their knowledge of
subject matter
into compelling lessons that meet the
needs of a wide
range of pupils and students.
(1.3) Program candidates
must be able to teach effectively in a
caring way
and to act on their knowledge in a
professional manner.
Quality Principle I (1.4) Cross-cutting
theme 2: Candidates must demonstrate
that they have learned accurate and
sound information on matters of race,
gender, individual differences, and
ethnic and cultural perspectives.
Claim 4: NYU Teachers are
caring professionals.
Quality Principle I (1.3) Program
candidates must be able to teach
effectively in a caring way and to act as
knowledgeable professionals.
Quality Principle I (1.4) Cross-cutting
theme 2: Candidates must demonstrate
that they have learned accurate and
sound information on matters of race,
gender, individual differences, and
ethnic and cultural perspectives.
12
Standard V: Assessment for Student
Learning. Elements V.1 – V.5 (Use
multiple measures to assess and
document student growth, evaluate
instructional effectiveness, and
modify instruction through analysis
of data).
Standard I: Knowledge of Students
and Student Learning, Elements I.1I.6 (Understand human
development; understand language
acquisition; know current research
on learning; be responsive to diverse
needs and interests; appreciate how
families, communities, and
technologies influence learning.)
Standard III: Instructional Practice.
Element III.2 (Communicate clearly
and accurately with students),
element III.6 (Monitor and assess
student progress and adapt to student
needs.)
Standard IV: Learning Environment.
Elements IV.1- IV.4 (Create and
manage safe, effective, challenging,
and supportive learning
environments).
Standard VI: Professional
Responsibilities and Collaboration.
Elements VI.1 – VI5 (Uphold
professional standards, collaborate
with colleagues and community,
communicate with parents, manage
non-instructional duties, comply
with relevant laws and policies.)
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
2.2 Rationale for Assessment
The NYU teacher education faculty has a strong commitment to ongoing evidence-based
self-inquiry. In 2004, the faculty established the Center for Research on Teaching and Learning
(CRTL) for the purpose of developing a research agenda and building an evidence base for the
study of teacher education at NYU. CRTL’s research, disseminated to faculty in internal and
external reports and faculty presentations, has informed ongoing faculty program decisionmaking and has provided most of the data used in this Inquiry Brief.
Specific design principles guided the design of the assessment system for this inquiry.
First, the inquiry uses multiple measures, methods, and perspectives to strengthen the internal
validity of inferences through convergence (see Table 2.2). Second, measures used for
determining that students meet institutional standards for graduation and requirements for state
certification are included among the multiple assessments. These measures include grade point
averages (GPA) and scores on the New York State Teacher Certification Exams (NYSTCE). To
increase content validity, the measures are tailored to align with the respective claims. Third, the
faculty established rigorous and rational standards for the assessment of the evidence for each
claim. For instance, rather than simply using the state passing standard for the NYSTCE exams,
NYU set a higher standard—an effect size = 0.80 standard deviations above the passing score, a
conventional standard for a large and educationally meaningful difference (Cohen, 1988).
Next, the assessment system includes a measure of the actual teaching performance of
our students in a clinical setting, the Domain Referenced Student Teacher Observation ScaleRevised (DRSTOS-R), which is based on the work of Charlotte Danielson (1996, 2007).
DRSTOS-R is a process and protocol for assessing the pedagogical proficiency of student
teachers by collecting evidence from observations of student teachers’ lessons supplemented by
pre- and post-lesson interviews, reviews of lesson plans, journals, and reflective essays. Since
the items for this scale were selected with the consensus of faculty from a pool developed by
Danielson, the scale not only shares the content validity established by Danielson, but also aligns
with faculty’s conceptualization of teaching excellence and the claims of the program.
The assessment system also recognizes that the qualities of an effective teacher go
beyond knowledge and skills that can be tested and behaviors that can be observed, Also
important are beliefs and attitudes toward teaching, learners and learning, and cultural
communities—or what Burant et al. (2007) refer to as teaching dispositions. Although these
dispositions are notoriously difficult to measure, the faculty believes they warrant the focus and
attention that assessment can provide. Beginning in 2004, the faculty participated in the
development of the Educational Beliefs Questionnaire (EBQ) which was designed to measure
two dispositional constructs: belief in the efficacy of teaching and social justice/caring. The
EBQ was used to assess the developing dispositions of teacher education students from 2004
until 2008. Although the data provided useful feedback, faculty felt that it defined and measured
dispositions too narrowly and did not assess a key focus of the program: the development of
multicultural attitudes. Therefore, in 2008, CRTL began developmental work on the
Educational Beliefs and Multicultural Attitudes Scale (EBMAS), the successor to the EBQ.
Evidence from factor analysis and internal consistency reliability analyses have indicated that
EBMAS provides valid and reliable measures of teaching efficacy and multicultural
13
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
TABLE 2.2
Summary of measures, standards, and participants for inquiry by claim
Claims
Claim 1:
Content
Knowledge
Measures
DRSTOS-R: Planning & Preparation
NYSTCE Exam Scores: Content Specialty
Tests
Student Teacher End-of-Term Feedback
Questionnaire (ETFQ)
Content Area GPA
Program Exit Survey
One-Year Follow-Up Survey
Claim 2:
Pedagogical
and
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge
DRSTOS-R: Instruction
NYSTCE Exam Scores: ATS-W Exam Score
Student Teacher ETFQ
Pedagogical Courses GPA
Program Exit Survey
One-Year Follow-Up Survey
Claim 3:
Clinical
Knowledge
DRSTOS-R: Class. Environ & Total Scores
Student Teacher ETFQ
EBMAS: Personal Teaching Efficacy 1 & 2
Teaching Skills GPA
Program Exit Survey
One-Year Follow-Up Survey
Pupils’ value-added standardized test scores
Claim 4:
Caring
Professionals
and CrossCutting
Themes
Caring Professionals: DRSTOS-R Classroom
Environment Domain
Caring Profs.: EBMAS: General Teacher
Efficacy
Caring Profs.: Exit & Follow-Up Surveys
Caring Profs.: Commitment to urban schools
Standards
Participants
Mean score of 3.0 for 80%
675 student teachers in Classes of
2007-10
1,950 graduates in Classes of ‘06‘10
1,309 student teachers in Classes of
2007-10
All BS & MA graduates 2006-10
209 graduates from May 2009 &
2010
314 graduates from May 2007 –
2009
675 student teachers 2007-10
1,937 graduates in Classes of 200610
1311 student teachers in 2007-10
All BS & MA graduates 2006-10
Pass rate of 90% and mean
score 0.8 SD > passing
Mean score of 4.0
Mean GPA of 3.0
80% respond Very or
Moderately Well
80% respond Very or
Moderately Well
Mean score of 3.0 for 80%
Pass rate of 90% and mean
score 0.8 SD > passing
Mean score of 4.0
Mean GPA of 3.0
80% respond Very or
Moderately Well
80% respond Very or
Moderately Well
Mean score of 3.0 for 80%
Mean score of 4.0
Mean score of 4.5
Mean GPA of 3.0
80% respond Very or
Moderately Well
80% respond Very or
Moderately Well
Effect size of 0.20, meaningful
but small
209 graduates from May 2009 &
2010
314 graduates from May 2007 –
2009
675 student teachers in 2007-10
1,311 student teachers in 2007-10
175 program completers in 2010
All BS & MA graduates 2006-10
232 graduates from May 2009 &
2010
322 graduates from May 2007 –
2009
190 program graduates teaching
ELA and/or math in grades 4 – 8 in
NYC (2008)
Mean score of 3.0 for 80%
675 student teachers in Classes of
2007-10
175 program completers in 2010
Mean score of 4.5
80% Very or Moderately Well
No stat. sig. differences in
demographics of grads’ schools
& all NYC schools
Standards based on City
Council investigative report
Mean score of 4.5
See surveys above
1,024 graduates from 2004-2008
who began teaching in NYC
80% Very or Moderately Well
See surveys above
Mean GPA of 3.0
All BS graduates; all incoming MA
students: 2006-10
Learning how to learn: NYSTCE Exam
Scores: Liberal Arts & Sciences Test
Pass rate of 90% and mean
score 0.8 SD > passing
1,850 graduates in Classes of 200610
Learning how to learn: DRSTOS-R
Professional Responsibilities Domain
Mean score of 3.0 for 80%
675 student teachers in Classes of
2007-10
Caring Profs.: NYCPS teacher retention rates
Caring & Multicultural Perspective (MC):
EBMAS: MC Attitudes/Social Justice Scale
Technology & MC Perspective: Exit & OneYear Follow-Up Surveys
Learning how to learn: Cross-cutting themes
GPA (BS); Total U/G GPA (MA)
14
1,108 graduates from 2004– 2008
who began teaching in NYC
175 program completers in 2010
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
attitudes/social justice. Empirical analysis of data for over 600 students with feedback from
faculty led to the setting of the program standard at a mean score of 4.5 on a 6-point scale.
Next, the faculty believes that an assessment system for self-inquiry must include the
voices of the teacher candidates themselves. The teacher candidates’ self-perceptions and
reports provide information about their confidence, sense of preparation, and satisfaction with
their performance and profession. Accordingly, the assessment system surveys students at three
key points in their pre-service and in-service training.
In order to make the assessment data meaningful for faculty program planning, the
evidence has been compared to available norms that provide standards for performance
comparisons. Since normative data are not readily available, NYU has had to be creative in
finding sources for comparative data. As one example, program exit and follow-up surveys
used items from Arthur Levine’s seminal study of schools of education (Levine, 2006), thereby
permitting normative comparison to Levine’s study sample. In a second example, the faculty
used a report by the New York City Council on teacher retention in the New York City public
schools (New York City Council, 2009), to establish standards for a measure of NYU graduates’
successful retention in teaching in inner-city schools.
Finally, the assessment system takes advantage of technological advances in electronic
data information systems maintained by state and city public education agencies to track
graduates reliably into the teaching profession and to obtain measures of their effectiveness in
teaching. CRTL has arranged with the New York City Department of Education to match and
merge data from their human resources and test data information systems to the electronic
records of NYU graduates in order to (1) monitor and assess employment and retention trends in
the New York City public schools, and (2) assess the graduates’ teaching effectiveness as
measured by the value-added-modeling (VAM) of state-test-score gains of their pupils in English
language arts and mathematics. The ultimate goal of the NYU Teacher Education Program is to
prepare graduates for entering the teaching profession and successfully educating their students.
The tracking data provide direct evidence of the attainment of these longer term goals. Although
the use of VAM to evaluate teacher effectiveness is controversial, incorporating VAM in
accountability systems as one among several measures of teacher effectiveness is widespread and
has received growing support (Steele, et. al., 2010). In this inquiry, VAM is used as Steele
recommends, namely as one measure of a graduate’s effectiveness or clinical competence.
3.0 Method of Assessment
As described in the previous section on the rationale of the assessment, the self-inquiry
used multiple measures and multiple methods to collect evidence. The reliability and validity of
all measures are grounded in theory and supported by empirical investigation, as reported in the
Results section.
This IB for continuing accreditation uses more assessments than the IB for initial
accreditation, including the following categories of evidence that were identified in Appendix E
of the initial IB as “not available at that time, but planned for future IBs”:
•
Category 6. Career retention rate for graduates. Retention rates for graduates
teaching in the New York City public schools are reported on pages 53-54.
15
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Category 11. Alumni self-assessment of their accomplishments. Data from the
Program Exit Survey and the One-Year Follow-Up Survey indicate graduates’ selfperceptions of the extent to which they were prepared in the essential elements of
teaching, pages 46-48 and 49-51, respectively.
Category 17. In-service teaching. For graduates who were teaching in the New York
City public schools (NYCPS), descriptions of graduates’ rates of employment and the
types of schools in which they were teaching are reported on pages 51-54.
Category 18. Standardized test scores and gains of the program graduates own
pupils. The value-added state test-score gains of pupils of graduates who were teaching
English language arts and/or mathematics in grade 4 – 8 in NYCPS are reported on pages
54-55.
•
•
•
Measures that were planned but not included in this IB are as follows:
•
•
•
Category 8. Evaluations by employers of graduates. Review of the annual teacher
performance reports generated by school principals, including NYU graduates, revealed
they were not sufficiently reliable, sensitive, or informative to be used in this self-study.
A new teacher effectiveness system that will be phased into New York State public
schools beginning in 2011-12 holds more promise for future self-studies.
Categories 12-16. Graduates’ professional advanced study, leadership, service,
and authoring. These data were to be obtained in a five-year follow-up survey of
graduates. However, the logistics of implementing this survey with a sufficient
response rate for meaningful inferences have proven challenging, and the data were not
obtained in time for this IB.
Category 19. Limited case studies of selected students. These were conducted as
part of our research, but are not included here due to IB page limits and the weak value
of the data as additional evidence. NYU believes the high cost and low inferential value
of more extensive case studies makes them inadvisable.
Details about each method of assessment are described below.
3.1 Domain Referenced Student Teacher Observation Scale (DRSTOS-R) Description
The DRSTOS-R (see Appendix F) is an observation protocol for rating the teaching
performance of student teachers, based on the work of Charlotte Danielson as presented in her
book, Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching (Danielson, 2007). The
DRSTOS-R has been used to assess the pedagogical proficiency of NYU’s student teachers with
few modifications from fall 2004 through the present. The items of the DRSTOS-R are aligned
with national frameworks for teaching, including the widely used standards of the Interstate New
Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC).
The protocol is administered by NYU field supervisors who are required to undergo a full
day of training, which includes rating videos of new teachers and moderated discussions aimed
at reaching a common understanding of the items and rubrics. Field supervisors must achieve an
acceptable level of inter-rater reliability in order to qualify for official administration of the
protocol. Items are rated using a four-point scale: (1) Not Yet Proficient, (2) Partially Proficient,
(3) Entry-Level Proficient, and (4) Proficient. The 21 items measure four domains of teaching
proficiency that are well aligned with the claims. The first is Planning and Preparation (6 items).
16
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
This domain assesses knowledge of content, state/city standards, curricular resources,
assessment, and using data for planning – all of which involve Content Knowledge (Claim1).
The second domain is Classroom Environment (7 items). It focuses on the quality of interactions
between and among students and teacher, class organization and routines, and behavior
management. All involve the skills of a Caring Professional (Claim 4) who has Clinical
Competence (Claim 3). The third domain is Instruction (7 items), which assesses the structure
and pacing of lessons, the differentiation of instructional goals and methods to accommodate
diverse learning styles and needs, and the ability to foster class discussion. These involve
Pedagogical and Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Claim 2). Finally, the fourth domain is
Professional Responsibilities (3 items). It assesses relationships with school staff and parents,
knowledge of the school and community, and the ability to reflect and grow as a practitioner,
indicators of Learning to Learn (a Cross-Cutting Theme). The Total Score requires the
integration of all skills and domains, an ability that again requires Clinical Competence (Claim
3). A single protocol is used for all program certification areas, consistent with Danielson’s
philosophy that the essential skills of teaching are common to all subject areas.3 The target
standard is 3, which signifies that the student demonstrates the proficiency expected of beginning
teachers. In rating student teachers, field supervisors use all available evidence collected during
the entire semester, including formal and informal observations, journals, lesson plans,
interviews and discussions, portfolios, etc.
Sample
NYU uses the DRSTOS-R for program evaluation, planning, and to inform conversations
about the developing proficiency of student teachers. It is not a requirement for graduation but
many instructors use it as one source of evidence in the grading of student teachers. The sample
included 675 student teachers (235 BS and 440 MA) who were in their final field placements
supervised by DRSTOS-trained field supervisors during the 2006-07 through 2009-10 academic
years. Empirical evidence of sample representativeness is presented in the results section.
Research Design
DRSTOS-R protocols are completed summatively by the trained field supervisors of the
sample participants at the end of each semester. Summative assessment means that the
supervisors are instructed to use the full range of evidence available to them from all of their
interactions with the participants during the entire semester, including formal
and informal observations, interviews, review of journals, reflections, and portfolios, pupil work,
and conversations with cooperating teachers. It should be noted that cooperating teachers are not
asked to complete a formal DRSTOS-R because of the absence of opportunities for scorer
training. At the end of the semester, field supervisors deliver the completed protocols to CRTL,
where the data are key-entered into a database. Diagnostic analysis is conducted on the database
to identify outliers for audit and correction.
Rater Reliability
To increase rater reliability, all participating field supervisors undergo a full-day training
session that includes an assessment of inter-rater agreement. The trainees independently
complete protocols assessing videos of lessons by new teachers. A standard set of videos is used
with the content of the lessons aligned with the subject area of the trainees. After each video is
3
Note, however, that the DRSTOS-R assessment process requires that the raters have knowledge and expertise in
the subject area of the student teachers they are rating and that they apply their expertise in the rating process.
17
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
rated, the protocols are collected and immediately computer-analyzed to assess the level of interrater agreement/discrepancy. The level of agreement is then reported back to the trainees who
engage in guided conversation focused on discrepancies in an attempt to reach common
understandings of the meaning of the terms in the rubric and the scoring system. Trainees who
are consistent outliers are invited to a follow-up session or not certified to administer the
protocol.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients applied to a matrix that used raters as items and DRSTOSR item ratings as cases were in the .73 - .88 range for six of the last eight training sessions,
indicating a moderate to high degree of internal consistency among the supervisors’ ratings.
Reliability and Validity of Ratings
The theoretical validity of DRSTOS-R ratings as measures of the essential skills of new
teachers and their overall pedagogical proficiency is discussed in the rationale for assessment
and the description of the protocol above. Internal consistency reliability was assessed through
the computation of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients on a sample of data extracted from the
operational database and reported in the results section. Empirical validity was examined using
the conceptual framework adapted by Onwuegbuzie (2007) that builds on Messick’s theory of
validity. Two types of construct validity were explored: structural validity and substantive
validity. Structural validity was assessed through the application of exploratory factor analysis
to the protocol data for a sample of student teachers from the operational database. The theory
underlying the DRSTOS-R is that its 21 items measure a single construct of pedagogical
proficiency, organized into four domains for diagnostic/instructional purposes. Accordingly, the
hypothesis is that a single factor will explain the majority of variance in the matrix of item intercorrelations, while high internal consistency within domains will support the utility of the
domain scores for making inferences about student specific strengths and weaknesses in
students’ teaching performance and the related claims.
Substantive validity assesses the evidence that the scores are based on the developing
pedagogical proficiency of the students. Since this proficiency is fostered by the program
courses and field experiences, it is a reasonable hypothesis that the DRSTOS-R scores of
students will increase with their time and experience in the program, as evidenced by higher
scores for student teachers in their second than first student teaching placements.
3.2 New York State Teacher Certification Exams (NYSTCE) Scores Description
In order to receive New York State certification as a teacher, graduates must pass the
examinations in their certification areas administered through the NYSTCE program.
Elementary education teachers must pass the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test (LAST), the
Elementary Assessment of Teaching Skills-Written (ATS-W), and the Elementary Education
Content Specialty Test (CST). Secondary education teachers must pass the LAST, the
Secondary ATS-W, and the CST for the core subjects they teach. These three sets of exams are
described by the New York State Education Department in the New York State Teacher
Certification Examination, an Introduction (2001) as follows:
The LAST examines students’ understanding and use of conceptual and problem-solving
processes that are characteristic of humanistic, artistic, scientific and mathematical
thinking. Both the Elementary and Secondary ATS-W combine complex and challenging
selected-response items with a highly targeted extended-response item to yield a deep and
18
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
broad assessment of teaching knowledge. Both exams evaluate students’ command of
instructional planning, assessment and instructional delivery, their understanding of the
professional environment, and their knowledge of the learner. The CSTs are substantial
examinations that measure acquisition of subject-matter knowledge at a level of
understanding required for teaching (p.37).
In this inquiry, the CST was used as a measure of graduates’ content knowledge (Claim
1), the ATS-W as a measure of pedagogical knowledge (Claim 2), and the LAST as a measure of
the cross-cutting theme of learning to learn, which requires the ability to apply the liberal arts
concepts and skills examined by the LAST.
Sample
Students are advised to take the NYSTCE exams regardless of their intention to teach in
New York State. Therefore, the faculty reasoned that the sample of examined students would
comprise a large and representative sample of NYU’s teacher education graduates. For this
study, CRTL included all graduates in the classes of 2006-2010 who had taken one or more of
the three categories of NYSTCE tests during or after attending NYU. The size and
representativeness of the sample are described in the results section.
Research Design
Data for the NYSTCE exams were obtained through electronic file matching. Files of all
test score data for NYU graduates were downloaded from the test publishers’ website and
entered into a database maintained by CRTL. The data are posted several weeks after each test
administration, which takes place several times a year. The exam database was matched to a file
that contained information on all graduates from the classes of 2006-2010 using social security
numbers as the match identifier.
CRTL computed mean scaled scores and passing rates for each exam and each class. The
standards for attainment of the claims are mean scaled scores at least 0.80 standard deviations
higher than the passing score of 220, the equivalent of a large effect size (Cohen, 1988), and a
90% passing rate for each cohort on each exam.
Reliability and Validity
Estimates of reliability (Total Test Decision Consistency) for the NYSTCE tests are
typically in the range of 0.95 to 0.9.4 The theoretical validity of the NYSTCE program rests on
the New York State Education Department’s claim that the exams are responsive to and
consistent with New York State regulations, New York State public school curriculum
frameworks and standards, and the curriculum of New York State teacher education programs.
New York State regulations, guidelines, textbooks and other instructional materials serve as the
foundation for test content and ensure a demonstrable correlation between the regulations,
standards, and programs and the NYSTCE. Furthermore, NYSTCE was developed through a
collaborative process involving the combined expertise of New York State classroom educators,
teacher preparation faculty, psychometric experts, researchers engaged in the study of teaching
and learning, and State policy and program personnel. In addition, a Bias Review Committee
Downloaded from www.nystce.nesinc.com/PDFs/NYSTCE_Validation_Reliability.pdf on
September 24, 2011.
19
4
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
was formed to advise the State on issues pertaining to bias and equity, and to review testing
materials for potential biases (New York State United Teachers, 2001).
The construct validity of the NYSTCE exams scores was assessed through the
comparative analysis of correlations between the exam scores and student GPAs. The analysis
tested the hypothesis that the pattern of correlations between and among the various exams and
GPAs will be aligned with the content and skills that are assessed by each GPA measure and
each exam. These findings were also used to assess the validity of GPA scores. The findings are
presented in the results section for the NYSTCE exams.
3.3 Student Teacher End-of-Term Feedback Questionnaire (ETFQ) Description
Faculty and staff designed ETFQ (see Appendix F) as an integral component of the
evidence base for self inquiry. This online questionnaire elicits feedback from teacher-education
students concerning the extent to which they perceive that the student-teaching experience has
enhanced their professional knowledge and expertise. The ETFQ format includes a combination
of forced-choice and open-ended items divided into three parts. The first part (Items 1 and 2)
asks about the school environment, the second part (Items 3 – 14) focuses on the cooperating
teacher, and the third part (Items 15 – 25) focuses on the contributions of the student-teacher
supervisor. In the context of the student teaching experience, the items ask students to evaluate
how well their cooperating teachers and supervisors contributed to their growth as teachers using
a five-point, Likert-type scale ranging from (1) “Very Poorly” to (5) “Very Well.” An openended prompt asks the students to describe the specific ways in which the cooperating teachers
and supervisors helped their professional growth, as well as any specific experiences that were
problematic. For this study, data from eight questions on the ETFQ were used to assess three
claims (see Table 3.3).
Sample
All students who are in student-teaching placements are instructed to sign on to the
Steinhardt website at the end of every semester to take the online ETFQ. The subset of ETFQ
respondents who were in their final student-teaching placements during the academic years
2005-06 thru 2009-10 comprised the sample for this inquiry. The size and representativeness of
the sample are discussed in the results section.
Research Design
At the end of each semester, student teachers are sent email messages directing them to
the ETFQ web site. Three follow-up reminders were sent to boost response rates. Response
rates and representativeness are reported in the results section. All responses were downloaded
into a database maintained by CRTL. Respondents who were in their final student-teaching
placement were identified using a question on placement in the ETFQ. Mean responses for the
eight items related to the claims were calculated and statistically compared to the program
standard of 4.0, a value nominally equivalent to a response of “Well.”
Reliability and Validity
While the ETFQ is a self-report measure and subject to the threats to the validity of such
assessments, there is an alignment between specific items on the ETFQ and the claims of the
inquiry as displayed in Table 3.3. Faculty agreed on the alignment between the claims and the
items, thereby confirming the content validity of the ETFQ. The substantive validity of the
20
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
closed-end responses was supported by the convergence of results with the thematic content of
the open-ended responses for samples of participants. Stability of measurement was assessed
through the consistency of results across cohorts, as evidence of both reliability and validity.
These data are reported in the results section.
TABLE 3.3
Alignment between ETFQ items and NYU’s claims
1
Claim
ETFQ Items
Subject-Matter Knowledge
How would you rate your cooperating teacher’s (supervisor’s)
assistance in helping you develop content knowledge specific
to your field and age group?
Items 9 & 18
2
Pedagogical Knowledge
Items 7 & 15
3
Clinical Knowledge
Items 8 & 16
Clinical Knowledge
Items 11 & 19
How would you rate your cooperating teacher’s (supervisor’s)
assistance in helping you develop content knowledge specific
to your field and age group?
How would you rate your cooperating teacher’s (supervisor’s)
assistance in helping you to enhance your teaching practice?
How would you rate your cooperating teacher’s (supervisor’s)
assistance in developing your classroom management skills?
3.4 Educational Beliefs Multicultural Attitudes Survey (EBMAS) Description
CRTL developed EBMAS in fall 2009 as a measure of teacher candidates’ developing
dispositions toward teaching. EBMAS replaced its precursor, the Educational Beliefs
Questionnaire (EBQ), which was administered to Steinhardt teacher-education students from
2004 - 2008. The initial form of EBMAS that was used in this inquiry consisted of 39 items. In
addition to the EBQ, EBMAS items were drawn from the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) (Gibson
and Dembo, 1984) and the Teacher Multicultural Attitude Survey (TMAS) (Ponterotto et al.,
1998). Item selection was based on alignment with the goals of the NYU program and the clarity
of the items. EBMAS was designed to yield four scale scores: One for general teacher efficacy,
defined as the overall belief that teaching can promote the learning of all students regardless of
home background or community; a second for personal teacher efficacy, the teacher’s own belief
that he or she can educate all children regardless of background; a third for caring/social justice,
the belief in the moral and social responsibility of teachers to educate all children equitably; and
the last, multicultural attitudes, teachers’ awareness of, comfort with, and sensitivity to issues of
cultural pluralism in the classroom. The actual structure and scoring of the survey was
determined through factor analysis, as described below and in the results section.
The items were statements of beliefs that students responded to using a six-point Likert
scale of agreement ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (6) Strongly Agree, with the
intermediate categories labeled (2) Moderately Agree (3) Slightly Agree and so on. Item
statements were counterbalanced, with some stated in the positive form and some in the negative.
The sign of the statement was maintained from the source scales.
21
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Sample
The sample for this inquiry included students who were assessed in three administrations
of EBMAS: September 2009, May 2010, and June 2010. The sample was selected to include
students who represented the full range of teacher-education students with respect to certification
areas, degree, and experience in the program. In total, 671 students were assessed across the
three administrations, 327 BS and 338 MA.5 All of these students were included in the analyses
of the technical properties of EBMAS, thereby ensuring that the statistical estimates used for the
technical work of scale construction and the assessment of reliability and validity were based on
large representative samples. The subset of students who were completing their programs in May
2010 was used to assess the claims. The sample is described in the results section.
Research Design
A paper-and-pencil version of EBMAS was administered to teacher-education students in
selected classes by their instructors. The classes included: the New Students’ seminar for BS
students and orientation for Fast Track MA students, with the aim of capturing the beliefs of
incoming students; student-teacher seminars, which provided an opportunity to assess the beliefs
of BS and MA students who were completing the program; and BS students who were mid-way
through their programs. This design facilitates the study of the evolving beliefs of students as
they progress through the program, as well as the beliefs of program completers, who are the
targets for NYU’s claims. The instructors read a script that asked students to be candid in their
responses, and ensured them their data would be strictly confidential and reports would include
only aggregate data devoid of individual identifiers.
Factor analysis was used to identify the items that would be summed to derive scale
scores reflecting the underlying conceptual structure of the survey in alignment with the claims.
Each scale score represented the mean of the items for the respective scale, with negativelystated items flipped for uni-directionality. In order to assess the claims, the scale scores were
compared to the program standard of 4.5, established by faculty as representing beliefs that are
indicative of a positive disposition toward teaching and empirically attainable, based on a
preliminary statistical analysis of data.
Reliability and Validity
The theoretical validity of EBMAS scores as measures of the dispositions to teaching is
discussed in the rationale for assessment. Empirical construct validity was examined in two
ways. First, structural validity was explored through exploratory factor analysis of data for the
full operational sample. Next, substantive validity was assessed through the statistical
comparison of the EBMAS scale scores of students in different stages of their program. Since
program courses and mentored field experiences are designed to foster the development of
dispositions that are favorable to good teaching, it is hypothesized that the EBMAS scores of
NYU students will increase as they advance in the program. Internal consistency reliability was
assessed through the computation of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients on the data from the
operational database. Findings from the empirical analyses of reliability and validity are
presented in the results section.
5
Six students did not indicate their degree program.
22
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
3.5 Grade Point Averages Description
Grade point averages (GPA) were among the measures used to assess the attainment of
Claims 1-3, as well as the cross-cutting theme of learning how to learn. Across the university,
students are graded in each course from A to F with grade-point averages computed on a fourpoint scale, weighted for course hours. Grades are awarded for achievement of course
objectives. The grading criteria are described in the syllabus for each course.
Teacher education students pursuing the BS or B Mus. degrees must major in a subject
that is related to their certification area. These courses are taken in the College of Arts and
Science and Steinhardt and are designed to build the deep content knowledge, understanding,
and skill required for graduates to teach their subjects effectively. The Content Knowledge (CK)
GPA for undergraduates is computed as a weighted average of these courses. MA students take
their post-graduate courses in Steinhardt and their grades in these courses are used to compute
their CK GPA.
Undergraduate students also receive a broad and deep education in the liberal arts and
sciences in large part by meeting the requirements of the Morse Academic Plan (MAP), a
common core of courses in the College of Arts and Science. The MAP and the other courses
taken at NYU help undergraduates develop a set of intellectual skills, tools and ideas that enable
them to learn on their own; knowledge of cultural perspectives, practices and traditions; and
facility with the tools of modern technology, the cross-cutting themes. Accordingly, the CrossCutting Themes (CCT) GPA is calculated from the aggregate of MAP courses and other
contributing courses from both CAS and School of Education. Students pursuing the MA degree
took their liberal arts and science courses as undergraduates. This inquiry used their composite
undergraduate GPA as a proxy CCT measure.
Students in both BS and MA teacher education programs take courses that comprise a
Pedagogical Core tailored to their certification area(s). These courses were used to calculate
Pedagogy Knowledge (PK) GPA (Claim 2) and they include Inquiries into Teaching and
Learning, Teaching Students with Disabilities, courses in pedagogical content knowledge, and
courses in human development. Grades in student-teaching and practicum courses and seminars
were used to compute a Teaching Skills (TS) GPA, a measure of Claim 3, Clinical Practice.
Sample
GPAs were computed for all BS and MA members of the classes of 2006-2010. The
sample included all students completing a degree program that leads to eligibility for initial New
York State teacher certification. This census sample yielded parameters for the full population
of graduates.
Research Design
The Steinhardt Office of Institutional Research provided CRTL with electronic transcript
files for all students in the sample. CRTL coded the courses into categories related to the claims
as described above. Respective student GPAs were computed for each category by weighting
course grades in numbers by course hours. For MA students only, electronic files of
undergraduate GPAs were obtained from the Graduate Admissions Office to be used as a CCT
GPA. The criterion for each claim was a mean GPA of 3.0 for the respective GPA.
23
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Reliability and Validity
The content validity of the GPAs rests in the alignment between the courses upon which
they were calculated and the claims they were used to measure. The Steinhardt courses were
specifically designed to meet New York State teacher certification requirements. The state
requirements (1999) explicitly define the content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and
teaching skills that must be taught in state-approved teacher education programs. The State
Education Department has approved curricula in the Steinhardt School’s BS and MA teacher
education programs. The criteria for grades in these courses are clearly stated in the course
syllabi and are based on the mastery of course content and learning objectives.
A common concern throughout education is grade inflation. A number of researchers
have documented the rise in GPA over time and its underlying causes (see Adelman, 1995, 2001;
Levine & Cureton, 1998; and Tobias & Miller, 1999). This concern was partially addressed
through the comparative validity analysis described above for the validity of the NYSTCE
exams. The reliability of the GPAs as measures of the claims was assessed by the consistency of
the results across cohorts. The empirical evidence of validity and reliability are reported in the
results section.
3.6 Program Exit Survey Description
In May of 2009 and 2010, CRTL conducted online surveys of Steinhardt’s teacher education
students who were completing their programs. The purposes of the survey were to evaluate the
quality of the teacher education program at Steinhardt, to obtain data that would inform
Steinhardt’s efforts at continuous program improvement, and to assess the readiness of our
program completers to begin teaching.
The surveys consisted of both Likert-type and open-ended questions organized into the
following sections: data about the respondents’ background, including degree, certification, and
program area, the respondents’ perceptions of how well their teacher education programs
prepared them for teaching, feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of their pre-service
programs, and plans for the future. Data from the section measuring perceptions of preparation
for teaching were used to assess the program claims. Program completers were asked to use a
four-point scale ranging from (4) Very Well Prepared to (1) Not Well At All to report their
perceived preparation in 15 areas of essential teaching skill and knowledge. Eleven of these
items were drawn from Arthur Levine’s national study of the effectiveness of schools of
education (Levine, 2006). The other four referred to skills that faculty identified as key goals of
the NYU program but were not included in Levine’s survey. The survey items are closely
aligned with the inquiry claims.
Sample
The target populations for the surveys consisted of 308 students in May 2009 and 296
students in May 2010 from all certification programs in the Departments of Teaching and
Learning, Music and Performing Arts Professions, and Art and Arts Professions. Responses
were received from 122 students in 2009 and 110 in 2010, for response rates of 39.6 and 37.2%,
respectively. These response rates are within the range described as average or acceptable for
24
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
online surveys in a paper posted on the University of Texas at Austin website (2007)6. The
representativeness of the sample is discussed in the results.
Research Design
The survey was administered online using SurveyGizmo web-based survey software. In
May 2009 and May 2010, e-mail messages were sent to the graduates directing them to the
survey web site. In an attempt to boost response rates, three follow-up reminders were emailed
during the survey period. Participation in the study made the respondents eligible for optional
entry into a lottery for an iPod nano digital music player. Survey data were downloaded into
SPSS data sets for statistical analysis.
Reliability and Validity
The reliability of the data was assessed by analysis of the consistency of the results for
the two survey administrations. Program faculty reviewed the alignment between the survey
items and the claims to ensure the content validity of the results for making inferences about the
claims. Empirical validity was assessed through analysis of the convergence between the
profiles of responses to the Program Exit Survey and the Levine study sample.
Program standards were set using the data from the Levine study as a set of norms. For
the Levine sample, the percentages responding that they were “Very Well” or “Moderately Well”
prepared by their programs to teach ranged from 27% for Address the needs of students with
disabilities to 81% for Understand how students learn. For the 11 items drawn from the Levine
survey, the percents of “Very Well” or “Moderately Well” were less than 60% for five items,
between 60 and 69% for three items, in the 70% range for two, and over 80% for just one. Using
these data as references to set a high, uniform program standard, the faculty set 80% as the
program standard for all 15 items.
Since the same set of questions was included on the One-Year Follow-Up Survey, the
convergence of the results from the two surveys was used to assess the validity of both surveys
for making inferences about the claims. Reliability and validity data are reported in the results
for the program exit survey.
3.7 One-Year Follow-Up Survey Description
CRTL conducted surveys similar to the Program Exit Survey for Steinhardt teacher
education graduates in the three years 2007 – 2009. The follow-up survey was intended to
assess the perceptions of graduates one year after graduation concerning the extent to which the
6
University of Texas at Austin (2007). Acceptable response rates vary by how the survey is administered: Mail: 50% adequate, 60% good, 70% very good; Phone: 80% good; Email: 40% average, 50% good, 60% very good; Online: 30% average; Classroom paper: > 50% = good; and Face-­‐to-­‐face: 80-­‐85% good. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.utexas.edu/academic/diia/assessment/iar/teaching/gather/method/survey-­‐Response.php 25
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
program had prepared them to teach. This survey provided information about changes in
perceptions between graduation and early experiences in teaching. It also provided another
measure for the assessment of the claims. The survey also inquired about the employment of
graduates, including their teaching assignments and the locations and types of schools in which
they were teaching. The employment data were used to supplement data collected through the
graduate tracking study, as described below.
Sample
For May 2007 graduates, 95 out of 327 graduates responded for a response rate of 29.1%;
for 2008, 92 out of 305, 30.2%; and for 2009, 135 out of 308, 43.8%. Across the three classes,
322 graduates completed surveys for a total response rate of 34.3%, in the average or acceptable
range for online surveys.7 The representativeness of the sample is discussed in the results
section.
Research Design
The One-Year Follow-Up Survey was administered online to graduates eight months
after graduation. Requests were sent to the NYU email addresses of all graduates in January
following their May graduation. For each administration, three follow-up emails were sent and
lotteries for iPod nanos were used as incentives to boost response rates.
Reliability and Validity
The methods and evidence for assessing reliability and validity are the same as described
above for the Program Exit Survey. The consistency of results across the three cohorts and the
analyses of convergent validity are discussed in the results section.
3.8 Graduate Tracking Study Description
The data used in this inquiry were obtained by matching files of NYU teacher education
graduates to the human resources data system of the NYCDOE. Although this method does not
capture data for graduates who enter teaching outside of the New York City public schools, it is
able to track accurately and efficiently the large number of students who begin teaching in NYC.
Moreover, focusing the tracking study on the NYCDOE is aligned with an important goal of the
NYU program—to prepare graduates to staff the NYC schools. Electronic tracking involves
sending a data file of NYU graduates to the NYCDOE for matching to their teacher database
using social security numbers. Descriptive data are extracted from the matched records,
including the dates of initial hire, types of appointment, assignments, schools, and information
on retention and attrition. CRTL also obtains demographic data on the schools in which the
graduates teach, in order to assess whether graduates are teaching in schools that represent the
full range of diversity of NYC, thereby demonstrating their commitment to urban schools, a
component of Claim 4, Caring Professional.
In order to obtain estimates of teacher employment outside of the NYCDOE,
supplementary data were obtained from the One-Year Follow-Up Survey and faculty
communications with graduates. The latter is especially important for graduates of the Early
7
Ibid.
26
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Childhood and Dual Early Childhood/Special Education programs, many of whom work in
private pre-schools that are not included in the NYCDOE human resources system.
Sample
The sample for the tracking study included 2,819 graduates from the classes of 2004 –
2008; 571 received BS degrees and 2,248 received MAs. The sample included graduates from
all teacher education programs that led to eligibility for initial or professional certification in
New York State. Although this was a census sample, the data collected was limited to graduates
who matched to the NYCDOE human resources system, responded to the One-Year Follow-Up
Survey, or responded to email requests from the Directors of the Early Childhood/Dual Early
Childhood Programs.
Research Design
In January 2009, CRTL sent the electronic file for the sample, including names and social
security numbers, to NYCDOE for matching and merging with data from their human resources
file. NYCDOE returned the merged file to CRTL in March 2009 for analysis. CRTL conducted
diagnostic analysis to correct or eliminate outlier data and to ensure that the match was accurate.
CRTL then matched the corrected file to NYU files that contained information about the
graduates’ teacher education programs. Finally, data from the online Annual School Progress
Reports were downloaded from the NYCDOE website (www.schools/nyc.gov) in order to obtain
demographics on the schools in which graduates were employed and all NYC public schools for
comparative analysis.
Supplementary data on the employment of graduates were obtained from the One-Year
Follow-Up Study. The items that were used asked the respondents whether or not they were
employed as teachers and, if so, where they were teaching. These data were used to assess the
reliability of the electronic data and to obtain estimates of the percentages of graduates who were
teaching outside of the NYCDOE. Additional supplementary data were compiled from the
emails of graduates to the Early Childhood Program Directors in response to a request for their
employment information in spring 2011.
Reliability and Validity
The reliability of the tracking data was assessed by inspection of the consistency of
results across classes or cohorts. Employment statistics are analyzed and shared with faculty to
inform program planning. However, employment data were not used to assess the claims and,
therefore, are not included in this brief. The impact of market forces on employment statistics
pose serious threats to the validity of inferences that cannot be controlled or eliminated. The
validity of the use of comparative demographics as a measure of Claim 4, Caring Professionals
rests on the assumption that commitment to educating all children, especially inner-city children
will be manifest in the types of schools in which graduates teach. Working in diverse, inner-city
schools is substantive evidence of this commitment. The program standard of no statistically
significant differences in the demographics of graduates’ schools of employment and all NYC
schools demonstrates a willingness to work in the full diversity of NYC. In addition, retention of
graduates who are teaching in NYC schools requires commitment, confidence, knowledge, and
skill, the essential characteristics of caring professionals. Faculty used the results of a New York
City Council study (July 2009) to establish the thresholds for retention standards. Given the high
level of professional caring and competence required to overcome the challenges to sustained
teaching in the NYC public schools, exceeding these retention standards is valid evidence in
27
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
support of Claim 4. Faculty recognizes that market forces and contextual effects are external
factors that pose threats to the validity of these measures. However, the faculty believes that the
variance in outcomes due to professional caring far outweigh the variance attributable to
extraneous factors.
3.9 Graduates’ Value-Added-Modeling (VAM) Effects on Pupils’ Standardized Test Scores
Description
The VAM score is the average difference between the actual and predicted test scores of
a teacher’s pupils. The predicted scores take into account pupil, class, and school variables that
affect pupil performance and are beyond the control of the teacher. The assumption is that the
difference between actual and predicted performance is attributable to the effectiveness of the
teacher. Scores are reported using a proficiency-level scale, which ranges from 1 – 4.5, with a
score of 3.0 indicating performance that meets grade-level standards. VAM scores of zero
indicate that pupils’ actual performance is exactly as predicted; positive VAM scores indicate
actual performance that is above predicted, and is interpreted as a positive teacher effect; VAM
scores below zero indicates actual performance below predicted, and is interpreted as negative
teacher effect.
Sample
In 2009, using data from the graduate tracking study (see above), CRTL identified 396
NYU graduates from the classes of 2001 – 2008 who were teaching reading and/or mathematics
in grades 4 – 8 in NYC public schools. These graduates were the potential participants for the
VAM study. In order for these graduates to be actual participants, they had to be teaching pupils
during the 2007 – 08 school year who had taken the state tests in ELA and/or mathematics in
2007 and 2008.
Research Design
CRTL sent a file of the potential participants to NYCDOE for matching to the VAM test
data file and obtained matches for 191 graduates, who became the actual participants in the
study. The participants were divided into experience groups based on data from the graduate
tracking file. For each experience group, mean actual, predicted, and difference scores (VAM
effects) were calculated in ELA and math. The NYCDOE also provided percentile ranks based
on the ranking of each graduates’ VAM effect among NYC teachers with similar levels of
teaching experience who were teaching the same subject and grade. Median percentile ranks
were computed for each NYU experience group, as well as effect sizes based on the ratio of the
mean difference score to standard deviation of difference scores.
Reliability and Validity
The technical soundness of the VAM score is based on two components: the reliability
and validity of the state tests used to calculate VAM and the reliability and validity of the VAM
scores for making inferences about teacher effectiveness. The former is reported in detail in the
test publisher’s technical reports (CTB, McGraw-Hill, 2009). NYCDOE reports little evidence
of the reliability and validity of VAM scores. In an unpublished report shown to NYU
researchers, NYCDOE asserts that VAM scores showed moderate correlations with principal
ratings of teacher effectiveness. In this inquiry, the consistency of VAM effects over time for the
NYU sample was assessed as a measure of the stability of the VAM scores. Substantive
construct validity was assessed by the correlation of NYU graduates’ VAM scores with years of
28
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
teaching experience. It is hypothesized that the correlation will be positive and moderate,
thereby indicating that VAM scores systematically behave as one would expect if they were
measuring the growing expertise of teachers. The findings are reported in the results section.
As a measure of teacher effectiveness, VAM scores are theoretically appropriate for
measuring Claim 3. Based on a review of studies using VAM as an outcome measure, faculty
set a program standard of a small but meaningful effect size of 0.20 for NYU graduates.
4.0 RESULTS
This section begins with a summary of the overall results of the inquiry organized by
claims. The overall findings are followed by a detailed presentation of the results for each
measure, including empirical evidence of reliability and validity and the outcomes of the
assessment.
4.1. Summary of the Overall Findings
Table 4.1 summarizes the results of the assessments organized around the claims and
reported separately for BS and MA students. The table summarizes a total of 78 analyses of the
data from 37 different scales associated with nine different measures. Across the 78 analyses,
the pre-determined program standards were met or exceeded for 54 (69.2%). Results were
mixed for nine (11.5%). And standards were not met for 15 (19.2%). Mixed results are
operationally defined as an even split of performance at/above standard and below standard for
scales with multiple items. Therefore, overall standards were completely or partially met for
nearly four-fifths of the measures/scales. It should be noted that some of the measures are more
important to faculty and more reliable and valid than others. With this caveat in mind, the
conclusions about the claims that emerge from the weight of the evidence are discussed below.
Claim 1: Content Knowledge: Samples of MA program completers met the program
standards in six (85.7%) of the seven analyses, with mixed results on the other. BS students met
five standards (71.4%), showed mixed results on one, and did not meet one standard. The latter
was the Planning and Preparation Domain of the DRSTOS-R. The DRSTOS-R is an important
measure but its validity is threatened by statistical evidence of rater bias and the concerns of
some faculty about its appropriateness as a universal measure for all certification areas. BS
students received below-standard ratings on the Planning and Preparation items for content
knowledge and using assessment for planning. In addition, ratings were low for the certification
areas of Math, Dual Early Childhood, Music, and Art. Convergent validity for the difference in
performance between BS and MA students is provided by the higher CST exam scores of MA
students, generally 3 – 7 scaled scores, and their higher content area GPAs. The survey findings
found high levels of confidence in content knowledge preparation for both BS and MA students
at graduation, which declined somewhat one year after graduation for BS and MA respondents
combined. Taken together, the claim that NYU graduates are competent and qualified in content
knowledge is strongly supported by the evidence for MA students and moderately supported for
BS students.
Claim 2: Pedagogical and Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The results of the
analyses for Claim 2 parallel those for Claim 1. Again, the DRSTOS measure, this time the
29
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Instruction Domain, showed differential results for BS and MA program completers. The
difference in performance was mainly attributable to one item, discussion style, for which MA
students performed at standard and BS students performed well below. MA students also
showed a meaningfully higher GPA in methods courses than did the BS students. However,
overall, the differences in measures were small and limited in scope. Therefore, the evidence
strongly supports the validity of the claim of competence in pedagogical knowledge for both BS
and MA students.
Claim 3: Clinical Knowledge and Skill: The evidence pertaining to Claim 3 is more
equivocal than that supporting the other claims, especially for BS students. Of the nine analyses
of measures of this claim, BS students met standards on four (44.4%), showed mixed results on
two (22.2%), and did not meet standards on three (33.3%). Performance was somewhat stronger
for MA students, with standards met for five (55.6%), mixed results for three (33.3%), and
performance below standard for one (11.1%). Once again, the performance of BS students on
the DRSTOS-R fell below the standard, this time on two scales: the Classroom Environment
Domain and the Total Scale. The MA students showed the ability to establish codes of
behavioral expectations, maintain an awareness of pupil behavior, and manage the functioning of
instructional groups to achieve a level of classroom management. These proved more
challenging to BS students. Although both groups met standards for the Teaching Skills
(Clinical Practice) GPA, the mean was much higher for MA than BS students, thereby providing
convergent validity for both measures. However, the findings from the Program Exit Survey
were divergent, with a lower percentage of MA completers feeling prepared to maintain order in
the classroom, as compared to BS completers. Both groups met standards on one of the two
EBMAS Personal Teacher Efficacy Scales, with MA students expressing confidence that they
would be responsible for the success of their pupils, while BS students felt they could solve their
pupils’ problems. It should be noted, however, that EBMAS is a new measure and more
research is needed to better understand the meaning of its data. Finally, the VAM data were
mixed for the combined BS and MA sample, meeting standard for ELA but not math. Taken as a
whole, the evidence provides moderate support for the claim of clinical competence.
Claim 4: Caring Professional: Both BS and MA graduates performed well on the
measures for Claim 4, with both groups meeting standards on five of seven scales (71.4%),
although with some differences. One difference was in the Classroom Environment Domain of
DRSTOS-R, which is also a measure of Claim 3. Here, the BS students failed to meet standard.
The other is the Program Exit Survey, where BS students met standards on all three items
compared to only one for the MA students. Data from the Graduate Tracking Study showed that
the graduates met standards for serving in high needs NYC public schools and retention in these
schools. Overall, despite the small differences, the evidence provides strong support for the
claim that both BS and MA NYU graduates are caring professionals.
Cross-Cutting Themes: The MA completers met standards for all four of the measures
related to life-long learning while the BS completers met standards for three of the four (falling
below the standard of 3.0 for Liberal Arts GPA). Both groups met the standards for the three
measures of multicultural attitudes, including the item concerning preparation to meet the needs
of children from diverse cultures on the Program Exit and One-Year Follow-up surveys, and on
the EBMAS Social Justice/Multicultural Attitudes Scale. However, only 61% - 67% of
30
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
respondents felt prepared to use technology for instruction, falling short of the 80% program
standard. Faculty recognizes the need to strengthen the curriculum to address this need.
TABLE 4.1
Summary of assessments of claims
Claims
Claim 1.
Content
Knowledge
Claim 2.
Pedagogical/
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge
Claim 3.
Clinical
Competence
Claim 4.
Caring
Professional
Measure
Scale
Criteria
DRSTOS-R
NYSTCE
NYSTCE
ETFQ
GPA
Exit Survey
Follow-up Sur.
DRSTOS-R
NYSTCE
NYSTCE
ETFQ
GPA
Exit Survey
Follow-up Sur.
DRSTOS-R
DRSTOS-R
ETFQ
EBMAS
EBMAS
GPA
Exit Survey
Follow-up Sur.
VAM
DRSTOS-R
EBMAS
EBMAS
Exit Survey
Follow-up Sur.
Grad Tracking
Grad Tracking
DRSTOS-R
NYSTCE
NYSTCE
GPA
EBMAS
Exit Survey
Follow-up Sur.
Exit Survey
Planning & Prep
Content Specialty
Content Specialty
Content Scale
Content Courses
Content Knowledge Items
Content Knowledge Items
Instruction
ATS-W: Pass Rate
ATS-W: Effect Size
Pedagogical Scale
Pedagogical Core
Pedagogical Knowledge
Pedagogical Knowledge
Classroom Environment *
Total Score *
Teaching Skill
Personal Teacher Efficacy 1
Personal Teacher Efficacy 2
Teaching Skills
Clinical Skills Items
Clinical Skills Items
ELA & Math
Classroom Environment *
SJ/MA Scale *
General Teacher Efficacy
Caring Professionals
Caring Professionals
Types of Schools Employed
Teacher Retention
Prof. Responsibilities (1)
LAST: Pass Rate (1)
LAST: Effect Size (1)
Cross-Cutting Themes (1)
SJ/MA Scale (2) *
Diverse Cultures Item (2)
Diverse Cultures Item (2)
Technology Item (3)
Mean score of 3.0 for 80%
Passing Rate of 90%
Effect Size of 0.80
Mean score of 4.0
Mean GPA of 3.0
80% Very & Moderately Well
80% Very & Moderately Well
Mean score of 3.0 for 80%
Passing Rate of 90%
Effect Size of 0.80
Mean score of 4.0
Mean GPA of 3.0
80% Very & Moderately Well
80% Very & Moderately Well
Mean score of 3.0 for 80%
Mean score of 3.0 for 80%
Mean score of 4.0
Mean score of 4.5
Mean score of 4.5
Mean GPA of 3.0
80% Very & Moderately Well
80% Very & Moderately Well
Effect Size of 0.20
Mean score of 3.0 for 80%
Mean score of 4.5
Mean score of 4.5
80% Very & Moderately Well
80% Very & Moderately Well
Students same as all NYC
Exceed norms by 5% - 10%
Mean score of 3.0 for 80%
Passing Rate of 90%
Effect Size of 0.80
Mean GPA of 3.0
Mean score of 4.5
80% Very & Moderately Well
80% Very & Moderately Well
80% Very & Moderately Well
CrossCutting
Themes
(1) LifeLong
Learning
(2)
Multicultural
Perspective
(3) Use of
80% Very & Moderately Well
Technology Follow-up Sur. Technology Item (3)
* Scale and criterion used for multiple claims
** Mixed is an even split of Met/Not Met criteria for scales with multiple items
31
Results of Assessment
BS
MA
Not Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Mixed **
Mixed **
Not Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Mixed **
Mixed **
Not Met
Met
Not Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Not Met
Not Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Mixed
Mixed **
Mixed **
Mixed **
Mixed **
Not Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Not Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
Not Met
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
4.2. Detailed Results for Each Measure
4.2.1. DRSTOS-R
Reliability and Validity
CRTL conducted an empirical investigation of the reliability and validity of DRSTOS-R
on a sample of 447 protocols extracted from the center’s operational database. The protocols
were completed by 29 trained field supervisors during the six semesters, fall 2004 through fall
2007. The sample was fully representative of the full population of NYU teacher education
graduates, including both BS and MA students from all of the program certification areas. One
assessment of the substantive validity of the protocol was conducted on a larger sample.
Reliability: The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the four domain scores and the total
score were as follows: .91 for Planning and Preparation; .91 for Classroom Environment; .83 for
both Instruction and Professional Responsibilities; and .96 for the Total Score. These
coefficients are evidence of the high internal consistency reliability of the domain and total
scores.
Validity: Structural validity was assessed through exploratory factor analysis. A
principal components factor analysis revealed that a single factor explained 60% of the variance
in the scores of the 20 items for the 432 participants who had complete data.8 The scree plot for
this factor analysis indicated strong uni-dimensionality for the scale. This finding is consistent
with the hypothesis that a single construct of pedagogical proficiency underlies the items in the
four domains of the scale. The potency of this latent construct was indicated by high loadings
(0.70 – 0.83) of all items on this single factor. This finding does not negate the utility of the
domain scores for instructional and program evaluation purposes. As is evident in the data
presented below on the assessment of claims, patterns of differences and similarities in the
domain and item scores suggest they are systematically measuring unique and important aspects
of teaching and learning beyond the general pedagogical proficiency factor.
An analysis of the substantive validity was conducted on the sample of 1,314 protocols
collected during the period fall 2006 to spring 2010. In this analysis, the scores of students in
early and late student teaching placements were statistically compared using t-tests for
independent samples. The mean scores of late-placement students were significantly higher
statistically than the early-placement students with effects sizes for these differences in the small
to moderate range. These differences were observed for all four domains and the total scores and
for both undergraduate (BS) and graduate (MA) teacher education students. These results further
support the validity of DRSTOS-R as a measure of the developing pedagogical proficiency of
teacher education candidates.
Assessment of Claims
Sample Representativeness: During the four academic years 2006-7 through 2009-10,
the DRSTOS-R was administered to more than 1,300 NYU student teachers by 70 trained field
supervisors across all of the teacher education program areas in the Department of Teaching and
8
The assessment of the psychometric properties of DRSTOS-R used the 20-item version that was in use until fall
2008 when an additional item was added.
32
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Learning, the Department of Art and Arts Professions, and the Department of Music and
Performing Arts Professions. Of these student teachers, 675 (235 BS students and 440 MA
students) were in their final field placements. The overall sampling fraction was 31.6% of all
graduates, 56.1% for the BS graduates and 25.6% for the MA graduates. Program completers
from all certification areas were represented in the sample, with the exception of the few listed in
the footnote to Table 4.2.1b. The percent of program completers in the sample increased
dramatically over the four years of the inquiry. The total participation rate rose from 15.7% in
the first two years to 48.9% in the last two. During this period, the BS participation rate
increased from 27.6% to 81.2% and MA participation increased from 13.2% to 39.9%. In the
last year, two-thirds of all graduates participated in the DRSTOS-R assessment. Accordingly,
data for the last two years of the inquiry provide strong estimates of the parameters for the full
population of program completers while estimates for the first two years should be interpreted
with caution.
Overall Results of the Assessment
Table 4.2.1a shows the percentages of student teachers reaching or exceeding beginning
teacher proficiency (at least 3.0 on a four-point scale) for the four years of the inquiry, as well as
whether the totals across years reach the program standard of 80% scoring at least 3.0. MA
students met the standard for all four domains and the Total Score (aligned with claims 1,2,3,4
and the cross-cutting theme of Learning to Learn), with scores that exceeded 80% in Domain 1
(Planning and Preparation) and Domain 4 (Professional Responsibilities), and were statistically
equivalent to the standard (within the 95% confidence interval) for Domain 2 (Classroom
Environment), Domain 3 (Instruction), and the Total Score. However, the BS students met the
program standard only in Domain 4, Professional Responsibilities (Learning to Learn). The
pattern of performance over the years suggests that reliability of the data for the first three
cohorts of BS students may have been limited by low numbers of participants. The percents
at/above level 3 for BS students varied widely during those years, from high to low to high
again. The data for 2009-2010, which are based on a large sample (85%) of the BS graduates for
the class, is probably a better estimate of the performance of the full graduating class.
Nevertheless, performance for BS graduates falls short of the standards regardless of class or
sample size. More will be said about this below. Insight into the reasons for the differences in
findings between BS and MA students may be gleaned from the study of the scores of late versus
early placements cited in the section on validity above. In this study, the mean scores for both
BS and MA students were significantly higher statistically in their late versus early placements.
However, the MA students scored higher than the BS students on both the early and late
placements, suggesting that differences in maturity and experience might be responsible for
some of the differences in performance between BS and MA students.
Inspection of the percents meeting level 3 for each of the protocol’s 21 items sheds
additional light on the relative performance of the BS and MA students (see Figures 4.2.1a and
4.2.1b). Looked at this way, both groups appear to have performed well on most items, but the
MA students were clearly superior. The BS students met the 80% criterion on 14 of the essential
elements of teaching, scored in the 70% range on four others, and performed in the 60% range on
two—Discussion Patterns (Instruction) and Awareness of Pupil Behavior (Classroom
Environment). Over 90% met the Level 3 standard for only two items—Teacher/Pupil
Communication (Instruction) and Classroom Interaction (Environment). On the other hand, MA
students were at or near 90% on 16 skills, in the 80% range on four, and scored below the
33
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
criterion on only one—Awareness of Pupil Behavior (77.3%). In summary, although the BS
students met the criterion in most skills, they did so by a small margin compared to the wide
positive margin for MA students.
TABLE 4.2.1a
Percentage of Late-Placement Student Teachers Meeting Standards on the Domain Referenced Student Teacher
Observation Scale Revised (DRSTOS-R) by Academic Year
Claims
Scale Domain
Number
Total (N)/
2006200720082009Total**
of Items
% Meeting
2007
2008
2009
2010
Standards
(Mean>=3.0)
BS Students
Total (N)
17
37
58
123
235
Planning &
1
6
% Meeting
Preparation
58.8%
51.4%
69.0%
61.8%
61.7%
Standards
Total (N)
17
37
58
123
235
Classroom
3,4
7
% Meeting
Environment
70.6%
48.6%
67.2%
61.0%
61.3%
Standards
Total (N)
17
37
58
123
235
2
Instruction
5*
% Meeting
70.6%
48.6%
72.4%
62.6%
63.4%
Standards
Total (N)
17
37
57
123
234
CCT
Professional
Learning
3
% Meeting
Responsibilities
88.2%
67.6%
84.2%
95.2%
80.8%
to Learn
Standards
Total (N)
17
37
58
123
235
3
Total Score
21*
% Meeting
70.6%
48.6%
69.0%
59.3%
60.9%
Standards
MA Students
Total (N)
21
100
128
191
440
Planning &
1
6
% Meeting
Preparation
81.0%
79.0%
87.5%
79.1%
81.6%
Standards
Total (N)
21
100
128
191
440
Classroom
3,4
7
% Meeting
Environment
71.4%
77.0%
84.4%
71.7%
76.6%
Standards
Total (N)
21
100
128
191
440
2
Instruction
5*
% Meeting
81.0%
80.0%
79.7%
76.4%
78.4%
Standards
Total (N)
21
99
128
190
438
CCT
Professional
Learning
3
% Meeting
Responsibilities
95.2%
88.9%
89.8%
87.4%
88.8%
to Learn
Standards
3
Total Score
21*
Total (N)
21
100
128
191
440
% Meeting
Standards
71.4%
77.0%
82.0%
72.8%
76.4%
Notes. Scale is (1) Not Yet Proficient (2) Partially Proficient (3) Entry Level Proficient (4) Proficient. The standard
for proficiency is 3.
*An additional item was added to “Instruction” in fall 2008, increasing the number of items from 4 to 5
** Values in bold font meet the program standard of 80% >=3; values in bold italics fall within the 95% confidence
interval around the standard, which means they are not significantly lower than the standard, p<.025
34
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Figure 4.2.1a By-­‐Item Percentage Passing for BS Late-­‐Placement Student Teachers Fall 2006-­‐Spring 2010 Use in Future Teaching 87.4 Cultural Context of School & Community 83.5 87.1 Relationships w/ Adults Discussion Patterns 67.1 Teacher/ Pupil Communications 90.1 Knowledge of Students 80.2 80.8 Clarity of Goals Lesson Structure and Time Management* 81.1 Awareness of Pupil Behavior 61.4 Mutual Expectations 76.3 Materials and Supplies 88.0 Transitions 80.4 Functioning of Learning Groups % >= 3 74.7 Classroom Interaction 94.8 Teacher Interaction w/ Pupils 80.3 Feedback, Reflection and use for Planning 73.3 Criteria and Standards 82.7 Constraints on Teaching & Learning 84.1 Long/Short Term Planning 77.4 Knowledge of Content 74.8 Pedagogical Content 81.7 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100. 35
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Figure 4.2.1b By-­‐Item Percentage Passing for MA Late-­‐Placement Student Teachers Fall 2006-­‐Spring 2010 Use in Future Teaching 91.7 Cultural Context of School & Community 92.6 Relationships w/ Adults 92.4 81.5 Discussion Patterns Teacher/ Pupil Communications 95.9 Knowledge of Students 89.2 Clarity of Goals 92.7 89.3 Lesson Structure and Time Management* Awareness of Pupil Behavior 77.3 Mutual Expectations 86.5 Materials and Supplies 95.7 91.1 Transitions % >= 3 84.9 Functioning of Learning Groups Classroom Interaction 96.3 Teacher Interaction w/ Pupils 88.8 84.0 Feedback, Reflection and use for Planning 91.9 Criteria and Standards Constraints on Teaching & Learning 94.8 Long/Short Term Planning 91.2 Knowledge of Content 90.3 92.4 Pedagogical Content 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100. Disaggregation by Program Area
Inspection of DRSTOS-R scores disaggregated by program certification areas sheds some
more light on the below-standards performance of BS program completers. As can be seen in
Table 4.2.1b, there was wide variability in the performance among the BS programs. In the
secondary program areas, the percents at/above level 3 were statistically equivalent to the 80%
standard for students in Social Studies and English but far below standard in Math. Performance
was also low for the Dual Early Childhood BS program, the MA program in Art, and the BS and
MA Music programs, although the low numbers of participants Music raise questions of validity
and generalizability. There are several possible factors that might explain these low scores. The
Dual Early Childhood faculty has questioned the appropriateness of DRSTOS-R for their area.
They have indicated that many items are not aligned with teaching early childhood, and say that
they have experienced difficulty collecting evidence on their student teachers’ performance. In
this regard, a CRTL study of the correlates of DRSTOS-R scores found statistically significant
rater bias (Tobias et. al. 2010). This bias may have contributed to an underestimate of
36
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
performance by the Math field supervisors. The Math faculty has also pointed to the need for an
assessment more aligned with their content area, or at least supplemented by intra-domain and
content-specific dimensions. NYU faculty is currently engaged in conversations concerning the
competing theories of the cross-disciplinary nature of pedagogical skill, which undergirds the
Danielson approach, versus the discipline-specific approach advocated by NYU’s math
education faculty, among others. A major study funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, the Measurement of Effective Teaching Project, is currently assessing the validity of
various frameworks – including Danielson (the most widely used) and several others that do
incorporate disciplinary perspectives (Kane, Cantrell, et al., 2011). NYU faculty is eagerly
awaiting the results of this study to inform our discussions about student teacher assessment.
TABLE 4.2.1b
Summary of performance on DRSTOS-R Total Scores for student teachers in their
last placements by program certification areas, fall 2006 – spring 2010
Undergraduate
Program *
Dual Early Childhood
Childhood/ Dual Childhood
English
Social Studies
Math
Music
N Assessed
48
101
24
22
20
6
% >=3**
54.2%
66.3%
75.0%
77.3%
30.0%
50.0%
M
3.13
3.11
3.14
3.36
2.72
3.01
SD
0.58
0.54
0.56
0.61
0.44
0.43
Graduate
Early Childhood/ Dual Early Childhood
44
72.7%
3.30
0.49
Childhood/ Dual Childhood
66
75.9%
3.27
0.45
Science
47
93.6%
3.63
0.37
English
38
78.9%
3.27
0.37
Social Studies
38
78.9%
3.35
0.59
Math
43
55.8%
3.06
0.35
MMS
97
80.5%
3.38
0.42
Educational Theatre
34
82.4%
3.22
0.45
Art
12
33.3%
2.97
0.37
Dance
7
100%
3.28
0.18
Music
6
50.0%
3.16
0.84
* The following programs are not reported because of low N (< 5):
Undergraduate = Science, Special Education, and Educational Theatre
Graduate = Special Education and Literacy
** Values in bold font meet the program standard of 80% >=3; values in bold italics fall within the 95% confidence
interval around the standard, which means they are not significantly lower than the standard, p<.025.
4.2.2. New York State Teacher Certification Exams (NYSTCE) Scores
Validity
The comparative validity of both NYSTCE exams and GPAs as measures of the claims
was explored through the analysis of correlations between and among these exams.
Convergence was operationally defined as statistically significant correlations with at least a
moderate effect size; and divergence was defined as a non-significant correlation and/or one with
a small effect size. The ATS-W showed statistically significant medium correlations with
Pedagogy Courses GPA, and small but significant correlations with the other GPAs for both BS
and MA students, thereby supporting the validity for using both measures for Claim 2. The
37
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
patterns of correlation for the other exams and GPAs are more complex. The CST exams
showed convergence with the Cross-cutting Themes GPA for both the BS and MA students, but
divergence from the other GPAs, including the Content GPA. This suggests that the CSTs
measure content knowledge differently than the Content GPA, perhaps the broader range of
content knowledge and skills that is measured by the Cross-cutting Themes GPA. Finally, the
LAST showed medium and significant correlations with the Cross-cutting Themes GPA for MA
students (their total undergraduate GPA), and a more complex pattern of correlations for BS
students. Taken together, these findings provide weak to moderate support for using the
NYSTCE exams to assess the claims.
Sample Size and Representativeness
A match of the files of Steinhardt teacher education graduates for the classes of 2006
through 2010 to the NYSTCE test score files provided by the test publisher, National Evaluation
Systems, yielded scores for the following numbers and percentages of teacher education
graduates over the five-year period: for the LAST, 436 BS students ( 82.6% of the BS graduates)
and 1,414 MA students (66.4%); for the ATS-W, 429 BS students (81.3%) and 1,508 MA
students (70.8%); and for the CSTs, 409 BS students (77.5%) and 1,541 MA students (72.4%).
In addition, graduates from all of the certification program areas were included in the sample.
Therefore, the sample was large with respect to the population size and representative with
respect to program areas.
Overall Results of the Assessment
Mean scaled scores and standard deviations and the percents of students passing the
exams were computed. In order to assess the claims, two comparisons were applied to the data.
First, the number of standard deviations by which the mean scaled scores exceeded the passing
score, 220, was computed for each test and each group.9 These statistics were used as measures
of the effect sizes of the Steinhardt scores in relation to the passing-score standards. The
criterion for this measure was an effect size (ES) of at least 0.80, a large and educationally
meaningful effect size. Second, the obtained percents passing each type of test were compared
to the program standard of 90%. The results of the comparisons, presented in detail in Table
4.2.2, show that the BS and MA students in both classes passed the LAST, a measure of the
Learning-to-Learn cross-cutting theme, with effect sizes that were nearly three times the
criterion. Even stronger results were obtained for the ATS-W, a measure of Claim 2,
Pedagogical Knowledge. The results for the CSTs, while not as strong as the previous two
measures, also far exceeded the criteria, thereby providing strong support for Claim 1, Content
Knowledge.
9
The pooled standard deviations for the Steinhardt graduates across multiple test administrations were used in these
calculations.
38
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
TABLE 4.2.2
Mean Scaled scores, effect sizes, and passing rates for Steinhardt teacher education graduates on New York State Teacher
Certification Exams (NYSTCE): Graduates from 2006 – 2010
Statistic
Class of 2006
BS
MA
Class of 2007
BS
MA
Class of 2008
Class of 2009
Class of 2010
BS
BS
BS
MA
MA
MA
Totals
BS
MA
Liberal Arts and Sciences Test (LAST) Cross-Cutting Theme: Learning to Learn
N Tested
92
254
85
311
98
314
104
308
92
227
471
1414
Mean Scaled Score
268.9
270.5
267.7
267.5
267.3
268.5
269.1
270.6
269.6
270.7
268.5
269.5
Standard Deviation
15.3
18.0
16.4
17.3
19.0
17.5
31.1
16.1
18.6
17.5
21.1
17.3
SDs Above Passing *
3.19
2.81
2.91
2.75
2.49
2.77
1.58
3.14
2.66
2.90
2.57
2.86
Percent Passing **
100%
99.6%
100.0%
99.0%
98.0%
99.7%
97.8%
100.0%
97.8%
98.7%
98.9%
99.4%
Assessment of Teaching Skills-Written (ATS-W) Claim 2: Pedagogical Knowledge
N Tested
90
278
84
340
97
326
97
328
95
236
463
1508
Mean Scaled Score
267.0
268.0
267.1
269
270.1
268.2
272.7
268.2
270.8
270.4
269.7
268.7
Standard Deviation
13.4
14.8
14.8
15.5
13.8
15.8
13.3
13.5
14.5
13.9
14.1
14.8
SDs Above Passing *
3.51
3.24
3.17
3.16
3.64
3.05
3.95
3.57
3.51
3.63
3.56
3.29
Percent Passing **
100%
99.6%
100.0%
99.7%
100.0%
99.7%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99.8%
Content Specialty Tests (CSTs) *** Claim 1: Content Knowledge
N Tested
81
316
81
352
90
322
92
310
97
241
441
1541
Mean Scaled Score
249.4
251.5
245.2
255.6
250.0
255.9
252.0
257.4
254.6
254.4
250.4
255.0
Standard Deviation
18.6
21.5
33.0
19.6
17.6
19.4
18.1
21.3
21.4
19.8
22.4
20.4
SDs Above Passing *
1.58
1.47
0.76
1.82
1.71
1.85
1.77
1.76
1.62
1.74
1.49
1.72
Percent Passing **
92.6%
95.9%
93.8%
97.7%
97.8%
99.0%
98.9%
97.7%
95.9%
96.7%
95.9%
97.5%
* SDs Above Passing = Effect Size = (MSS - 220)/SD; the program standard is an ES >= .80, large and meaningful
** Passing score = 220 on a scale of 100 – 300
*** If a student has multiple tests, data are based on the most recent exam
39
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Disaggregation by Program Area
The CST results were disaggregated by certification area (see Figures 4.2.2a for BS
students and 4.2.2b for MA students,). Students took CSTs in all of the certification areas. The
mean scores for all certification areas far exceeded the passing score of 220; however there were
some noteworthy differences. Students taking the Math exam had the highest means for both the
BS group (269.9) and the MA group (277.1). For the BS group, mean scores were in the 250
range for the Elementary Education CST, Educational Theatre, English, Science, and Music. For
the MA group, the mean for Literacy was 268.2, and means ranged in the 250’s for Elementary
Education CST, Science, English, Educational Theatre, ESOL, and Social Studies. The mean
scaled scores exceeded the program standard for all program certification areas for both BS and
MA students. For BS students, the ES ranged from 2.23 for Math to 1.14 for (Teachers of)
Students with Disabilities; for MA students, the ES ranged from 2.80 for Math to 1.02 for Dance
Figure 4.2.2a Mean scaled scores for most-frequently taken NYSTCE Content Specialty Tests
Note. Data are based on the most recent CST exam taken by each graduate. Graduates who took multiple CSTs are counted in
only one subject.
40
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Figure 4.2.2b Mean scaled scores for most frequently-taken NYSTCE Content Specialty Tests
4.2.3. Student Teacher End-of-Term Feedback Questionnaire (ETFQ)
Sample Representativeness
A total of 1,311 program completers, 530 BS and 781 MA graduates, completed ETFQs
at the end of their last student teaching placement for the Classes of 2006-10. This represents an
overall response rate of 50%. The respondents represented all of the program certification areas,
with the exception of the BS programs in music and special education and the MA programs in
music, art, and special education.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability was assessed through analysis of the stability of results. The mean scores for
the three claims showed high consistency across the four cohorts (see Table 4.2.3). The size of
the differences between each cohort mean and the grand mean was calculated in sigma units,
using the SDs for the grand means. For BS students, the largest differences were 0.28 for Claims
2 and 3 and 0.21 for Claim 1, all for the Class of 2008, when the means fell just below the
program standard. For MA students, all mean differences were less than 0.20, signifying that
they were not meaningful.
Results of the Assessment
The participants completed the survey online responding to questions about the extent to
which mentoring by their supervisors and cooperating teachers had enhanced their knowledge
and skill in the areas of Content Knowledge (Claim 1), Pedagogical Knowledge (Claim 2), and
Teaching Skill (Claim 3, Clinical Knowledge). Table 4.2.3 displays the mean scores on a 5point scale ranging from Very Poorly (1) to Very Well (5) for each class of BS and MA student
teachers and the totals across all five classes. The target standard was a total mean of 4.0 (Well)
on the items for each claim. The target means were attained on the totals for both BS and MA
41
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
groups for all three claims. There was little variability in the means across the five classes,
although the highest means were observed for the Class of 2010. Also, there was little variability
in the means for program certification areas, with the exception of very high ratings for students
in the literacy MA program on all three measures, although the n was small. The consistency of
strong student teacher perceptions of the impact of mentoring on their content area and teaching
knowledge and skills lends support to Claims 1 – 3.
TABLE 4.2.3
Mean Scores on the Claim Scales on the End of Term Feedback Questionnaire for Steinhardt students in
their final student teaching placement: Classes of 2006 – 2010
Class of 2006 Class of 2007 Class of 2008 Class of 2009 Class of 2010
Totals *
BS
MA
BS
MA
BS
MA
BS
MA
BS
MA
BS
MA
Claim 1 Scale: Content Knowledge
N
150
192
150
215
98
156
42
59
89
158
529
780
Mean 3.93
3.96
4.11
4.03
3.84
4.01
3.95
3.94
4.18
4.07
4.01
4.01
SD
0.84
0.86
0.75
0.81
0.83
0.88
0.8
1.13
0.86
0.91
0.81
0.88
Claim 2 Scale: Pedagogical Knowledge
N
150
192
151
216
98
156
42
59
89
158
530
781
Mean 4.04
4.07
4.26
4.17
3.92
4.16
4.18
4.13
4.29
4.27
4.13
4.16
SD
0.82
0.79
0.68
0.76
0.86
0.79
0.61
0.91
0.72
0.78
0.75
0.79
Claim 3 Scale: Clinical Knowledge
N
150
192
151
216
98
156
42
59
89
158
530
781
Mean 4.09
4.06
4.22
4.18
3.93
4.16
4.21
4.11
4.27
4.25
4.14
4.16
SD
0.71
0.8
0.7
0.72
0.85
0.8
0.63
94
0.78
0.76
0.74
7.81
Notes: Claim 1 scale items are Items 9 and 18; Claim 2 scale items are Items 7 and 15; and Claim 3
scale items are Items 8, 11, 16, and 19. Items are measured on a 5-point Likert scale with scale values
of (1) “Very Poorly”, (2) “Poorly”, (3) “Average”, (4) “Well”, and (5) “Very Well”.
* Total means in bold meet the program standard of 4.0.
4.2.4. Educational Beliefs Multicultural Attitudes Survey (EBMAS)
Sample Representativeness
The EBMAS sample used to assess the claims included 175 students, 57 BS and 118 MA
who were completing their programs at the time of the assessment in spring 2010. The sample
represents 64.0% of the BS graduates and 57.0% of the MA graduates for spring 2010, for an
overall response rate of 59.1%. The sample included students from every program certification
area.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability: EBMAS’ four scales showed moderate to strong internal consistency
reliability with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients as follows: MA/SJ Alpha =.887, n=659; GTE
Alpha =.674, n=671; PTE1 Alpha =.749, n=623; and PTE2 Alpha=.739. n=663.
Construct validity: First, structural validity was examined through exploratory factor
analysis of the full database (N = 664), using a principal components model with varimax
rotation. The scree plot revealed diminishing returns after a four-factor solution that accounted
for 48% of the item variance. The rotated components matrix was consistent with the item-factor
alignment that guided the development of EBMAS with several exceptions. EBMAS was
42
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
constructed with items from separate scales, including one that measured caring/social justice
and another that measured multicultural attitudes. It was hypothesized that separate factors
would emerge for each; however factor analysis found that a single factor explained the items
from the separate scales. Accordingly, these items were merged into a single scale that was
named Multicultural Awareness/Social Justice (MA/SJ). Next, items that were drawn from the
TES to measure a single construct called personal teacher efficacy broke into two separate
factors: one, which was labeled Personal Teacher Efficacy 1 (PTE 1), was comprised of items
that measured the student teachers’ belief in their ability to deal with specific student problems;
the second, which was labeled PTE 2, measured their belief that they would be able to help
students succeed. The other hypothesized factor, General Teacher Efficacy (GTE), emerged as
expected. The 28 items with high loadings on one of the four factors were organized into four
scales by summing the values of responses, with negatively-stated items appropriately flipped for
scoring.
Construct validity was further supported by a comparison of the relationships between
mean scale scores and the levels of program experience of students in the full database. As
hypothesized, the mean scores for high-credit BS students were statistically significantly higher
than those for the medium- and low-credit students, thereby demonstrating that the scale scores
were influenced by time in the program. Results from a similar comparison for MA students
were not as strong. The mean scores for high-credit MA students were statistically significantly
higher than low credit MA students for only one scale: PTE 1, Student Problem Solving. The
smaller differences for MA students may be attributed to smaller differences between the credit
groups on time in program than for the BS students.
Results of the Assessment
The program standard was set at mean scores of 4.5 on all four scales for BS and MA
students in their final semester. This value is half-way between neutral and the highest possible
score, thereby representing high levels of beliefs in teaching efficacy and social
justice/multiculturalism. The data were analyzed for the total BS and MA students; they were
not disaggregated by certification area because of the low sample size. Table 4.2.4 displays the
mean scale scores for these students and performance against the program standard. The means
for both BS and MA students met the standard for three of the four scales. Both groups met the
standard for MA/SJ and GTE; BS students met the standard for PTE1 while MA students met the
standard for PTE2. Although the mean for the latter was 4.39 (SD=0.69), the program standard
was within the 95 percent confidence interval around the obtained value, thereby indicating that
the difference might be due to sampling error. The results provide evidence in support of the
cross-cutting theme of Multicultural Perspective, and Claim 4, Caring Professionals; they also
provide partial support for Claim 3, Competence in Clinical Knowledge. 43
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
TABLE 4.2.4
Mean scores and performance against program standards on the EBMAS for BS and MA Steinhardt teacher
education program completers in the Class of 2010
Scale (Claim)
Multi-cultural
Attitudes/Social
Justice (Claim 4
& CCT
Multicultural
Perspective)
General Teacher
Efficacy (Claim
4)
Personal Teacher
Efficacy 1:
Student problem
solving (Claim
3)
Personal Teacher
Efficacy 2:
Student success
(Claim 3)
BS Program Completers
MA Program Completers
N
Mean
SD
M-4.50*
Performance
N
Mean
SD
M-4.50*
Perform.
57
5.45
0.47
0.95
Met program
standard
117
5.19
0.60
0.69
Met
program
standard
57
5.24
0.65
0.74
Met program
standard
118
4.83
0.84
0.33
Met
program
standard
57
4.49
0.83
-0.01
Met program
standard
118
4.16
0.78
-0.34
Below
program
standard
56
4.20
0.79
-0.30
Below
program
standard
118
4.39
0.69
-0.11
Standard
within CI **
Responses are measured on a 6-point scale of agreement as follows: (1) Strongly Disagree (2) Moderately Disagree (3)
Slightly Disagree (4) Slightly Agree (5) Moderately Agree (6) Strongly Agree.
* The program goals are means of 4.50 (negative items were reverse coded).
** The program standard is within the 95% confidence interval around the observed mean.
4.2.5. Grade Point Averages (GPA)
Reliability and Validity
Reliability was assessed through analysis of the stability of the GPA results across
cohorts. Inspection of Tables 4.2.5a and 4.2.5b finds a high degree of consistency in the GPAs
across the five classes 2006 – 2010. All of the standardized differences between each class’
GPAs and the grand mean, with the sole exception of the Teaching Skills (TS) for BS graduates,
are less than 0.20 standard deviations, indicating that the differences are not meaningful. The TS
for 2010 graduates shows a large difference from the grand mean on the positive side, while the
TS for 2006 shows a moderate difference on the low side. These differences are not sufficient to
threaten inferences about the claims that are based on the grand means.
The empirical validity for the GPA measures was investigated through correlations with
the NYSTCE exams. As can be seen on Table 4.2.2 and discussed in section 4.2.2 of the results
above, the pattern of correlations provides weak to moderate support for the use of the Content
Knowledge GPA (CK) to assess Claim 1, the Pedagogical GPA (PK) to measure Claim 2, the
Teaching Skills GPA (TS) to measure Claim 3, and the Cross-Cutting Themes GPA (CCT) to
44
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
measure the cross-cutting themes claims, especially Learning to Learn. It should be noted that
the CCT for BS students includes courses taken at CAS and Steinhardt; for MA students, it is the
undergraduate GPA.
Assessment of the Claims
Overall results: Tables 4.2.5a and 4.2.5b display the four types of mean GPAs for BS
and MA students for the five classes in the inquiry, along with the overall means. The tables also
show the alignment between the claims and the GPAs. Given the high stability of GPAs across
years, the analysis focuses on the total or grand means. Seven of the eight grand means exceed
the program criterion of 3.00; the lone exception is the CCT for BS students, which is 2.79.
TABLE 4.2.5a
Mean GPAs of NYU BS teacher education graduates by claims (Classes of 2006
- 2010)
Claim
GPA*
Statistic 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010 Total**
Mean
3.15
3.23
3.17
3.1
3.09
3.15
SD
0.61
0.73
0.67
0.75
0.62
0.68
CK
N
105
104
108
125
118
560
1
Mean
3.74
3.72
3.73
3.68
3.63
3.7
SD
0.26
0.33
0.31
0.26
0.25
0.28
PK
N
105
105
109
127
120
566
2
Mean
3.23
3.28
3.37
3.42
3.55
3.37
SD
0.25
0.24
0.28
0.28
0.26
0.29
TS
N
105
105
109
127
120
566
3
Mean
2.76
2.78
2.88
2.82
2.69
2.79
CrossSD
0.97
1.08
0.97
1.09
1.05
1.04
CCT
cutting
N
105
105
109
126
120
565
* Types of GPA: CK=Content Knowledge; PK=Pedagogical Knowledge;
TS=Teaching Skill; CCT=Cross Cutting Themes
** Total means in bold font meet or exceed the program standard of 3.0
TABLE 4.2.5b
Mean GPAs of NYU MA teacher education graduates by claims (Classes of 2006
- 2010)
Claim
GPA*
Statistic 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010 Total**
Mean
3.73
3.72
3.59
3.73
3.67
3.69
SD
0.56
0.74
0.89
0.69
0.78
0.75
1
CK
N
174
294
286
319
260
1333
Mean
3.86
3.87
3.86
3.87
3.85
3.86
SD
0.17
0.18
0.26
0.16
0.21
0.2
2
PK
N
271
480
435
443
330
1959
Mean
3.75
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.87
3.86
SD
0.35
0.25
0.29
0.23
0.34
0.29
3
TS
N
230
422
390
389
312
1743
Mean
3.27
3.31
3.34
3.32
3.36
3.32
CrossCCT
SD
0.4
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.37
cutting
***
N
314
361
308
311
245
1539
* Types of GPA: CK=Content Knowledge; PK=Pedagogical Knowledge;
TS=Teaching Skill; CCT=Cross Cutting Themes
45
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
** Total means in bold font meet or exceed the program standard of 3.0
*** CCT for MA students is based on total undergraduate GPA
Disaggregation by program area: To gain a better understanding of the dynamics
underlying the below-standard performance in CCT GPA by the BS graduates, the data were
disaggregated by certification program (see Table 4.2.5c. Mean CCTs were above the standard
for two program areas, Science Education and Math Education. The means were just below the
standard for English Education, Social Studies Education, and Educational Theatre. The means
for the remaining programs were well below the standard.
In summary, the GPA data support the claims of Content Knowledge, Pedagogical and
Content Knowledge, and Clinical Competence. They provide partial evidence for the crosscutting themes, especially Learning to Learn, supporting the claim for MA students and BS
students in Math and Science.
TABLE 4.2.5c
Mean CCT GPA by certification area program(Classes of 2006-2010)
Certification area program
Science Ed.
Math Ed.
English Ed.
Social Studies Ed.
Ed. Theatre
Music Ed.
Dual Childhood Ed.
MMS
Dual Early Childhood Ed.
Total
Mean CCT*
3.15
3.08
2.94
2.93
2.88
2.66
2.61
2.60
2.59
2.76
N
10
49
86
51
50
43
168
17
90
564
SD
0.53
0.90
0.92
1.13
0.70
0.78
1.13
1.39
1.14
1.04
*The program standard is a mean GPA of 3.0
4.2.6. Program Exit Survey
Sample Representativeness
There was evidence that the 232 (38.4%) survey respondents were representative of the
population of program graduates for May 2009 and 2010. The split for degree program was 21%
BS and 79% MA, under-representing the former compared to the population split of 30.8% and
69.2%, respectively, but maintaining the balance between the two. In addition, the respondents
represented every certification area program, except Art Education.
Reliability and Validity
To assess the stability of the results, z-tests for the difference between proportions were
applied to the percents of “Very Well” and “Moderately Well” responses for each item of the
2009 and 2010 surveys. None of the differences in responses between the two years was
statistically significant. Inspection of the rank order of items for percent of “Very Well” and
“Moderately Well” responses showed a close correspondence between both the NYU BS and
MA samples and the Levine sample. The NYU rankings for all 11 items common to the Levine
and NYU surveys were within two ranks of one another, with one exception; both BS and MA
46
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
NYU samples ranked their preparation in “Address the needs of students from diverse cultures”
higher than the Levine sample; the item ranked third out of 11 for the NYU samples versus
eighth out of 11 for the Levine sample. The convergence of data supports the substantive
validity of the Program Exit Survey as a measure of self-perceived preparation to teach and, by
extension, its validity for making inferences about the claims.
Assessment of Claims
Overall results: Table 4.2.6 displays the numbers and percents of surveyed students
who indicated that they were “Very Well” or “Moderately Well” prepared to begin teaching in
each of 15 skill and knowledge areas, as well as the alignment between items and program
claims. Data are shown for BS and MA students for each year and combined. The percents
responding well or very well on the two-year totals are compared to the program standard of 80
percent, which is a level that exceeds the percents obtained in the Levine study by six to 53
percent, depending on item. This ambitious standard reflects Steinhardt’s commitment to
develop teachers who have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that will ensure they are
highly effective in promoting the learning of their pupils. As seen in Table 4.2.6, BS students
met the 80 percent standard for 12 of the 15 skills (three within the 95% confidence interval),
while the MA students met the standards in nine (one within the 95% confidence interval). In
general, BS students expressed more confidence in their preparation for teaching than MA
students. Both groups met the program standard for the two items on Content Knowledge and
four of the six items on Pedagogical Knowledge. BS students met standards on the two Clinical
Skill items while MA students met one; only 67.7% of the MA students felt prepared to
“maintain order and discipline in the classroom.” BS students met the standard on the three
Caring Professionals items while MA students met one. Finally, while both groups met standard
on the item related to the cross-cutting Multicultural theme, both fell below standard on the item
related to integrating technology into teaching.
Disaggregation by program area: In order to determine the extent to which responses
varied by certification area, the data were disaggregated by program. To reduce the threat to
validity from sampling bias, the responses of BS and MA students were combined for this
analysis. It should be noted that the numbers of respondents varied among program areas, and
that there were no respondents from the Dual Early Childhood/Special Education, Dual
Childhood/Special Education, or Art Education program areas.
The matrix of item responses (Percent “Very Well” or “Moderately Well”) by program
certification areas was inspected in order to identify noteworthy variations, using a criterion of
plus or minus 15% to form the value for the total sample. The seven respondents for Dance
Education expressed extremely high perceptions of their preparation; 100% felt prepared to teach
on 10 of 14 items (they did not respond to the item on technology); the one item in which a low
percentage (14.3% or one student) felt prepared was “Work with parents.” Other programs with
higher than average levels of perceived preparation for at least four items included
Multicultural/Multilingual Studies (MMS), English Education, and Early Childhood Education
(MA program), although the latter also had several items with low levels of perceived
preparation. The Science and Social Studies Education programs had low levels of perceived
preparation on multiple items, although the sample size was too small to eliminate the possibility
47
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
of sampling bias. The program-specific results have been shared with program faculty and are
being used to help inform discussions aimed at program improvement.
TABLE 4.2.6 Numbers and percents of Steinhardt teacher-education program completers who reported on the
Program Exit Survey that their programs prepared them very or moderately well to begin teaching: Classes of 2009
and 2010
Claim
Content
knowledge
Content
knowledge
Have a mastery of your subject area
Implement state/district curriculum
& standards
Pedagogical
knowledge
Understand how students learn
Pedagogical
knowledge
Use different pedagogical
approaches
Pedagogical
knowledge
Responded Very Well or Moderately Well Combined
How well did your teacher
education program prepare you to:
Use student performance assessment
techniques
N
Class of 2009
BS
MA
19
72
Class of 2010
BS
MA
18
61
Totals *
BS
MA
37
133
%
76.0%
81.8%
85.7%
81.3%
80.4%
81.6%
N
22
71
18
58
40
129
%
88.0%
81.6%
85.7%
78.4%
86.9%
80.1%
N
23
82
20
67
43
149
92.0%
94.3%
95.2%
88.2%
93.5%
91.5%
N
24
83
20
69
44
152
%
96.0%
94.3%
95.2%
89.6%
95.6%
92.1%
N
21
72
18
62
39
134
%
84.0%
82.7%
85.7%
82.7%
84.8%
82.7%
67
15
57
%
Pedagogical
knowledge
Address needs of students with
disabilities
N
20
35
124
%
80.0%
76.1%
71.4%
76.0%
76.1%
76.1%
Pedagogical
knowledge
Address needs of students with
limited English proficiency
N
14
55
11
51
25
106
%
58.4%
61.5%
52.4%
67.1%
55.6%
64.1%
N
17
40
17
40
34
80
%
68.0%
45.0%
68.0%
45.0%
68.0%
45.0%
N
23
58
17
54
40
112
%
92.0%
65.6%
81.0%
70.1%
87.0%
67.7%
N
22
83
21
67
43
150
%
95.7%
95.4%
100.0%
89.3%
97.8%
92.6%
N
20
72
16
61
36
133
80.0%
82.5%
76.2%
81.3%
78.3%
81.9%
59
18
58
Pedagogical
knowledge
Work with parents
Clinical skill
Maintain order & discipline in the
classroom
Clinical skill
Impact my students' ability to learn
Caring
Professionals
Work collaboratively with teachers,
administrators and other school
personnel
%
Identify & use resources within the
community where you teach
N
20
38
117
%
80.0%
67.8%
85.7%
76.3%
82.6%
71.8%
Caring
Professionals
Participate as a stakeholder in the
community where you teach
N
20
55
16
50
36
105
63.9%
76.2%
65.8%
Cross-cutting
theme
Address needs of students from
diverse cultures
%
N
%
80.0%
22
80.0%
79
89.8%
64.8%
145
88.4%
Integrate technology into teaching
N
66
86.8%
47
78.3%
42
91.3%
Cross-cutting
theme
20
95.2%
14
14
47
%
66.7%
61.8%
66.7%
61.8%
Caring
Professionals
* Total percents in bold meet or exceed the program criterion of 80%; those in bold italics have the program criterion within
the 95% confidence interval for the observed value.
Responses recorded on a four-point scale as follows: (4) Very Well (3) Moderately Well (2) Somewhat Well (4) Not Well at
48
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
All. Most items were taken from Arthur Levine's survey of teacher education graduates (2006)
4.2.7. One-Year Follow-Up Survey
Sample Representativeness
The program characteristics of the respondents were similar to those of the target
population of graduates but there were some differences. The sample of 322 respondents was
split 32.6% BS graduates and 67.4% MA graduates. Compared to the split of 27.9% BS and
72.1% MA graduates for the full population of graduates from the classes of 2007 – 2009, the
survey sample had a small but statistically significant under-representation of BS graduates. All
of the certification areas were represented among the respondents although there were some
differences in their relative proportions. Most notably, Educational Theatre graduates were overrepresented in the sample of respondents. Overall, the sample of respondents does not show bias
in measured characteristics that would pose a threat to the validity of inferences concerning the
claims.
Reliability and Validity
To assess the stability of the results, z-tests for the difference between proportions were
applied to the differences in means across the three administrations for the 15 survey items.
Only three of the 45 tests were statistically significant. Therefore, the overall survey results
showed a high degree of stability/reliability across the three years of data. Inspection of the rank
order of items for percent of “Well” and “Moderately Well” responses showed a close
correspondence between both the NYU BS and MA samples and the Levine sample, similar to
the same analysis for the Program Exit Survey. The NYU rankings for all 11 items common to
the Levine and NYU surveys were within two ranks of one another, with one exception; the
NYU sample ranked their preparation in “Address the needs of students from diverse cultures”
much higher than the Levine sample - 3rd out of 11 for the former two samples versus 8th out of
11 for the latter—the same rankings as observed for the Program Exit Survey. The convergence
of data supports the substantive validity of the One-Year Follow-Up Survey as a measure of selfperceived preparation to teach and, by extension, its validity for making inferences about the
claims.
Assessment of the Claims
Overall results: Table 4.2.7 displays the numbers and percents of responding graduates
who reported they felt “Very Well” or “Moderately Well” prepared to teach by the Steinhardt
teacher education program in 15 skill areas. Unlike the data for the Program Exit Survey, these
results are for BS and MA students combined. The decision to combine the data was based on
the similarity of results for BS and MA graduates of the Program Exit Survey and an effort to
generate more robust parameter estimates. The survey results met the program standard of 80%
for 6 of the 15 items: 1 of the 2 Content Knowledge items; 3 of the 6 Pedagogical Knowledge
items; 1 of the 2 Clinical Skill items; none of the 3 Caring Professional items; and the crosscutting multicultural theme item but not the cross-cutting integrating technology item. The
profile of results, as determined by the rank order of items, is the same as observed for the
Program Exit Survey. However, the overall percents expressing feelings of high and moderate
preparation are, with a few exceptions, 5 – 10 percentage points lower in the One-Year Follow
Up Survey. This may be attributable to the harsh realities of schools and classrooms as
perceived by new teachers during the induction year. This appears to be especially true for those
49
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
who teach in urban schools, as indicated by a statistically significant effect for these schools on
survey responses (Tobias and Tian, 2010).
TABLE 4.2.7 - Numbers and percents of Steinhardt teacher-education graduates who reported on the One-Year
Follow-Up Survey that their programs had prepared them very or moderately well to begin teaching: Classes of 2007
– 2009
Responded very or moderately well combined
Claim
How well did your program prepare you to:
2007
Graduating class:
2008
2009
Totals *
N
68
67
107
242
%
71.6%
78.8%
79.9%
77.1%
N
%
59
62.1%
60
70.6%
102
76.1%
221
70.4%
N
79
74
117
270
%
83.2%
87.0%
86.7%
85.7%
N
%
76
80.0%
75
88.2%
123
92.5%
274
87.5%
N
64
66
111
241
%
67.3%
77.7%
82.8%
76.7%
N
%
56
58.9%
60
70.6%
79
59.0%
195
62.1%
N
36
47
63
146
%
37.9%
55.3%
46.7%
46.4%
N
%
42
44.2%
48
56.4%
59
42.1%
149
46.5%
N
68
49
84
201
%
71.6%
57.7%
62.7%
64.0%
Impact my students' ability to learn
N
%
73
76.8%
72
85.7%
116
86.6%
261
83.4%
Caring Profs.
Work collaboratively with teachers,
administrators & personnel
N
%
65
68.4%
61
71.7%
102
75.6%
228
72.4%
Caring Profs.
Identify & use resources within the
community where you teach
N
54
61
93
208
%
56.8%
71.7%
68.9%
66.0%
Caring Profs.
Participate as a stakeholder in the
community where you teach
Cross-cutting
theme
Address needs of students from diverse
cultures
N
%
N
%
40
42.1%
70
73.7%
55
64.7%
67
78.9%
76
56.3%
111
82.2%
171
54.3%
248
78.7%
Cross-cutting
theme
Integrate technology into the grade level or
subject taught
N
53
51
90
194
%
55.8%
59.2%
66.7%
61.4%
Content
knowledge
Have a mastery of your subject area
Content
knowledge
Implement state/district curriculum &
standards
Pedagogical
knowledge
Understand how students learn
Pedagogical
knowledge
Use different pedagogical approaches
Pedagogical
knowledge
Use student performance assessment
techniques
Pedagogical
knowledge
Address needs of students with disabilities
Pedagogical
knowledge
Address needs of students with limited
English proficiency
Pedagogical
knowledge
Work with parents
Clinical skill
Maintain order & discipline in the
classroom
Clinical skill
* Total percents in bold meet or exceed the program criterion of 80%; those in bold italics have the program criterion with
in the 95% confidence interval for the observed value.
Responses recorded on a four-point scale as follows: (4) Very Well (3) Moderately Well (2) Somewhat Well (4) Not Well at
All. Most items were taken from Arthur Levine's survey of teacher education graduates (2006)
50
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Disaggregation by program area: Using the same analytic model and with the same
cautions as described above for the Program Exit Survey, disaggregated data were explored for
differences among program certification areas. There were respondents for every program,
although the frequencies varied widely. As they did in the Program Exit Survey, the respondents
from Dance Education reported high degrees of preparation to teach one year after graduation.
As for the respondents overall, their perceptions were somewhat muted compared to the Program
Exit Survey, but still mostly positive. High percents felt prepared in six of the 15 teaching skills,
and low percents on only one, namely “Work with parents” (low also in the Program Exit
Survey). Respondents from some of the other programs claimed an even broader scope of
preparation, as indicated by high percents feeling prepared over a larger number of skills. These
programs included Science Education (which had low levels of perceived preparation on the
Program Exit Survey), Dual Early Childhood, and Educational Theatre. Programs with low
perceptions of preparation on several skill areas included Art Education, Social Studies
Education, and Special Education, excluding the dual certification programs. The caveat about
the possibility of sampling bias due to low n applies here. The program-specific results for both
surveys have been shared with program area faculty and are being used to help inform
discussions aimed at program area improvement. We expect to see changes over the next 2 years
and will track these in the annual TEAC reports.
4.2.8. Graduate Tracking Study
Reliability
Analyses of the tracking data obtained from the NYCDOE for the years 2004 – 2009,
showed patterns of employment that were systematically consistent with identifiable factors that
have affected NYU enrollments and the market for teachers in NYC, thereby supporting the
reliability of the data.
Results of the Assessment
Types of NYC schools in which graduates are employed: Consistent with NYU’s
mission to be in and of the city, a key focus of Steinhardt’s teacher education programs is to
prepare its graduates to teach in NYC public schools. Moreover, true to NYU’s claim of
developing caring professionals who are concerned with social justice, competent interculturally,
and attracted to meeting the needs of economically disadvantaged students living in cities, the
goal is for graduates to teach in schools demographically similar to NYC’s public schools. To
assess the extent to which this goal has been realized, the graduate tracking study collects data on
the demographics of the NYC public schools in which Steinhardt graduates teach. Demographic
data on the schools of graduates from the classes of 2004 – 2008 were downloaded from the
NYCDOE school-wide Annual School Progress Report file for the 2007-08 school year. The
standard set by faculty was no statistically significant differences in high-need demographics for
the graduates’ schools compared to the NYC public schools overall. The mean percentages of
students in four high-need, at-risk categories were calculated for the graduates’ schools and
statistically compared to the respective means for all NYC schools within the same school type
(i.e., grade levels) using Z tests for differences in proportions (see Table 4.2.8a).
The results indicate that for the most part, the high-need demographic characteristics of
the graduates’ schools were not different statistically from NYC schools of the same type
overall. There were no significant differences statistically between the graduates’ schools and all
51
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
NYC public schools in percent English language learners (ELLs) and percent special education
for all five school types. There were also no statistically significant differences in percent Black
and Hispanic and percent Title 1 eligible schools for graduates teaching in K – 8 schools and
Transfer Schools for at-risk students. However, the mean percent Black and Hispanic for
graduates’ schools were significantly lower in K-6, middle, and high schools, and the percents
Title 1 eligible were significantly lower in graduates’ K-6 and middle schools. However, even
where differences were observed, the mean percents of the graduates’ schools showed high
levels of need. Thus, overall, these data support Claim 4, Caring Professionals, and the crosscutting theme of multiculturalism.
TABLE 4.2.8a
Comparison of the demographics of NYC schools in which NYU graduates first taught and all
NYC schools disaggregated by school type (Sep. 2004 - Sep. 2008 grads)
All NYC
Grads Schools
Diff. in
Schools
N
School Type
Demographic
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Means*
Grads
Elementary
Middle
K-8
High School
Transfer
School
%ELL
391
16.2
12.9
16.9
13.1
-0.7
%Spec. Ed.
391
19.4
8.7
16.9
6.3
2.5
% Black & Hispanic
391
61.7
31.9
70.8
31.3
-9
% Title 1 Eligible
391
59.2
28.8
68.7
23
-9.5
N Enrolled
391
636.3
251.6
639.3
277.9
-3
%ELL
228
10.5
10.3
11.1
12.2
-0.6
%Spec. Ed.
228
18
7.2
16.6
7.4
1.4
% Black & Hispanic
228
73.4
28.1
81
25.1
-7.6
% Title 1 Eligible
228
62.8
22.7
68.9
19.3
-6.1
N Enrolled
228
651.5
387.5
584.6
419.2
66.9
%ELL
82
13.8
7.9
11.6
11
2.2
%Spec. Ed.
82
19.8
6.2
16.6
6.7
3.2
% Black & Hispanic
82
73.7
28.2
78.3
27.4
-4.6
% Title 1 Eligible
82
69.4
20.1
67.7
21.9
1.7
N Enrolled
82
672.9
289.1
684.6
290.8
-11.7
%ELL
304
10.7
17.8
12.6
18.5
-1.9
%Spec. Ed.
304
11.7
6.1
12.8
6.8
-1.1
% Black & Hispanic
304
72.9
26.1
82.3
22.1
-9.4
% Title 1 Eligible
304
54.9
22.6
61.4
19.9
-6.4
N Enrolled
304
1029.7
1128.5
898.3
1027.2
131.4
%ELL
19
17.2
29.4
9.2
19.3
8
%Spec. Ed.
19
8.1
4.4
9.7
4.9
-1.7
% Black & Hispanic
19
75
25.6
86.7
17.6
-11.7
% Title 1 Eligible
19
53.8
21.4
63.4
15.5
-9.6
N Enrolled
19
510.4
293.4
317.8
229.2
192.6
Note 1: School demographic data were missing for 96 (8.6%) of the graduates who were working in
NYC public schools
* Differences in bold italics are statistically significant at p < .05. The program standard is that the
52
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
means for the percent of at-risk students in the schools of NYU graduates will equal to or higher than the
means for all NYC public schools. The standard does not apply to enrollment.
Retention of NYU graduates in NYCPS: The NYCDOE data file also contained
information on the employment status of Steinhardt graduates in January, 2009. The status
categories were “active in NYC schools,” “on leave (but not terminated),” and “no longer
teaching in NYC public schools.” Juxtaposing these data with the dates of first employment in
NYC schools for each cohort, it was possible to calculate the length of retention for graduates in
TABLE 4.2.8b
Retention status and years of teaching for Steinhardt graduates who began teaching in
the New York City public schools within one year of graduation (Classes of 2004 2008, including Sept. 2008 graduates)
Degree
Class (Active status
in NYC schools)
2004 (Teaching year
5 in NYCDOE)
2005 (Teaching year
4 in NYCDOE)
BS
Total
31
%
64.5%
3.2%
32.3%
100.0%
N
40
2
9
51
%
78.4%
3.9%
17.6%
100.0%
2006 (Teaching year
3 in NYCDOE)
N
34
0
8
42
%
81.0%
0.0%
19.0%
100.0%
2007 (Teaching year
2 in NYCDOE)
N
25
0
9
34
%
73.5%
0.0%
26.5%
100.0%
N
28 NS
0
0
28
%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
N
147
3
36
186
%
79.0%
1.6%
19.4%
100.0%
N
69
9
48
126
%
54.8%
7.1%
38.1%
100.0%
N
109
12
52
173
%
63.0%
6.9%
30.1%
100.0%
N
130
5
56
191
%
68.1%
2.6%
29.3%
100.0%
N
179 NS
1
32
212
%
84.4%
0.5%
15.1%
100.0%
N
209
1
10
220
%
95.0%
0.5%
4.5%
100.0%
N
696
28
198
922
%
75.5%
3.0%
21.5%
100.0%
2008 (Teaching year
1 in NYCDOE)
Total
2004 (Teaching year
5 in NYCDOE)
2005 (Teaching year
4 in NYCDOE)
2006 (Teaching year
3 in NYCDOE)
MA
N
Status on Jan. 1 2009
No
Longer
On
Teaching
Active *
Leave
in NYC
20
1
10
2007 (Teaching year
2 in NYCDOE)
2008 (Teaching year
1 in NYCDOE)
Total
Source: NYCDOE Human Resources Data Systems
* Program standards for Active retention are as follows: first year = no standard (NS); year
2 = 80%; year 3 = 70%; year 4 = 65%; year 5 = 60%. The standards are set at 5 – 10%
53
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
above the estimated teacher retention rates for NYC public schools published in a staff
report published by the NY City Council (July 2009).
each class. For instance, graduates in the Class of 2004 who were active in January 2009 would
have been employed in the NYC public schools for five years. Those in the Class of 2005 who
were still active would have been employed for four years, and so on. Using a report from the
Investigation Division of the New York City Council (July 2009), Steinhardt faculty established
standards for the retention of its graduates that were 5 – 10% above the estimated retention rates
for NYC public school teachers overall (see footnote to Table 4.2.8b). Inspection of Table
4.2.8b reveals that both BS and MA graduates in all four classes met the respective retention
standards, or had the standard within the 95% confidence interval, for their years of service in the
NYC public schools.
4.2.9. Graduates’ Value-Added Effects on Pupils’ Standardized Test Scores
Reliability and Validity
Using a VAM dataset for NYU graduates provided by the NYCDOE, NYU researchers
ran correlations of the calculated VAM effects for consecutive years for samples ranging in size
from 45 – 60 graduates (Tobias, et. al., 2010). The Pearson product-moment correlations for
VAM values from consecutive years were in the small but meaningful range for English
language arts (ELA) (.18 and .23) and the medium and meaningful range for math (.34 and .35).
These findings provide some support for the stability of VAM effects. Successive studies by
NYU researchers using two different datasets provided by the NYCDOE, found moderately
strong linear relationships between VAM effects and total years of teaching experience for NYU
graduates in both ELA and math (Hummel-Rossi, et. al., 2009; Tobias, et. al., 2010). These
findings supported the substantive validity of VAM as a measure of the graduates’ teaching skill,
Claim 3.
Results of the Assessment
The VAM statistical model computes an expected score in performance levels ranging
from 1 – 4.5 for each pupil based on student demographics and baseline test performance,
teacher characteristics, and class demographics. The teachers’ VAM effect is the mean
difference between their pupils’ actual and predicted performance. A VAM effect of zero
indicates that the mean 2008 test scores of the teachers’ pupils are exactly as predicted by the
VAM model; scores above zero indicate that mean performance is above prediction and scores
below zero indicate actual performance that is below predicted. Table 4.2.9 displays the VAM
data for Steinhardt graduates in ELA and math, disaggregated by years of teaching experience.
For each experience group, the table shows mean actual and predicted performance and the
difference between the two (the VAM effect), as well as the median percentile of the Steinhardt
students compared to all NYC teachers of similar experience with the effect size, a measure of
the strength of the graduates’ effects on their pupils. For ELA, the VAM effects for NYU
graduates were positive for all experience categories and the total participants; four of the six
groups and the total participants had median percentiles that were above 50. The program
standard was set at an effect size of 0.20, which is interpreted as a small but meaningful effect
(Cohen, 1996). For ELA, the program standard was met for four out of six experience groups
and the total participants, thereby providing support for Claim 3, Competent in Clinical
Knowledge. For math, the VAM effects were positive for five of the six experience groups and
54
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
for total participants; the median percentiles were above 50 for three experience groups and total
participants. The effect sizes met the program criterion of .20 for only two experience groups;
the effect size for total participants was 0.17. Therefore, the VAM evidence in math provides
only weak support for Claim 3.
TABLE 4.2.9
Mean Actual-Versus-Predicted ELA and Math Test Gains for Pupils of Teacher Education Graduates
and Their Percentile Rank Among All District Teachers With Similar Years of Experience (NYU
graduates teaching ELA and/or Math in grades 4 – 8 during 2008)
English language arts
Mean Prof. Level*
Yrs.of
Exp.
Statistic
Actual
Predict.
<1
M/Mdn
0.06
SD
0.18
N
1
2
3
5 to 9
Total
Mean Prof. Level*
Diff.
Median
%ile**
Effect
Size ***
Actual
Predict.
Diff.
Median
%ile**
Effect
Size***
0.03
0.03
60
0.25
0.04
0.02
0.02
45
0.16
0.14
0.11
0.15
0.13
0.14
69
0.52
58
0.37
45
-0.38
49
0.08
64
0.13
54
0.17
129
129
24
24
24
M/Mdn
0.07
0.04
0.03
SD
0.19
0.13
N
28
M/Mdn
SD
N
22
22
22
0.22
0.12
0.1
0.15
0.22
0.15
0.19
28
28
24
24
24
0.08
0.02
0.06
0.12
0.05
0.07
0.11
0.12
0.1
0.21
0.03
0.19
19
19
19
12
12
M/Mdn
0.05
0.05
0
0.04
0.1
12
0.06
SD
0.18
0.12
0.12
0.17
0.12
0.16
22
22
22
N
4
Mathematics
49
61
41
0.21
0.58
0.03
24
24
24
M/Mdn
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.08
0.01
SD
0.09
0.09
0.1
0.22
0.11
0.16
N
24
24
24
24
24
24
M/Mdn
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.08
0.06
0.02
SD
0.15
0.14
0.08
0.21
0.1
0.17
N
28
28
28
25
25
25
M/Mdn
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.1
0.07
0.03
SD
0.16
0.12
0.11
0.21
0.12
0.17
N
147
147
147
129
129
129
52
52
51
0.30
0.13
0.27
147
147
Source. NYCDOE Office of Accountability * Achievement scores are converted to a proficiency-­‐level scale that ranges from 1 -­‐ 4.5 proficiency units. Diff. is the value-­‐added modeling effect (VAM) calculated as mean difference between actual and predicted proficiency-­‐level scores for similar students, in similar classes, and similar schools. **Median percentile is the percent of all NYC teachers with VAM effects lower than NYU graduates with the same number of total years of teaching experience. ***Bold font indicates the effect size meets the program criterion of 0.20, considered educationally meaningful but small. 5.0 DISCUSSION AND PLAN
5.1 Discussion
55
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
NYU’s five-year self-inquiry has been comprehensive and complex, as well as fruitful in
terms of program impact, with more impact likely as the faculty continues to discuss the results
of the inquiry. The inquiry used a variety of methods, measures, and perspectives to compile
evidence that faculty have used and will continue to use in order to reflect on the efficacy of the
NYU teacher education program. Evidence for the inquiry was collected in a series of individual
research studies and periodic data collections over the five years, and presented to faculty both in
Steinhardt and in Arts and Sciences in presentations, papers, information briefs, and reports,
including the annual reports to TEAC. This information has been used formatively in program
decision-making. We have also shared our methods and results in national fora such as CADREI
and AACTE.
This Inquiry Brief is a summative assessment of NYU’s claims based on a cumulative
compilation and analysis of the evidence. Across 78 analyses, the pre-determined program
standards were met or exceeded for 54 (69.2%). Results were mixed for nine (11.5%). And
standards were not met for 15 (19.2%). Mixed results are operationally defined as an even split
of performance at/above standard and below standard for scales with multiple items. Therefore,
overall standards were completely or partially met for nearly four-fifths of the measures/scales.
Analysis and synthesis of these findings lead to the following conclusions about NYU’s claims:
Claim 1: Content Knowledge. The claim that NYU graduates are competent and
qualified in content knowledge is strongly supported by the evidence for MA students and
moderately supported for BS students.
Claim 2: Pedagogical and Pedagogical Content Knowledge. The evidence strongly
supports the validity of the claim of competence in pedagogical knowledge for both BS and MA
students.
Claim 3: Clinical Knowledge and Skill. The evidence pertaining to Claim 3 is more
equivocal than the other claims, especially for BS students. Taken as a whole, however, the
evidence provides moderate support for the claim of clinical competence.
Claim 4: Caring Professional. The evidence provides strong support for the claim that
NYU graduates—both BS and MA—are caring professionals.
Cross-Cutting Themes. For both groups, the data support achievement of the standard
for two of the three cross-cutting themes – life-long learning and multicultural attitudes/social
justice – but not the third, use of technology for instruction.
5.2. Plan
The findings of NYU’s 2011 TEAC Self-Inquiry and Internal Audit are voluminous. In
most respects, they confirm the soundness and effectiveness of the University’s teacher
education program, the strength of the quality control mechanisms it employs, and the validity of
its claims. In many ways too they confirm the wisdom of new directions the faculty and
administration have already set, beginning with the plan set forth in the first Inquiry Brief (IB),
November 15, 2005. Progress on the implementation of the first IB plan is discussed below,
followed by a description of the plan going forward.
5.2.1 Progress on the First IB Plan: NYU has made substantial progress implementing
the plan from the first IB, including efforts to create more flexible and integrated information
systems, to achieve greater transparency in the role that faculty communities of practice play in
teacher education, to achieve greater integration of coursework and fieldwork and stronger ties
56
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
with schools and other programs where candidates intern, to create more opportunities for
teacher candidates to study abroad, to forge even stronger links among the three departments
that house the NYU teacher education program, to provide more frequent opportunities for raters
to tune up their DRSTOS-R standards, and to put greater emphasis on central mechanisms that
make NYU teacher education as a whole cohere. The following is a summary of progress on the
eight specific components of the plan:
1. NYU has continued to upgrade the Steinhardt teacher education student database.
Phoenix, the system in use when the first IB was written, has been replaced by
Apprentice, which has more power and flexibility, and better integrates student
information. Apprentice has greater capacity to track field placements and provides more
accurate and timely information on student teaching assignments, including data on
schools, field supervisors, and cooperating teachers.
2. NYU has expanded follow-study of its teacher education graduates. Follow-up study
of graduates, which began with electronic matching to the New York State Education
Department teacher data system, was enhanced by using systems that were more accurate
and included more comprehensive data elements. These data were used in the evidence
from the graduate tracking study reported above. In addition, follow-up surveys were
conducted to obtain data on the employment and success of graduates who entered
teaching and those who did not.
3. The effectiveness of graduates has been assessed through their impact on pupil
learning. Cooperative agreements were established with the New York City Department
of Education to obtain achievement test-score data for the pupils of NYU graduates who
are teaching in grades 3-8 in the NYC public schools. These data have been used in
value-added models of teacher effects, as reported in the results section above. NYU
continues to explore the collection of pupil work as another measure of teacher
effectiveness, an effort in which progress has been less advanced.
4. The assessment of student teachers with DRSTOS-R has been dramatically
expanded. As of fall 2010, 63 field supervisors (70.8% of the total) had been trained to
administer DRSTOS-R and submitted assessments for 371 (76%) of fall 2010 student
teachers. Moreover, the assessment process has been integrated into the clinical training
experience with data used to analyze student teacher progress during three-way
conversations among field supervisors, cooperating teachers, and student teachers.
5. Communication and discussion of self-study results among faculty and field
supervisors have increased. Steinhardt’s Center for Research on Teaching and
Learning (CRTL) prepares comprehensive reports of DRSTOS-R data for the faculty of
each certification area annually. The reports are discussed at program area faculty
meetings and used to inform planning. Findings from other self-study measures are
shared with faculty through written reports and presentations at faculty meetings and the
Teacher Education Working Group.
6. CRTL is engaged in ongoing study of the linkages between specific components of
Steinhardt’s teacher education program and the professional growth of its students.
Exit and follow-up surveys have provided valuable insights into the courses and
experiences that have been most and least useful in pre-service teacher preparation, as
well as the students’ levels of preparation in specific essential teaching knowledge and
skills. Some of this information has been reported in the survey findings presented in the
results section above and has been used in faculty discussions aimed at continuous
program improvement.
57
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
7. Steinhardt has increased the involvement of advanced graduate students in teacher
education research. Three doctoral students in The Department of Teaching and
Learning have been integrally involved in the research conducted at CRTL. They have
participated in all aspects of the research and co-authored written reports and delivered
conference presentations of the findings. The data from this research have been used in
secondary analyses by two other doctoral students for independent research and three
masters’ students for their theses.
8. NYU has expanded its partnerships with the New York City public schools for
teacher education and research. NYU partnered with the City University of New York
and the New York City public schools in a major initiative aimed at improving the
alignment of pre-service teacher education with the needs of hard-to-staff public schools
in the shortage areas of math, science, and special education. The partnership led to the
design and redesign of core courses as well as content courses, the strengthening of the
clinical field component, and collaborative co-teaching by university and public school
faculty. In addition, the Research Alliance for New York City Schools was established at
Steinhardt as a research consortium investigating priority educational issues using data
from the massive and complex information systems maintained by the New York City
Department of Education (NYCDOE). Also, CRTL forged agreements with the
NYCDOE to obtain data to be used in the tracking of NYU graduates and the assessment
of their value-added impact on their pupils’ test scores, as reported in the results section
above.
5.2.2 The Plan Going Forward: The findings of this IB have raised—and will likely
continue to raise—many important questions that must be addressed to spur the program’s
continued healthy development. These questions include, for example, the following:
• Are overall differences between BS and MA candidates’ performances a matter of
maturity, admissions, programming, or some combination of these and other factors?
• Are program area differences in DRSTOS-R results a consequence of rater reliability
faults, instrument shortcomings, curricular shortcomings, or some combination of these
and other factors?
• How can we best increase our students’ sense of their own efficacy when it comes to such
crucial dimensions of their prospective work as coping with the impact of poverty on
their students’ lives, and of managing the complex dynamics of urban classrooms?
• How do we increase the amount, frequency, and quality of the clinical mentoring and
coaching our candidates receive?
• What kinds of technology training and supports do our candidates need and how can we
best provide them?
• How can we best ensure that our candidates are well prepared to work with parents?
• How can we best ensure that our candidates are well prepared to work with English
language learners and students with disabilities?
• How can we best prepare candidates to be knowledgeable about assessment practices and
data systems and to use data in instructional decision making?
• How can we ensure that each of our candidates learns from an optimal balance of senior
scholars, highly effective practitioners, cutting-edge researchers, multiple field mentors,
and highly skillful teaching coaches?
58
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
•
•
New York University
What is the optimal balance and threshold of content knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge necessary for effective teaching at pre-K, K-6, and 6-12 teaching levels, and
how do we ensure that all our candidates meet this standard?
How do we ensure that all our teacher education programming is continually infused by
good research on learning and teaching and that our graduates continue to seek out
research that can inform their practice?
None of these questions is new for NYU, but the self-inquiry and internal audit set them before
us with freshness and in some cases urgency. A recent back-page essay in Education Week,
published by two of our colleagues, will inspire our deliberation (Alter & Pradl, 2011).
Our methods and timelines for addressing these and other questions include the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reading of the Brief and appendices. The whole teacher education faculty as well as
staff associated with the teacher education program, other members of the Teacher
Education Council and Working Group, and the Deans group will read through and digest
the voluminous findings of the self-inquiry and self-audit. Timeline: Summer and early
fall 2011.
Discussion and prioritization of issues and action steps. The faculty will discuss issues
and action steps within and across faculty communities of practice, using a summary of
the Brief and key appendices prepared by the TEAC Coordinators. Timeline: September
& October 2011.
Implementation of the most immediate action steps. Are there decisions that the
department curriculum committees, the Deans, the TEWG, the Teacher Education
Council, and so on, can make to address needs or problems identified in the findings of
the self-inquiry and internal audit? Timeline: November & December 2011.
Preparation for and response to the external TEAC audit. What short-term improvements
to the QCM would make for a more efficient and productive audit? What immediate and
long-term action steps do findings from this audit suggest? Timeline: September 2011 –
February 2012.
Long-term strategic planning based on findings from the self-inquiry and internal and
external audits. Timeline: January to May 2012.
Examination of the results of an internal evaluation of our teacher education programs
using standards and indicators of NCTQ.
59
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
6.0 REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (1995). The new college course map and transcript files: changes in course-taking and
achievement, 1972-1993. Based on the post-secondary records from two national longitudinal
studies. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education.
Adelman, C. (2001). Putting on the glitz: How tales from a few elite institutions form America’s
impressions about higher education. Connection, 15(3), 24.
Alter, M. & Pradl, G. M. (2011). Where’s the red queen: Ending three-card Monte in teacher
education. Education Week, May 18.
Brabeck, M. (2008). Why We Need ‘Translational’ Research: Putting Clinical Findings to Work in
Classrooms. Education Week, May 21.
Brabeck, M.M. & Shirley, D. (2003, January). Excellence in education schools: An oxymoron? Phi
Delta Kappan, 368-372.
Burant, T.J., Chubbuck, S.M., & Whipp, J.L. (2007). Reclaiming the moral in the dispositions debate.
Journal of Teacher Education, 58(5), 397-411.
Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
CTB/McGraw-Hill (2009). New York State testing program 2009. Technical reports. Retrieved on
May 30, 2011, from http://www.p12.nysed.gov/apda/reports/2009/ela-techrep-09.pdf
And also from http://www.p12.nysed.gov/apda/reports/2009/math-techrep-09.pdf
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching, 2nd ed.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler (2000). Engaging minds: Learning and teaching in a complex
world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.
Grossman, P. and Loeb, S. (Eds.) (2008), Alternative routes to teaching: Mapping the new landscape
of teacher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
60
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Hummel-Rossi, B., Tobias, R., & Ashdown, J. (2009). Creating usable evidence to improve teacher
education programs serving urban public schools. A paper delivered at the annual meeting of the
AERA, San Diego, April. CRTL Research Report Series RR-0409-1.
Hummel-Rossi, B. Tobias, R., Ashdown, J., & Smith, A. (2008). Teacher education’s responsibility to
its metropolitan constituents: A longitudinal value-added study. A paper presented at the annual
meeting of AERA, New York City, March 2008. CRTL Research Report Series RR-0308-1.
Jeffery, J. & Tobias, R. (2009). Circle of inquiry: partnership researchers’ perspectives on schooluniversity collaborative processes. (2009). A paper delivered at the annual meeting of the
AERA, San Diego, CA, April 2009.
Kane. T. J., Cantrell, S., et al. (2011). Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project.
Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
[http://www.metproject.org/downloads/Preliminary_Findings-Research_Paper.pdf]
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, D.C.: The Evaluation Schools Project.
Levine, A. & Cureton, J. (1998). When hope and fear collide: A portrait of today’s college student.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
McDonald, J. P., Tobias R., Pietanza R, Jeffery J. & Soponis, T., (2011). Principles of partnership:
How theory and practice can mix well in teacher education. Manuscript in preparation.
Meier, J. & Crowe, E. (2009) Evaluation of partnership for teacher excellence. An evaluation report
prepared by Arete Consulting for the Petrie Foundation.
New York City Council (July 2009). A staff report of the New York City Council Investigation
Division on teacher attrition and retention. Retrieved on May 30, 2011, from
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/1024teachersal.pdf
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) (November 2010). Transforming
teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers.
Washington, D. C.: NCATE.
New York State United Teachers (2001). Teacher certification in New York State. Information
Bulletin no. 200112. Retrieved June 1, 2004 from http://nysut.org/research/bulletins/teacher
cerrification.html#introduction.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., et.al (2007). Students’ Perceptions of the characteristics of effective college
teachers: a validity study of a teaching evaluation form using a mixed-methods analysis.
American Education Research Journal, (44)1, 113-160.
Poliakoff, A. R., Dailey, C. R., & White, R. (2009). Cross-case study of Teachers for a New Era
Learning Network universities. Washington, D.C.: Academy for Educational Development.
61
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Polleck, J. and Jeffery, J. (2010). Reciprocity through co-instructed site-based courses: Perceived
challenge and benefit overlap in school-university partnerships. Teacher Education Quarterly,
37(3), 81-99.
Ponterotto, J.G., Baluch, S., Greig, T., and Rivera, L. (1998) . Development and initial score
validation of the teacher multicultural attitude survey. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 58(6), 1002-1016.
Rogers-Sirin, L. & Sirin, S. R. (2009). Cultural competence as an ethical requirement: Introducing a
new educational model. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(1), 19-29.
Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic.
Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Sirin, S. & Collins, B. (2009). Graduate teacher education at New York University: An exploration of
backgrounds, perceptions, and expectations. New York University: New York, 2009.
Steele, J. L., Hamilton, L. S. & Stecher, B. M (2010). Incorporating student performance
measures into teacher evaluation systems. Santa Monica, CA.: The Rand Corporation.
Suarez-Orozco, C. & Suarez-Orozco, M. M. (2002). Children of immigration. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Taub, A., Tobias, R. & Mayher, J. (2005). Inquiry brief: a self-study of NYU’s teacher education
programs. A report to TEAC for initial accreditation, November.
Tian, J. & Tobias, R. (2009). Student evaluations of co-taught, off-site inquiries courses: fall 2009.
CRTL Program Evaluation Series report PE-2010-01.
Tobias, R. & Bang, H. First-year feedback survey of spring 2007 NYU teacher education graduates.
CRTL Research Report Series RR-0608-1, June 2008.
Tobias, R., Hummel-Rossi, B., Ashdown, J., Simic, O. & Woo, K. (2010). Accountability in teacher
education: ecological analyses of VAM effects. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the
AERA, Denver, CO, May 2010. CRTL Research Report Series RR-0410-01, April 2010.
Tobias, R. & Miller, R. (1999). The relationship between accountability, measurement
scale, and grade inflation in school quality review ratings. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,
April 19-23.
Tobias, R. & Tian, J. (2010). Program exit survey of May 2010 NYU teacher education graduates.
CRTL Program Evaluation Series report PE-1110-01, November 2010.
62
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Tobias, R. & Tian, J. (2009). Graduating students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of their teacher
education programs: Class of 2009. CRTL Program Evaluation Series report PE-0909-01,
September 2009.
Tobias, R., Tian, J. & Saad, B. (2010) One-year follow survey of Steinhardt teacher education
graduates: Class of 2009. CRTL Program Evaluation Series report PE-0410-01, April 2010.
Tobias, R. & Tian, J. & Woo, K. (2009). First-year feedback survey of spring 2008 NYU teacher
education graduates. CRTL Research Report Series RR-0909-1, September 2009.
Tobias, R., Woo, K. & Pignatosi, F. Are we developing high quality teachers and can we prove it? A
study of the validity and utility of a pre-service teacher assessment system. A paper presented at
the annual meeting of the AERA, San Diego, April 2009. CRTL Research Report Series RR0409-2.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Villegas, A.M. (2007). Dispositions in teacher education: A look at social justice. Journal of Teacher
Education, 58(5),370-380.
Wyckoff, J., Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., McDonald, M.,
Reininger, M. & Ronfeldt, M. (2008). Surveying the landscape of teacher education in New York
City: Constrained variation and the challenge of innovation. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 30, pp. 319-­‐343.
Wyckoff, J. , Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H. & Loeb, S. (2009). Teacher
preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, pp.
416-440.
63
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Appendix A Internal Audit INTRODUCTION On October 5, 2010, the TEAC coordinators (Professors Tobias, McDonald, and Pietanza) met with Mary Brabeck, Dean of the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, and with Heather Herrera (Assistant Director for Curriculum Development) to review the TEAC guidelines and timeline for completing the Inquiry Brief. At the meeting, Dean Brabeck suggested that we invite Alyson Taub, Professor Emerita of NYU and former NYU TEAC coordinator, to serve on the internal audit team. The TEAC coordinators discussed the composition of the internal audit team at the November 30, 2010 meeting of the NYU Teacher Education Working Group (TEWG). TEWG approved the selection of Taub, and also the following members of the Steinhardt faculty/staff (Anne Ballantyne, David Montgomery, Anne Burgunder, and Mary McShane). TEAC Coordinator Rosa Pietanza also agreed to serve as an auditor, as well as Coordinator of the Internal Audit. At this meeting, TEWG also approved the procedures for the audit and the description of the quality control system presented below. Finally, members discussed and approved details of a Shadow Protocol. Not part of the Internal Audit itself, this experience was designed to use the occasion of the Audit as a parallel opportunity for faculty learning and inquiry (Quality Principle II).10 The Shadow Protocol culminated on March 23 in conversations by the entire teacher education faculty meeting in communities of practice (COPs). These conversations centered on low-­‐inference accounts by trained doctoral students of the experience over one or two days of one of the COP’s students whose transcript also figured in the Internal Audit. Twelve students, or one third of the audit sample chosen at random, were shadowed. On January 31, 2011, an orientation was held for the Internal Audit team. At this meeting, the TEAC Coordinators (Tobias, McDonald, and Pietanza) discussed the principles and goals of TEAC, and presented an Internal Auditor’s notebook providing background materials. They also reviewed the Quality Control System, the planned probes, and the audit trail. The Internal Audit itself took place on February 1 and 2, 2011, led by Professor Pietanza with assistance from Tobias and McDonald, Judith Costello (Director of Institutional Research), and many other members of the NYU faculty and staff as detailed in the findings. On the afternoon of February 2, the auditors prepared an initial set of findings. Then, over the next month, working through email exchanges and phone calls, they elaborated on the findings and prepared a set of questions to guide faculty discussion of them. The final set of findings and questions was available on March 7. These informed a meeting of the entire NYU teacher education faculty on March 23. This was also the meeting at which the Shadow Protocol conversations took place. At the same time, the entire set of findings and questions were sent to members of the Teacher Education Working Group (TEWG) in advance of its meeting on March 28. Under the plan for the Internal Audit, TEWG – a group of teacher education faculty leaders and key staff – took principal responsibility for assembling answers to the Auditors’ questions. Professor McDonald, as Chair of TEWG, took responsibility for ensuring that the answers to the Auditors’ questions were accurate and fully vetted by the most relevant (per topic) members of the administration, staff, and faculty. By April 29, TEWG had completed a draft of Appendix A with most of the answers supplied. This draft 10
The Shadow Protocol was based on a professional development model that NYU faculty use in partner schools (McDonald, Mohr, Dichter & McDonald, 2007). Shadowers produce low-­‐inference accounts of a “day in the life” of the shadowees based on observations as well as a running interview and work sampling, and present these accounts to stakeholders (in this case, the COP overseeing the shadowee’s teacher education program area) as input for discussion of some question of interest. In this case, the question of interest was, “How does this teacher education candidate perceive the integration of coursework, fieldwork, and advisement?” 64
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
was then posted on the NYU TEAC Blackboard site for review by all members of the teacher education faculty, of the Steinhardt administration, and of the University-­‐wide Teacher Education Council. Changes and additions were suggested by various faculty, staff, and deans over the next week. These centered for the most part on clarification, and in some cases on errors. Appropriate changes and additions were then incorporated into a penultimate draft of Appendix A, which was posted on the TEAC Blackboard site on May 4. All members of the teacher education faculty were then asked to provide final feedback on this draft in advance of the preparation of a final draft. With that final draft in place, the faculty voted electronically on the Brief and all its appendices during the week of May 23, 2011. AUDIT PROCEDURES To assess the Quality Control System (QCS) as it impacts undergraduate and graduate students, the Internal Audit focused on the experience of 36 students currently enrolled in teacher education. In selecting this audit sample, Robert Tobias, Director of the Center for Research on Teaching & Learning, followed a sampling procedure within the following population constraints: junior and senior undergraduates, and graduate students in their second or third semester of study. These constraints were intended to capture as much contact as possible with the diverse systems of the program, i.e., methods courses, content courses, fieldwork, and advisement. Tobias first created a sampling frame by using SPSS Report for the 438 students in the research population, stratifying by degree and program. He then used a table of random numbers to select the specific students for the audit sample (Stattrek.com:/Tables/Random.aspx). More specifics on the procedure for selecting the audit sample are available in the TEAC Auditor’s Files and in the CRTL. The Internal Audit was designed to test if the QCS elements outlined below operate effectively and efficiently. Each transcript was treated as a record of interaction with these elements. For example, the student took a course in the methods of teaching social studies. Was the course approved by the faculty? Was the instructor duly appointed? Does the course conform to program requirements? Did the course meet in an instructionally appropriate environment? And so on. A set of 28 probes, covering the 4 domains of the QCS (affecting curriculum, faculty, candidates, and resources) was constructed by the TEAC Coordinators, drawing in the process on input from faculty. Each of the 6 auditors was randomly assigned 6 transcripts, printed from the Student Information System. Using a random number generator, the auditors then selected 4 probes for each of their assigned transcripts (one per each of the 4 QCS domains). The result was a total of 144 tests of the QCS. Because some probes were specifically directed to undergraduate or graduate transcripts, second drawings were sometimes needed. The 28 probes were -­‐ with one exception -­‐ used multiple times (from 2 to 12 times per probe with a median usage of 4). And by the Auditors’ account, all key elements of the QCS were tested multiple times. Overall, the Internal Audit proved to be a significant test of the QCS. The Internal Audit was conducted over two days (February 1 and 2, 2011). Conferring with each other as well as others as needed, the auditors pursued their assigned probes, following as parsimonious a route as possible through the systems of NYU teacher education. As needed, they met with deans, department chairs, program directors, student advisors, faculty members, admissions staff, administrators, Center for Research on Teaching and Learning (CRTL) staff, Office of Clinical Studies staff, the NYU Certification Officer, and others. In addition, they examined documents and webpages. In some cases, probes required more information gathering and checking than could be managed within the two days of the audit itself. Thus the auditors continued on the audit trail via email, with the assistance of the Audit Coordinator, for approximately two weeks following the audit – until all probes drawn per student had been concluded to the auditors’ satisfaction. 65
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
In following each probe, the auditors sought verifiable evidence. For example, if a staff member consulted as part of the audit mentioned a particular document, the auditor would ask to see the document. Auditors recorded the probes they selected, the mechanisms they probed, and their findings on the Audit Trail-­‐Quality Control Mechanism Charts (one form completed per student in the sample). The Charts are available in the TEAC Coordinators’ office. The probes and findings are listed on pages 72-­‐91. During the afternoon of February 2, the auditors discussed with each other all findings (to date) per probe, and in the process verified that they had collectively and satisfactorily tested each element of the QCS. They also formulated an initial set of questions (later expanded by email), as well as a set of summative findings and some recommendations for action steps. It is important to note that the latter were thus formulated before the questions were fully developed or answered. However, the auditors felt there would be value for the faculty in hearing their immediate impressions based on audit findings alone, and indeed these recommendations proved to be helpful input to the process of answering the questions. That process of answering questions constitutes for the purpose of this Brief the faculty’s Discussion of the Internal Audit results. As the answers themselves (listed in Table A.1) may suggest, however, the discussion that began with the effort to answer these answers has continued into the 2011-­‐2012 academic year and is likely to continue beyond it. The Internal Audit proved, in other words, to be a strong stimulus to ongoing faculty inquiry and learning. The cycle of the Internal Audit as described above, and as imagined on a biannual basis (following one of the auditors’ recommendations) is captured below in Figure A.1. Complete IA Conduct IA Add to findings Draw sample Raise queslons Create probes Issue findings & Draw & pursue queslons to probes TEWG List fi
ndings Learn from IA Answer queslons Consider aclon steps Take aclon BY DOMAIN OVERVIEW OF THE QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM The elements that comprise the NYU Teacher Education Quality Control System (QCS) are presented in the following overview in four domains: curriculum, faculty, candidates for teacher certification, and resources. 66
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Curriculum Faculty communities of practice (COPs), led by Program Area Directors (e.g. Art, Childhood, English Education, etc.) oversee curriculum quality at the program-­‐area level. They update the bulletin and course planning sheets, review course evaluations in their area, review syllabi, manage scheduling and teaching assignments of COP members, recruit adjunct instructors as needed, work closely with the Office of Clinical Studies to ensure the quality of field placements in their area, and work closely with the Office of Academic Affairs to ensure compliance with state policies. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/programs/#search:teacher_certification Each of the COPs is nested within one of three departments which collaborate in the management of teacher education at NYU. The Chairs of the departments of Teaching & Learning, Art & Arts Professions, Music& Performing Arts Professions appoint and oversee program area directors, and their department Administrators ensure department-­‐level quality control processes (for example, course design, registration procedures, syllabi collection, and curriculum committees). http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/art/ http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/ http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/ Steinhardt requires that all courses be approved by department-­‐level curriculum committees and that such committees be represented on a school-­‐wide Committee on Courses & Programs. The latter reviews course proposals against school-­‐wide criteria only, such as limiting course redundancy, increasing cross-­‐departmental collaboration, and addressing school-­‐wide needs. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/governance/bylaws http://www.nyu.edu/registrar/listings/. Policies and procedures related to quality in the field components of the teacher education program at NYU are overseen by the Office of Clinical Studies, a school-­‐wide office that cultivates, assigns, and evaluates all clinical placements (pre-­‐student teaching or Learning Partners placements, and student teaching placements); appoints and supports supervisors of placements; and directs the NYU Partnership Schools Program. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teacher_education/ http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/petrie/partnershipschools The quality of the content base of teacher education at NYU is overseen by the faculty communities of practice as well as the Teacher Education Council, co-­‐chaired by the Deans of the Steinhardt School and the College of Arts and Science. The Council is comprised of an equal number of faculty from Steinhardt and Arts & Science. The Steinhardt faculty are members of the three departments that collectively manage the teacher education program (Teaching & Learning, Art & Arts Professions, and Music & Performing Arts Professions), and of the three allied departments that support the program (Humanities & Social Sciences in the Professions, Applied Psychology, and Administration, Leadership & Technology). The Arts & Science faculty come from the College of Arts & Science, the Polytechnic Institute of NYU, and the Courant Institute for Mathematical Studies. The Council advises the Deans and faculty on all matters related to teacher education, including program and curriculum development and evaluation. It meets twice yearly. www.Steinhardt.nyu.edu/secure/teac [public web page under construction as of Sept. 29, 2011] The quality of the core curriculum of teacher education at NYU – including field studies and cross program area requirements – is monitored by the Teacher Education Working Group (TEWG), a standing committee of the Teacher Education Council. TEWG meets at least twice each semester. 67
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
www.Steinhardt.nyu.edu/secure/teac [public web page under construction as of Sept. 29, 2011] The Undergraduate Curriculum Advisory Committee reviews new undergraduate degree programs with respect to NYSED policies, the Graduate Commission reviews new graduate degree programs. http://www.nyu.edu/provost/about.office/committee.ucac.html http://gsas.nyu.edu/object/grad.about.apr http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/certification/ http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/programs/#search:teacher_certification The management of the NYSED connection at NYU regarding teacher education involves the office of the Assistant Director for Curriculum who works closely with the faculty, the school-­‐wide Committee on Courses and Programs, and the Assistant Provost for Academic Program Review, to ensure that all courses and programs, including teacher education, comply with school, university, and state requirements. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/academics/affairs/course_proposal/ Internal evaluation efforts – including those associated with course evaluation and accreditation – are conducted by the Center for Research on Teaching and Learning (CRTL), a school-­‐wide research center. Student teachers complete ETFQ (End of Term Feedback Questionnaire) that provides feedback on supervisors and cooperating teachers. The feedback is reviewed the Director of the Office of Clinical Studies and is shared with Program Area Directors. CRTL also provides student exit data, and follow-­‐up graduate data to faculty, as well as performance data on State Certification Exams. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/crtl Faculty Working with Program Area Directors, the Chairs of the three Steinhardt departments with teacher education program areas manage hiring, promotion, and tenure matters at the department level as well as peer observation and review procedures. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/art/ http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/ http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/ http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_affairs/tenure_evaluation The teacher education faculty hiring and evaluation procedures are administered by the Office of Faculty Affairs and the Office of the Provost. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_affairs/ptguidelines http://www.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu/compliance/documents/FacHbk2008.pdf http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_affairs/professional_development_fund_request http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_affairs/for_new_faculty http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_affairs/adjunct_faculty http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/adminfinance/howdoi-­‐2010-­‐02-­‐22-­‐IDA http://www.nyu.edu/about/leadership-­‐university-­‐administration/office-­‐of-­‐the-­‐president/office-­‐of-­‐the-­‐
provost.html Appointments of student teaching supervisors and cooperating teachers, and evaluation of their effectiveness, is overseen by the Office of Clinical Studies http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/001/373/field_handbook.pdf 68
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Candidates Admission to the NYU teacher education program at the graduate level is managed by the Steinhardt Office of Graduate Admissions which recruits applicants in partnership with the COPs. Admission guidelines include a transcript review verifying at least 30 credits of content coursework required for initial certification by New York State, and an overall GPA of at least 3.0. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/graduate_admissions/ http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/portal/future_undergraduates http://www.nyu.edu/admissions.html Program Area Directors are the key agents, typically in collaboration with the Office of Clinical Studies, Student Advisors, and the Office of Student Affairs, in recommending that candidates be terminated from the program. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/programs/#search:teacher_certification Student advisement for NYU teacher education is organized by department, but connected to school and university resources through the Office of Student Affairs, and a school-­‐wide advisement community of practice that meets periodically. Advisement systems vary by department and level (BS or MA). In all three departments, advisors meet with advisees on a compulsory basis prior to registration and clear them to register for courses. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/advisement/ NYU’s university wide Student Information System (SIS) is currently in the process of being replaced by a Peoplesoft system, with migration to the new system continuing through the 2011-­‐2012 academic year. Multiple changes include new course numbers university wide, greater access of faculty to student information, online grade submission, and many others. http://www.nyu.edu/registrar/sis/docs/SIS_NextGen_Project_Overview.pdf Registration services, counseling services, career services (including teacher certification services), academic support services, and social services for teacher education candidates are managed by the Steinhardt Office of Student Affairs in collaboration with university-­‐wide offices (especially health services, career placement services, and services for students with disabilities. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/studentaffairs/dean http://www.nyu.edu/shc/ http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/counseling/career http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/job_strategies http://www.nyu.edu/life/safety-­‐health-­‐andwellness/students-­‐with-­‐disabilities.html The Teacher Certification Officer in the Office of Student Affairs advises in matters of certification, and officially recommends program completers for initial certification in New York State. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/certification/ http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/programs/#search:teacher_certification The integrity of academic policies and the student information system are maintained and monitored by the Office of the University Registrar. The computerized advising/degree progress support system, "On Course", evaluates course work taken against degree requirements to determine progress toward the completion of a degree. The Director of Registration Services acts as the liaison between NYU Steinhardt and the University Registrar and Bursar in matters regarding registration, licensing, grading and graduation. 69
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
His is the final signature on registration forms and change of grade forms. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/registration/ http://www.nyu.edu/registrar/transcripts-­‐certification/degree-­‐progress.html. http://www.nyu.edu/registrar/about/ http://www.nyu.edu/registrar/graduation/apply.html. Resources Each Steinhardt department, including the three that host teacher education program areas, has a chief administrator as well as other administrators who maintain the crucial interface between the larger resource systems of the School and the University, on the one hand, and the department faculty. For example, they ensure that full-­‐time faculty have well equipped offices and that part-­‐time faculty have plentiful access to work space and work tools. They manage the many human resource details associated with part-­‐time faculty, and with the department chairs, they plan and administer budgets. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/art/ http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/ http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/ The management of resources for teacher education at a school-­‐wide level is with the Steinhardt Office of Administration and Finance. The purview of the Office includes non-­‐faculty human resource management, non-­‐classroom space management, financial planning and operations, institutional research, and facilities and technology support services for the three departments housing teacher education program areas. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/adminfinance/ Classroom assignment operations are centralized at NYU. Room assignments are made based on the number of students registered in the course, and are monitored for compliance with room occupancy codes. Steinhardt Registration Services troubleshoots as needed. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/registration/ 70
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
FIGURE A.2 INTERNAL AUDIT INTERACTION WITH QCS ELEMENTS Undergrad and Grad Admissions Office of Clinical Studies Certification Office Facilities, Classrooms Equipment Tech., Library, Media Faculty, Funding Office of Clinical Studies/ Apprentice Library Faculty and Staff Advisors Candidates Resources Field Experience Student Support Services Program and Career Advisement Program Area Directors Curriculum Faculty Requirements Course Syllabi, Web pgs., Program Descriptions Lead to CRTL Adjunct Annual Evaluations Transcripts Selection, Support, Mentoring Tenure & Tenure Track Communities of Practice Curriculum Committees, Office of Acad. Affairs Promotion Director of Faculty Affairs Field Placements
& Supervisors Non Tenure Begin with random selection of BS and MA Education Students SStudents Track Affairs 71
CRTL Dept. Chairs TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
AUDIT FINDINGS The comprehensive compilation of probes, quality control mechanisms probed, and findings are listed below. They are followed by the auditors’ summative findings composed in the week following the audit, and the recommendations they drew up on the last afternoon of the audit. Table A.1 provides the answers to the auditors’ questions which the Teacher Education Working Group (TEWG) generated, in consultation with other faculty and staff, beginning at its meeting on March 28, 2011, and concluding on April 29, 2011. Thus the logic of the NYU Internal Audit overall was that the fresh perspectives of the auditors, captured in their specific findings, summative findings, questions, and recommendations, would serve as spurs to the faculty’s reflective answers to the questions, and to their agenda setting for further faculty learning and inquiry, as well as program improvement efforts. Findings by Internal Auditors in Response to 28 Probes11 Curriculum Probe 1. Verify the program area in which the student is matriculated, and look for evidence of a faculty community of practice that meets regularly in order to ensure that the program is effective and aligned with research and best practice. QCS elements probed: • Faculty communities of practice (COPs) • Program Area Directors Findings: Two program areas were probed at random. One auditor interviewed the co-­‐director for the Math Ed. Faculty and was informed that the COP meets twice a year, agendas are provided and minutes of meetings are available and math supervisors meet every month. The auditor searched for the math COP information on the NYU website, and noted that the composition of the COP is not listed. A second auditor interviewed a member of the Ed. Theatre faculty, who confirmed that the Ed. Theatre COP meets twice a semester and is situated within a larger ARTS Education faculty (music, dance, theatre, fine arts) and has contact with other faculty groups – including Teaching & Learning, Public Health, and Gallatin. Probe 2. Choose the fourth course listed on the transcript, and obtain a copy of the syllabus. Check the syllabus against the original course design approved by the faculty. Discuss any discrepancies with the program area director or instructor. 11
Note that in answering the auditors’ questions, the faculty and other members of TEWG as well as the Teacher Education Council found a small number of errors in
the findings – though not ones that seemed consequential in terms of the questions the auditors raised. Except in one or two cases where a small error might prove
confusing, the Coordinators have let the original findings stand, though they have sometimes flagged errors in their answers to the questions (Table A.1).
72
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
QCS elements probed: • Faculty communities of practice (COPs) • Office of Clinical Studies • Assistant Director for Curriculum Development (Office of Academic & Faculty Affairs) Findings: Four courses were probed. For E85.0006, Aural Comprehension in Music I, the course description was available. For E85.2092, Field Observation, an auditor learned that the course was recently developed to support pre-­‐student teaching fieldwork. A short syllabus statement was provided by the instructor of record. The course does not appear in the Steinhardt course description database. The course number appears on the Music Ed website. [TEAC Coordinators later found that the course does appear in the Steinhardt course description database maintained by the Assistant Director for Curriculum Development. However, the instructor had provided the auditor with the wrong course number.] For E27.2999, Social Responsibilities for Educators, the course description was on file with the Assistant Director for Curriculum Development. The course description on the syllabus ties closely to course description on file. For G45.9891-­‐001: Independent Guided Reading, Steinhardt staff do not have access to information concerning A&S coursework, so the auditor was not able to obtain data from SIS as to the instructor, or otherwise complete the probe. And the Steinhardt Assistant Director of Curriculum had no information concerning the course design. Probe 3. Find the first field placement listed on the transcript – whether pre-­‐student teaching or student teaching. Determine how the placement was made, and what evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of the placement. QCS Elements probed: • Faculty communities of practice (COPs) • Staff and faculty advisors • School-­‐wide Committee on Courses and Programs • Office of Clinical Studies • Apprentice system database that tracks field work • Center for Research on Teaching and Learning (CRTL) Findings: Four auditors drew this probe and divided tasks. One auditor interviewed a staff member in the Office of Clinical Studies who traced the placement process for pre-­‐student teaching and student teaching via Apprentice-­‐a software system that tracks individual students’ field placement history. The students probed had registered in Apprentice to request field placements. They listed specific schools or school-­‐ type preferences. Staff and in some cases faculty considered the student preference in the context of program requirements and available 73
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
placements. Three evaluation tools were used to assess effectiveness of the placement: DRSTOS-­‐R (a summative evaluation of the student teacher’s skills), ETFQ (End-­‐of-­‐term-­‐feedback questionnaire, or student teacher’s evaluation of the placement), and an evaluation by the supervisor of the placement. Students were asked to complete evaluations of cooperating teachers (CTs) and Supervisors by logging into Apprentice and following link to Survey Monkey. Another auditor tracked DRSTOS evaluation for 2 students. The Director of the CRTL provided the first student’s DRSTOS evaluation, as completed by the student’s Math student teaching supervisor, and the student teacher’s evaluation of the placement. Both documents indicated a successful placement. The Director also provided the second student’s DRSTOS evaluation (which indicated success in the Music Candidate’s student teaching placement), but could not provide the student’s evaluation of the placement (likely because the student failed to submit the online evaluation). A third auditor interviewed a field placement coordinator and learned that at the time of the last TEAC accreditation audit, the Office of Clinical Studies operated entirely within the Department of Teaching & Learning. One result of that audit and follow-­‐up work by the Teacher Education Working Group (TEWG) was the addition of a staff member to the Office to handle arts placements. Today that staff member, working with faculty, handles placements in art, dance, and educational theatre, but stays in touch with music only through the Apprentice system and occasionally by suggesting schools. The auditor spoke with a faculty member in music who explained why music is not currently involved. This faculty member makes all the placements himself – 23 this semester. He explained that he knows the group of cooperating teachers and their strengths, that he talks to all the students personally to determine good matches, and then maintains contact with both the students and the cooperating teachers throughout the placement. Auditors also requested End of Term Feedback Questionnaire (ETFQ) results on 6 students. ETFQs were found for four of the students and in all 4 cases the CTs were rated as being excellent. The supervisors were rated: 3 good and 1 excellent. Two ETFQs were not located (likely because the students had not submitted them). Probe 4. Choose the first general pedagogical core course or program requirement listed on the transcript, and look for evidence of a faculty community of practice that meets regularly in order to ensure that this course is effective and aligned with research and best practice. 74
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
QCS elements probed: • Program Area Directors • COPs Findings: Auditors probed four pedagogical core courses and program requirements, and interviewed program directors as follows: The first pedagogical core course probed was Foundations of Educational Linguistics, a course staffed by the English Education faculty. The Program Director reported that three faculty COP meetings had been held during the fall semester which is typical, and provided minutes. Adjunct professors attended one of these meetings. In addition, most adjunct professors, all supervisors, and two tenure-­‐track faculty members attend monthly supervisor meetings. The course selected was taught by an adjunct professor who is also an advanced doctoral student actively involved with all members of the faculty COP. The second core course was Inquiries into Teaching & Learning 3. According to the course Co-­‐Director, all current co-­‐instructors are either full-­‐
time faculty or adjunct faculty; half are also currently practicing NYCDOE teachers. As a COP, they meet three times a semester to discuss issues and work on the continuing development of the course. The co-­‐directors also visit each section once a semester to assess the nature of the teaching environment and address any needs the teaching team may have. Course evaluations are also reviewed by the Co-­‐Directors. The third course was E26.2001, Language & Literacy – a core course for all secondary students outside English Education (English students take multiple courses in literacy). According to the Director of English Education, this course was transferred mid-­‐fall semester 2010 from the Literacy program whose faculty COP is focused on childhood and early childhood literacy to the English Education COP. It will undergo evaluation and likely transition beginning this spring. Because it attends to language development and literacy, it will likely come under the control of a joint faculty group, using a COP model like the one that has historically overseen the Inquiries course. The fourth course probed was Curriculum Trends in High School and College Mathematics. The Math Program Area Director reported that she and the faculty COP are looking at all the math courses, the sequencing of courses, the requirements, etc., with an eye to developing a more coherent overall pattern. The particular course involved here had major changes to it recently. The Program Area Director said that she taught it but admitted that it wasn’t fitting the needs of the students. End-­‐of-­‐term course evaluations and also feedback from students said that it involved too much of a content focus. After discussions, the faculty decided that the course needed to focus more on teaching math, i.e. how to observe, plan, etc. with the particular content in mind. Talking to another full-­‐time math faculty member, an auditor was informed that the three faculty members attend Supervisor Meetings every semester (though the Program Director does not always attend), and program-­‐wide COP meetings are “occasional.” Probe 5. Choose the eighth course listed on the transcript and obtain a copy of the course evaluation for that semester. QCS elements probed: • CRTL 75
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Findings: Four courses were probed by auditors and they met with staff and the Director of CRTL. The eighth course on a BS Childhood/Special Ed. transcript was Inquiries into Teaching and Learning. All evaluations for Spring 2009 for Inquiries into Teaching and Learning 1 were available from CRTL and copies were submitted to the course Co-­‐Directors. Evaluation findings go to program directors and to chairs of the sponsoring department of the course (in this case Teaching & Learning). The eighth course on a transfer student’s transcript was E03.0001, New Student Seminar, fall 2009, which was apparently not evaluated. The evaluations of courses E25 2037, and E75.1161 – both fall 2010 courses – had not yet been processed by CRTL at the time of the internal audit. They should be available by March 1, 2011. Probe 6. Assess the overall transcript to date in terms of its match with program requirements and guidelines. Discuss major discrepancies if any with an advisor or program area faculty member. QCS elements probed: • Program Area Directors • Staff and faculty advisors • Program requirements as listed on website Findings: One auditor assessed a BS in Music transcript, compared it to program guidelines, and met with the student’s Advisor. The student’s transcript indicates that she has completed the courses listed in the “BS Music plan of study.” This auditor also assessed a BS Childhood/Special Ed. Transcript, compared it to Childhood/ Special Ed. program guidelines, and spoke to the student’s Advisor. Student is on track for completing course requirements. Advisor is very familiar with student and clears her for registration each semester. Another auditor compared a graduate transcript in Art and an undergraduate transcript in Educational Theatre to program requirements. In Art, all the courses listed on the website were taken by the student. In Ed. Theatre, the student was missing four courses. The Advisor’s explanation was that the webpage needs updating to reflect changes approved by the faculty. Indeed, the changes were found on the printed program requirements handout, dated 11/4/09. A third auditor noted that a Science MA transcript had discrepancies. The student Advisor and program director explained them as the being the result of stretching requirements over a four-­‐semester period or longer for part-­‐time students. A fourth auditor noted several apparent discrepancies in a BS Science student’s transcript. The student seemed to be missing the following: 2 natural sciences courses, Integrating Media and Technology into the K-­‐12 Curriculum (E19.2018), English core: non-­‐Western lit and English core: speech, drama, media. The student’s Advisor explained that his two natural science courses were Nutrition & Health (taken in Steinhardt) and 76
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Sound and Music (a physics elective); that his non-­‐western lit requirement was appropriately met by taking a literature course called Guilt, Desire & the Law; that his speech, drama, and media requirement was met by taking a Shakespeare course; and finally that he was not required (by grandfathering) to take E19.2018, a recent addition to program requirements. A fifth auditor reviewed the transcript of a student who started NYU in fall 1996 and noted that it was difficult to assess the overall transcript to date in terms of its match with program requirements and guidelines. The student failed numerous courses and took a leave of absence for multiple semesters. Course titles might have changed in that time and it is likely that requirements changed too. Probe 7. Choose the second course listed on the transcript and verify that it was approved by the relevant faculty committees. QCS elements probed: • Program Area Directors • Assistant Director for Curriculum Development Findings: The auditors found that the courses probed were approved by the relevant faculty committees. For E27. 0005, the Assistant Director for Curriculum Development printed out the course description from the course database, and approval was noted in the document. For E03.0002, the course was approved by the Committee on Courses and Programs (CCP) as verified by the Assistant Director of Curriculum Development. For E23.2129, the course number changed on 11/07/96, and the title changed on 4/01/96. Changes to titles, points, and descriptions are handled administratively and require the approval of the chair. Changes may be modest (updating language to reflect current nomenclatures, adding or removing topics covered) such that the course remains faithful to the original focus approved by the department curriculum committee and the school-­‐wide Committee on Courses and Proposals. The Assistant Director for Curriculum Development approves course proposals and course changes, pursuant to approval by the CCP. Probe 8. Ask to see the student’s Apprentice system file which tracks field work and field-­‐related evaluations. QCS elements probed: • Office of Clinical Studies • Center for Research on Teaching and Learning (CRTL) Findings: A Student’s Apprentice file was provided by Office of Clinical Studies. Student Cooperating Teacher’s and Supervisor’s evaluation information was available there also. For fall 2010, the student gave an excellent rating to the Cooperating Teacher and a good rating to her Supervisor. For a second student, the fieldwork placement assignments were noted by semester and student completed ETFQ, with results of student feedback provided. The Supervisor did not submit a DRSTOS evaluation for this student. An auditor met with the staff from CRTL and was informed that the completion of DRSTOS forms is tracked by CRTL. Students who are missing forms either have untrained supervisors or were with trained supervisors 77
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
who did not submit forms at all. CRTL follows up with these trained supervisors until at least a month into the next semester, with reminders sent roughly every two weeks. Probe 9. Did the student have an educational experience abroad? If yes, how was the course organized? If not, how would the student be informed of the opportunity to study abroad as part of his/her program? QCS elements probed: • Program Area Directors • COPs • Assistant Dean for Academic & Global Programs Findings: Four auditors probed these questions. Auditors interviewed the Assistant Dean for Academic and Global Programs, who stated that extensive information is available to all Steinhardt students about study aboard. Graduate students receive email invitations to all information sessions about courses offered. The Dean also works with all academic advisors to offer workshops about courses offered. Undergraduates receive information from academic advisors, promotional brochures, direct emails, word of mouth, and a session of the weekly new student seminar. Auditors noted that undergraduate students’ transcripts identify study abroad course. However, transcripts are not an obvious guide to identifying study abroad when it comes to graduate students, since students may take courses with the same numbers whether taught in NYC or South Africa. The Assistant Dean for Academic & Global Programs indicated that course sections 98-­‐99 indicate study abroad. In online versions of the transcript, however, these section numbers are not visible. Probe 10. [For undergraduates] Compare the content courses – in teaching field and liberal arts – to that of a comparable Arts & Science major in the same field. QCS elements probed: • Program Area Directors • Staff and faculty advisors • Faculty COPs • Program requirements listed in webpages Findings: The auditors noted that the cross-­‐school comparison is challenging, not only because questions of purpose are involved, but also because the formats for presenting requirements are different. Here, for example, is the description of Steinhardt requirements for English Education: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/english/bs/program_of_study 78
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Here are two web pages that present a comparable description of the CAS English major: http://english.fas.nyu.edu/object/english.1012.ug.req http://english.fas.nyu.edu/object/english.ug.courseinformation The latter involves 10 4-­‐credit courses beyond the basic Morse Academic Plan courses (several of which involve English content). Four of the 10 are required (Literary Interpretation, Brit. Lit I and II, and Amer. Lit I), 2 are restricted electives (among 9 courses in critical theories and methods, and among 20 courses in British literature before 1800), and 4 are open electives. Total of 40 credits. The English Ed. Major, by contrast, takes 5 4-­‐credit English courses at CAS beyond the Morse plan, of which 4 are restricted electives (including Brit. Lit. and Amer. Lit.), and 1 is an open elective. He or she also takes 6 3-­‐credit Steinhardt courses that combine content and pedagogy – for example, The reading of Poetry, and Literature as Exploration. All of these are required. Total of 38 credits. As for comparing liberal arts requirements between CAS and Steinhardt teacher education undergraduates, this requires even further webpage digging on the CAS side. See http://map.cas.nyu.edu/page/abouttheprogram. CAS requires only 3 specific courses – Writing the Essay, Texts and Ideas, and Cultures and Contexts -­‐ while Steinhardt requires these 3 plus 2 others – The Advanced College Essay and Expressive Cultures. Moreover, CAS is more liberal in allowing departmental substitutions for the traditional Morse requirements (Quantitative reasoning, and Natural Science I and II). Both schools require two semesters of foreign language study Faculty Probe 11. Choose the seventh course listed on the transcript and trace the appointment process of the instructor. In the process, obtain a copy of his or her CV. QCS elements probed: • Dept. Chairs • Director of Faculty Affairs • Faculty COPS • Director of Human Resources Findings: Four courses were probed. One auditor met with the Director of Faculty Affairs who provided the instructor’s CV for E85.2139 and reviewed the instructor’ appointment process. The instructor is the Director of Music Education. He was recruited by a faculty search committee in accordance with procedures laid out at the following web address: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/steinhardt/faculty_affairs/pdfs/faculty_search_guidelines.pdf For E27.2999, the auditor interviewed the instructor. The instructor had been a full-­‐time staff member on an external grant as well as a member of the adjunct faculty for 4 years when the Chair of the Department of Teaching & Learning requested in the spring of 2010 her appointment to 79
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
the full time faculty at the rank of Master Teacher. The Deans met to discuss this request, and forwarded it with the instructor’s CV to the Provost who approved an offer of appointment. The instructor then met with the Director of Faculty Affairs to discuss and accept the offer. CV is in the internal audit folder. For E85.0092, Collegium & Program Seminar, an auditor spoke to the instructor. Since 2007, when the student took the course, the course number has changed. Today it is E80. 1500. The instructor was hired in 2002 by NYU as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Music Business, a title and full-­‐time rank she retains today. Her CV is in the internal audit file. For E27.0005, the instructor is the Director of the Office of Clinical Studies. The Director’s CV is on file with the Director of Human Resources, Office of Administration and Finance. He was interviewed for the position by an interview committee and was appointed as an administrator. Probe 12. Determine the number of tenured or tenure-­‐track faculty in Steinhardt who have instructed this student. Trace the appointment and promotion process of the last one listed. QCS elements probed: • Dept. Chairs • Director of Faculty Affairs • Faculty CVs submitted annually Findings: Auditors probed 5 transcripts. For the first transcript reviewed, the student took 17 courses in Steinhardt (9 taught by FT faculty and 8 by PT faculty). Two of the 9 FT faculty are tenure-­‐track or tenured. The last faculty member listed was appointed to the Department of Teaching and Learning in 1/1/06 as Associate Professor in Mathematics. This faculty member was recruited/ hired/mentored according to guidelines provided by the Director of Faculty Affairs. For a second student, the last tenure-­‐track faculty member listed was appointed in 1980 as Associate Professor to the Department of Educational Psychology and in 1990 as Professor, Department of Teaching and Learning, and is currently Professor of Special Education. CV was provided by Department of Teaching and Learning. For a third student, of 24 instructors listed on the transcript since fall 2009, the student was instructed by 2 tenured faculty members. The last one listed is a Professor of Childhood Education. This faculty member was appointed on 9/1/98 as Visiting Professor and on 9/1/99 as Full Professor. Another student’s transcript indicated that he was taught by 2 full time tenured professors and 10 adjunct instructors. The last tenured professor listed, is an Associate Professor with expertise in linguistics, appointed on 9/1/79 as Assistant Professor and on 9/1/85 as Associate Professor. 80
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
The fifth student has been taught by 3 tenure or tenure-­‐track faculty. The last tenure-­‐track professor noted is a Professor of Mathematics in her first year of assignment to NYU. The Department of T&L provided the job posting for the position. An Auditor interviewed the Director of Faculty Affairs who discussed the faculty evaluation process that the above referenced faculty would have adhered to. Personnel reviews are conducted annually through a peer review procedure established by the department and by the department chair. Each department has developed criteria for the evaluation of performance by tenured, tenure-­‐track, and clinical faculty, master teachers, teachers, and those holding other term appointments. Probe 13. [For students who have completed at least one student teaching assignment] Determine the candidate’s field supervisor, and obtain a copy of his or her CV. QCS elements probed: • Dept. Chairs and Administrators • Director of Faculty Affairs • Office of Clinical Studies Findings: Auditors consulted the records of the Office of Clinical Studies to determine the names of the adjunct supervisors assigned to work with five students and they later obtained the CVs of the adjunct supervisors from the Administrator of the Department of Teaching & Learning who processes adjunct appointments for the department. An auditor also consulted the Music Department to determine the name of a supervisor for E85.1048, and obtained the CV of the faculty supervisor (a full-­‐time faculty member) from the Office of Faculty Affairs. In the process, the auditor learned that records of Music Ed. and other arts supervisors are now maintained with other area supervisors in the Office of Clinical Studies. Probe 14. Select a course taken during the fall 2010 semester. How was the faculty member recruited, mentored, supported, evaluated? QCS elements probed: • Dept. Chairs and Administrators • Director of Faculty Affairs • Program Area Directors (Math, English, Childhood, etc.) • Office of Clinical Studies Findings: Four courses were probed. For E29.2002-­‐ Linguistic Analysis-­‐ an auditor consulted with the Department of Teaching & Learning and was 81
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
informed that the instructor was an adjunct professor who has been teaching Linguistic Analysis since 1993 in the Department of Teaching and Learning. He has a PhD in Linguistics, and is reappointed on a semester basis by the T&L Dept. He is invited to participate in MMS COP meetings, he is observed by faculty in MMS and course evaluations are on file in CRTL. For an Inquiries Course, another auditor interviewed the course co-­‐director and learned that the co-­‐instructors are both adjunct instructors (one a doctoral student and the other a teacher in the school where the course section meets). Both were interviewed by the program co-­‐director, following nominations by T&L faculty and the school principal, and appointed by the T&L Department. All course evaluations are in place. Inquiries instructors meet monthly in COP, and are visited once per semester by one of the program co-­‐directors. For E17. 2113, the course is taught by a Clinical Assistant Professor in Educational Theatre appointed on 9/1/10. This faculty member was originally appointed as a Teacher on 9/1/02 in the Ed Theatre Dept. As a new faculty member, from fall 2010-­‐spring 2011, he participated in new faculty orientation sessions and mentoring workshops. His performance evaluation is available in the office of the Director of Faculty Affairs. For E25.1103, Introduction to Early Childhood and Special Education, the instructor is a full-­‐time visiting assistant professor appointed on 9/1/10 with a one-­‐year contract. This faculty member is participating in mentoring coordinated by the Associate Dean of Academic and Faculty Affairs and by the Department Chair and submitted yearly evaluation. An auditor spoke with the Director of Faculty Affairs who provided links to Steinhardt websites that detail procedures on faculty searches, and personnel review timelines. Visiting professors are hired at the department level, based on a request submitted to the deans. Some departments post positions on NYU website. An auditor spoke also with the department chair for background on this particular hire. The chair responded that his predecessor had requested an emergency hire in Early Childhood, which had been approved by the Dean as a visiting position (renewable for no more than 3 years). The candidate hired had been an NYU doctoral candidate in this area. The Dean approved the appointment once the candidate’s dissertation had been successfully defended. Candidates Probe 15. [For graduate students] Obtain a copy of this student’s admission materials and verify that he or she completed the program’s required content courses prior to admission or, if not, that exceptions were explained and recorded. QCS elements probed: • Office of Graduate Admissions • Registrar • Associate Dean for Planning & Communication Findings: 82
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
An auditor consulted with both the Director of the Office of Graduate Admissions and the Associate Dean for Planning & Communication. They demonstrated that a file is maintained for every student applicant admitted per certification pattern , and that this particular candidate met core content requirements for graduate admission. Probe 16. Contact this student’s staff advisor and ask for evidence of contact and advising. QCS elements probed: • Dept. student advisors (staff and faculty) Findings: An auditor spoke to an art student’s advisor. The advisor has a file for the student in her office. The file includes her original application, recent transcript, student teaching hours log, a copy of the course sequencing form for tracking progress, and past email communications about various course registration questions. The same pattern evolved when interviewing advisors assigned to other teacher education program areas. Concern was raised when tracking the advisement for a student who is enrolled in a new program area that is a collaboration of the French Department and the Department of Teaching & Learning, and involves study at NYU/Paris and NYU/Washington Square. Tracking her advisement presented a data challenge because of the joint nature of the program, and – according to the T&L advisor -­‐ limitations on inter-­‐school data exchange, and relatively open course options which require more intensive advising. Probe 17. [For students who have completed at least one student teaching placement] Find the record of this student’s DRSTOS-­‐R assessment. QCS elements probed: • CRTL Findings: Four students’ DRSTOS-­‐R assessment records were requested by the auditors. No DRSTOS-­‐R assessment was available for two of the four because the supervisors were not DRSTOS-­‐trained. The other 2 students had DRSTOS-­‐R assessments on file, and these were presented to the auditor by CRTL. Probe 18. Take the transcript to the Teacher Certification Officer and verify that the student is making normal progress toward meeting certification requirements. 83
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
QCS elements probed: • Teacher Certification Officer Findings: Auditors met with the Certification Officer to review progress made by four students towards meeting certification requirements. For the first student, the Certification Officer stated that the student graduated 1/24/2011 and passed all exams. However, the student is not certified to teach. In probing further, the Certification Officer noted that the student had not yet completed the application for certification. For the remaining transcripts, the Certification Officer stated that the students had not yet taken the certification exams. The Certification Officer also noted that not all students apply for NYS Certification. Some plan to move to another state or country. Probe 19. If this student had a learning disability or a handicapping condition of any kind, what services would he or she be afforded? Obtain evidence of their availability. QCS elements probed: • Director of Student Services • Program Area directors • Moses Center website Findings: All auditors probed this question. This probe applied for graduate and undergraduate students whose transcripts were examined. Auditors consulted a cabinet member of Teaching and Learning, the webpages of the NYU Moses Center serving students with disabilities, the Dean of Student Affairs and the Director of Student Services. The latter explained that disability services are a university-­‐wide service not a Steinhardt service. The NYU policy is that any reasonable accommodation will be made for a student with disabilities – for example, access to adaptive technologies, sign language interpretation and assessment adjustments in terms of timing and settings. These require students’ willingness to self-­‐identify and provide back-­‐up documentation – for example, medical or psychological. When students apply for services, a committee composed of Deans and staff from admissions reviews the application for determination of appropriate services. Probe 20.Track the admission of this student in terms of the process followed and the decision makers involved. QCS elements probed • Office of Graduate Admissions • Associate Dean for Planning & Communication Findings: An auditor met with the Associate Dean for Planning and Communications who explained that undergraduate admission to all NYU schools is screened centrally by NYU Admissions. In the case of the childhood majors probed, the admissions staff would have looked for 84
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
experience working with children, leadership, and evidence of academic engagement as well as academic accomplishment. 2-­‐3 readers review all aspects: letters, essay, test scores, transcripts. Two additional auditors consulted with the Director of Graduate Admissions who answered the probe as follows for a TESOL major: 11/2/09: Candidate submitted an online application via the Embark application system. The student applied to the Teaching a Foreign Language 7-­‐12 and TESOL dual-­‐certification program (FLTS) for the spring 2010 semester. Admissions staff decided to admit the student, though they also decided in terms of core content requirements that she was deficient by one science course. 11/16/09: Admission letter mailed to candidate along with a form indicating the science deficiency. 12/09: Documents were submitted from the Department of T&L indicating a program change from FLTS to TESOL all grades (TSOG). 1/11/10: Admission letter mailed to candidate confirming major change from FLTS to TSOG, and also reiterating the science deficiency. Probe 21. Determine the career advisement available to this student. QCS elements probed: • Associate Dean and Office of Student Affairs • Dept. student advisors (staff and faculty) • Dept. Student Life Committee (T&L) • Office of Clinical Studies Findings: Auditors reviewed webpage for the Wasserman Center for Career Development (www.nyu.edu/careerdevelopment), including NYU CareerNet, and NYU Steinhardt Office of Student Affairs webpage (steinhardt.nyu.edu/counseling/career) and found useful information. Via interviews with NYU Partnership Coordinator, auditors noted that workshops are scheduled regularly by the Department of Teaching & Learning involving mock interviews, as well as job fairs where prospective employers are present. Faculty also provide feedback on resumes. An Advisor in T&L regularly posts job openings in messages sent to all students. The Office of Clinical Studies has also recently cultivated relationships with charter school management organizations, and provides names and addresses of these to students, as well as names and addresses of new schools likely (because of their growth) to be adding teachers even under current job freeze conditions in NY. Besides the Wasserman Center and the Office of Clinical Studies, the T&L Student Life Committee has also been active in this area. There is an active list-­‐serve maintained by Department of Performing Arts Professions and career information is sent to students on a daily basis (email documentation is provided in auditor’s files). The Assistant to Chair of the Department of Teaching & Learning maintains a list serve with job postings-­‐open to current undergraduates, graduates, and alumni for up to 2 years. Probe 22. Determine the post-­‐graduation mentoring available to this student from NYU if he or she enters teaching. 85
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
QCS elements probed: • Teacher Certification Officer • Office of Clinical Studies Findings: An auditor interviewed the Certification Officer. He provided a handout describing a new NYS requirement that new teachers have mentors, but this is an obligation of the employer not of NYU. For several years, however, this auditor was associated with NYU’s own mentoring program – first, the Early Career Support Network (ECSN) funded by the Booth-­‐Ferris Foundation, and the Early Career Project funded by the Wachovia Foundation and the Petrie Foundation. This provided regular after-­‐school, school-­‐based mentoring to NYU graduates at four partner schools located near concentrations of alumni. They featured advice from NYU faculty and partner school faculty in such areas as classroom management and integration of students with disabilities. However the program ended when the external funding ended. Probe 23. When will this student take the NYS ATS-­‐W, the LAST and the Content NYS exam? What is the process of monitoring the student progress towards meeting these requirements for certification? QCS elements probed: • Associate Dean and Office of Student Affairs • Teacher Certification Officer • Program web pages Findings: Three auditors probed this question for three students and met with the Certification Officer. For the first student, the Certification Officer stated that the student has not taken any state exams yet. He also identified a variety of sources of information about certification provided to students (student teaching seminar, certification workshops, individual appt. with Certification Officer, fieldwork course, handouts, webpage as well as the tests that students sit for). The second student had not completed the state certification tests. The Certification Officer pointed out, however, that he cannot monitor whether candidates have registered for the test (done individually online) – only whether they have taken and passed exams. Their scores are collected and analyzed by the CRTL, and their progress in preparing for the tests is part of the overall advising function of the department faculty and staff. The third student, according to the Certification Officer, had not taken any certification exams. However, this is to be expected as the student is only halfway through his program of study. He has not yet started his student teaching. More about the process of informing 86
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
and monitoring the student’s progress towards meeting these certification requirements can be found in a memo from the Certification Officer (in audit file). Probe 24. [For undergraduates] Verify that the student is on track to complete degree requirements in terms of both content and pedagogical requirements. QCS elements probed: • Associate Dean and Office of Student Affairs • Teacher Certification Officer • Other (Steinhardt website) Findings: Auditors probed this question for six students with the following results: A review of an Ed. Theater transcript in light of requirements stated on webpage, found two discrepancies which a faculty member in the program identified as a problem of outdated web information rather than lack of student progress in meeting actual requirements. A second Ed Theatre transcript examined provided a complex Ed. Theater case. Student has interest in working with special populations. Also did spring study abroad and has elected a minor in Studio Arts requiring 16 additional credits. An auditor met with the Director of Undergraduate Studies for Ed. Theatre who is the student’s advisor. She reported that she monitors, negotiates, and formalizes each substitutions to ensure that the student remains on track for graduation within a 4-­‐year term. She pointed out that all students have to be cleared for registration by advisors, a twice-­‐yearly formal check on progress. For a BA Science major, there were some discrepancies between courses listed on this transcript and the program’s website, though the student has now graduated. See auditor’s folder for website material. The program director accounted for these as legitimate substitutions approved by the student’s advisor. A review of an early childhood transcript confirmed that a student is on track to complete degree requirements. Requirements were confirmed by program director who also examined the transcript. An auditor looked also at the science courses required for a science education major. Student appears to have taken (or is currently registered for) all science courses needed for the degree. However, the student obtained a D in Organic Chemistry II. The auditor checked with the student’s advisor who explained that students need an overall 2.5 GPA in order to progress to student teaching, but that grades under C raise warning flags for advisors. Typically, if a student gets less than C, the advisor will find out why and consult with the program advisor who will also intervene. This student’s advisor is no longer at NYU, however, and his current advisor could find no note in the student’s file concerning the low chemistry grade. While the new advisor acknowledged the advisability of a paper trail, she also said that there is no policy expressly prohibiting a student with one such grade from progressing toward graduation, so long as the GPA does not drop below 2.5. 87
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Resources Probe 25. Determine the median course listed on the transcript. Find out the number of students assigned to the course and visit the room where it met in order to assess its appropriateness in terms of space and access to technology. QCS elements probed: • Associate Dean of Administration and Finance • Campus Media • Department Administrative Assistants • Department Chairs • NYU webpages Findings: A total of 12 courses were probed, with the following results: Course Title E92.2272 (fall 2010) E63.0023 spring 2009 E27.1030.001 (spring 2011) E11.2521.001 (spring 2010) Art Education Human Dev. II: Early Adolescents Lang. Acquisition and Literacy Educ. Lit & The Adolescent Experience E29.2206.002 Second Language (spring 2011) Theory and Practice E17.2193 (summer Drama in 2010) Education I E26.2001 (fall Language and 2010) Literacy in the Number of Students Location/Room registered 17 Barney, 204 33 Silver, 207 9 Tisch, LC5 20 Waverly 435 Max. no. of students Access to Technology accommodated 22 Permanent media equipment installed 125 Equipment/internet access available 20 Media equipment available/internet access 33 AV services available 18 Silver, 706 47 Permanent media equipment installed. 21 Silver, 410 37 20 Silver, 514 42 Full audio visual services available Appropriate AV Support 88
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
E29.2040 summer 2010 E85.1068 (spring 2009) E12.2101 fall 2010 E11.2501 (fall 2010) E14.2052 spring 2010 Early Years Teaching Second Language in a Technological Society Music History New York University
20 194 Mercer, 304 30 Data/Video Equipment/internet 136 Loewe Theatre 297 Adequate AV Capacity Professionalized Subject Matter in Mathematics Masters Seminar in English Education 7 194 Mercer, 308 25 Adequate AV Capacity 20 48 Cooper Square, 118 20+ Field study in ecology 15 Meyer, 105 20 No windows, large column in middle. AV equipment available/ Campus Media does not support this location Technology and wireless internet available Probe 26. Pick any program area course listed on the transcript. Obtain the syllabus for the course. Check the availability of two sources referenced in the course within the NYU library system. QCS elements probed: • Department Administrative Assistants • Bobcat – library online catalog Findings: Four auditors probed this questions and reported the following: Course
Title
Syllabus
Sources Referenced Availability in NYU Library System
E17.1006
Intro to Theatre for Young
No syllabus
N/A
N/A
Audiences
available
E23.1135
Trends/Prob./Secondary
Available
2 required texts
Both Available
Soc. Studies Education
E26.1176
Language Reading
Available
3 required texts
One text available in an earlier edition
Instruction in early
childhood
V89.0010 Statistical Reasoning for
2009 syllabus 1 source referenced Available
the Behavioral Sciences
available
89
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
E12.2115
E29.2201.
002
E11.1600
Teaching Elementary Math
Teaching Elementary
Math/Second Language
Classroom
Integrating Reading &
Writing with Adolescents.
New York University
Available
Available
2 textbooks
2 textbooks
One available in an earlier edition
One available in in the correct edition
Available
2 textbooks
5 supplemental
sources
One text available in a different edition. Of the 5
supplemental sources, 1 is the right edition, a 2nd is
available in another edition. 3 supplemental sources
were not available.
Probe 27. Assess the transcript – and other sources as necessary – for evidence that this student has experienced the use of inventive technologies for teaching and learning. QCS elements probed: • Department Administrative Assistants • Other (course syllabi) Findings: Of 6 transcripts reviewed, 5 students had experienced courses using inventive technologies. The transcript of an MA Ed. Theatre Student did not list a technology course. In checking courses on the transcript, however, it was noted that the student had enrolled in E27.2999, the Social Responsibilities of Educators. This course is a blended course, or face-­‐to-­‐face plus online via blackboard and VIMEO. [The internal auditors’ reference to “blended” here is to the fact that this is a technology enhanced conference-­‐based course. It is not delivered in a distance format. All students are on campus.] A second student was enrolled in E11.2511, which also uses Blackboard. A third student completed E78.2029, Teaching Resources for Performing Arts. The syllabus indicates use of a range of creative technologies. A fourth student is on track to take E25.1124, a required 3-­‐credit course in the spring senior semester of the Childhood/Special Ed. undergraduate program. Course is called Technology in Childhood Education. The fifth student enrolled in E75.2161, and the course makes extensive use of Blackboard. For one student, the transcript had no traceable references to technology. Probe 28. Determine the proportion of full-­‐time versus part-­‐time faculty in Steinhardt who instructed this student (as well as tenure-­‐track 90
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
versus non-­‐tenure-­‐track full-­‐time faculty). QCS elements probed: • Associate Dean of Administration and Finance • Department Administrative Assistants Findings: N.B. For the undergraduates, the auditors assessed only Steinhardt Courses because it was not possible to assess the instructional status of CAS instructors. Auditors probed 11 transcripts and assessed Steinhardt courses as follows: Student Major Total No. of Courses Taken Student A Student B Student C Student D TESOL (Graduate) Childhood Ed. (Undergraduate) English Ed. (Undergraduate) Early Childhood/Special Ed. (Undergraduate) Dance (Graduate) English Education ( Graduate) Childhood/Bilingual (Undergraduate) Childhood/Special Ed. (Undergraduate) Childhood/Special Ed. (Undergraduate, transfer) Social Studies (Graduate) Math Education (Graduate) Student E Student F Student G Student H Student I Student J Student K 14 19 16 18 Full Time Faculty No. and % 5 ( 36%) 14 (74%) 6 (38%) 5 (27%) 9 (64%) 5 (26%) 10 (62%) 10 (56% Administrator (Clinical Office) 3 (16%) 24 14 29 6 (33%) 3 (21%) 12 (41%) 16 (67%) 10 (71%) 17 (59%) 1 (7%) 18 5 (28%) 13 (72&) 28 8 (29%) 20 (71%) 18 11 6 (33%) 4 (36%) 10 (56%) 6 (55%) 2 (11%) 1 (9%) 91
Adjuncts TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
AUDIT RESULTS & DISCUSSION In their final meeting on the afternoon of February 2, 2010, the Internal Audit Team members did two things. First, they agreed on a set of what they called Summative Findings and Recommended Action Steps. These are listed below. Then for each probe and its findings, they posed questions for the faculty. Over the next two weeks, as additional findings came in, they expanded the list of questions accordingly.12 The questions – with the backdrop formed by the Summative Findings and Recommended Action Steps – has been the basis of a continuing process of self-­‐inquiry that continues today in what is now a strengthened Teacher Education Working Group (TEWG) (as per one of the recommended Action Steps). The Questions and TEWG-­‐generated answers are listed below in Table A.1. Summative Findings The internal auditors’ overall summative conclusion is that the Quality Control System is working as intended, and does ensure the quality of the program itself and the quality of student learning. Furthermore, the auditors concluded: •
that they were impressed by the accessibility of faculty and administrative staff and the data and information systems available to answer most of their questions; •
that, in general, they found encounters with the people who manage the QCS to be very positive; •
that the faculty and administrative advisors knew their students well, and were able to give quite detailed accounts of the students’ academic progress and choices, and answered questions thoroughly; •
that administrators in the Office of Clinical Studies were knowledgeable and that the auditors came away with a good understanding of students' field work; •
that, as probed, the student information systems (Apprentice, Albert, and SIS) are working; •
that some weaknesses in the QCS emerged in specific instances when the auditors tried to find out where information is stored and how to get at it. Auditors’ Recommended Action Steps The following recommendations were made on the afternoon of the final day of the Internal Audit, before the questions raised by the auditors were fully formulated, and certainly before the faculty and Deans could respond to them. The main purpose of the recommendations was to capture the auditors’ immediate and overall impressions, and in the process to inform the faculty’s answering of the questions and their discussion of the specific findings. Curriculum • If faculty communities of practice are critical quality control mechanisms for curriculum – which seems likely – then their presence and membership ought to be more easily discernible. For example, they should be more present on the web in the form of public pages as well as listservs and blogs. Their meeting times and meeting minutes should be posted. This would enable best practices to spread, and enable the faculty to see what parts of the overall program may be lacking strong communities of practice. 12
In all, the auditors posed and TEWG answered 53 questions. However, in this final draft of the Brief, these have been
reduced to 38 by way of eliminating redundancy and focusing only on matters clearly relevant to the QCS. The entire Q & A
set is, however, available in the TEAC Coordinator’s office.
92
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
• Syllabi are obviously critical quality control mechanisms – from the point of inception of a course to the latest delivery of it. But we found it sometimes hard to obtain syllabi – for long established courses, and also current versions of courses. We also heard that department administrators find it hard to keep their archives of syllabi up to date. We think that a culture of online syllabi (and also CV) storage is needed – making them available on public webpages. • The clinical studies portion of NYU teacher education is massive and sprawling – across many course numbers and supervisory arrangements. Consequently, the quality control mechanisms are complicated too – some of them housed in the Office of Clinical Studies, some in departments, some in the Center for Research on Teaching and Learning. Some procedures are well documented – for example, through Apprentice, or in handbooks – and others not. At a time when appreciation of the importance of the clinical side of teacher education is growing at NYU and beyond, and in the wake of improvements made at NYU in this area in recent years, this may be a good time to take stock of the clinical systems overall. Where can greater efficiencies be obtained? Where do procedures need more documentation? How can available data be better utilized? Where can stronger connections be made between field and course? And so on. • The Steinhardt website is sprawling too, and we found older versions of course planning sheets, course numbers, and the like on the website. How can these be culled more efficiently on a continuing basis? • Qualification to administer DRSTOS has to expand from the current 85% to 100%. Faculty • There should be a larger role in the program for TEWG, or for some other central coordinating body of the faculty. There is great value in keeping teacher education at NYU very bonded to content-­‐
focused faculty groups, but in some respects the overall program seems to lack a center. This manifests itself most clearly in two areas. First is the role of clinical studies, as noted above. The other has to do with data systems, data management, and data use. • We found the management of faculty CVs very uneven across departments. Again, online may be the way to go with this. • The distribution of faculty expertise in terms of clinical and tenure-­‐track needs to be evened out – across undergrad and grad teaching. • There should be more collaboration across faculty groups – both within and across departments. There is currently a wealth of information and good practice that could be shared across the faculty, but may not currently be shared. Candidates • As the University introduces Peoplesoft as a data management system, there seems to be a great opportunity to create new efficiencies and deal with current inefficiencies. • How can NYU increase the rate of return for the End-­‐of-­‐Term Feedback Questionnaires, and ensure that the resulting data on cooperating teachers and supervisors is used? Resources • NYU needs to pay more attention to the role of technologies in teaching and learning, as well as in data storage and retrieval. This will require new resources (for example, for campus-­‐based teacher education courses, and for data systems). The Internal Auditors highly recommend that NYU Teacher Education at least every other year conduct an internal audit on the same design as the 2011 Audit. 93
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Auditors’ Questions and TEWG-­‐Generated Answers Between March 28, 2011, when the Teacher Education Working Group began to deliberate on the questions raised by the Internal Auditors, and April 29 when it completed a penultimate draft of this Appendix, TEWG members, Teacher Education Council members, Deans of Steinhardt and of the College of Arts and Science, and other faculty and staff worked to formulate responses to a very insightful set of questions. This formulation – processed in face-­‐to-­‐face meetings and interviews, phone calls, emails, and other communication – constitutes the discussion of findings reported in Table A.1. It was a fruitful start to a longer discussion that has continued in the fall 2011 semester – and that will likely prove instructive to NYU’s long-­‐term exercise of Quality Principle II (faculty learning and inquiry). By way of affirming the great value of the 2011 Internal Audit, the Teacher Education Working Group began this discussion of findings by endorsing the recommendation of the auditors to conduct an internal audit every two years, and on May 4, Dean Brabeck committed to support a biennial internal audit. Moreover, in response to the auditors’ first recommendation concerning faculty, the Dean asked the Department of Teaching and Learning to choose three additional tenured professors to sit on TEWG (thus making the overall faculty members of the group roughly proportional to the departmental spread of the teacher education faculty as a whole), and she asked the Chair of TEWG to ensure a strong connection between TEWG and the Teaching & Learning Curriculum Committee (the chair of the latter is now an ex officio TEWG member) and between TEWG and the Office of Clinical Studies. Resulting changes are likely to ensure a more central role for TEWG in NYU teacher education as the auditors recommended, while at the same time continuing the historically prominent role played by program area COPs across departments with respect to content curriculum and management, and by the Department of Teaching & Learning with respect to core curriculum. Table A.1 TEWG-­‐Generated Answers to Internal Auditors’ Questions Curriculum Q1. How wide is the variability in terms of the meeting practices of communities of practice (e.g. frequency and documentation practices), and is the variability appropriate or not? A. The Teacher Education Working Group (TEWG) – working with the Center for Research on Teaching and Learning -­‐ will conduct a survey of teacher education communities of practice in fall 2011 to determine an answer to this question and other questions explicitly or implicitly raised by the Internal Audit – for example, regarding the size and composition of a COP, its visibility, its awareness of both campus-­‐based and school-­‐based dimensions of NYU teacher education, and its grounding in research and best practice. In terms of the specific question here, anecdotal evidence suggests that there is significant variability in COP meeting practices. What matters most in TEWG’s view is a sense on the part of a COP that it is a community of practice and that as such it has a collective responsibility for the outcomes of practice. It seems likely that frequency and documentation would contribute to the development of such a sense. Q2. Are program faculty communities of practice (COPs) and the program supervisors’ COPs typically separate, and if so, what limitations ensue in terms of quality control? A. This too will be a point of inquiry for the fall survey, though it seems likely that the survey will find significant separation in some program areas and ample integration in others. In general, the NYU teacher education program aims for integration of coursework and fieldwork, and a separation of communities of practice along these lines seems counterproductive. Finding out not only that there is variation but also how program areas manage integration will be very useful. 94
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Q3. Would greater public identification of the curriculum communities of practice (e.g. via website) add to their effectiveness? A. Yes. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence that the mere identification of communities of practice as a key quality control mechanism in the internal audit spurred several COPs to meet more frequently and to have a greater sense of their role. TEWG in collaboration with CRTL will track the development of NYU Teacher Education COPs in its annual TEAC reports. Q4. Are there plans to move syllabi storage into an online format for accreditation purposes, as well as to serve the planning needs of instructors and students? A. Currently many individual full-­‐time faculty include their syllabi as part of their biographical data at http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_bios/list/Faculty/All, but Steinhardt does not otherwise collect electronic versions of syllabi or post them on its website on a school-­‐wide basis. Instead, most departments collect paper versions of syllabi and store them; others have created local web-­‐based solutions for posting syllabi. The TEAC Coordinators, with the assistance of appropriate teacher education staff, will work with the school’s web team in the fall to create and implement a system for posting syllabi on the teacher education websites. In addition, the TEAC Coordinators – as part of their preparation for the TEAC auditors – will urge all members of the teacher education faculty to attach current syllabi as well as current CVs to their bios. Q5. Do barriers between schools and departments in terms of access to student data interfere with advisement and accountability? If so, how are they typically resolved? A. Evidence from the internal audit suggests that access barriers between departments is a barrier to general accountability, and also to advisement efforts across departments – for example, regarding such joint programs as Foreign Language Education/French, or English Education/Educational Theatre. Both these programs have, however, become skillful in crossing these barriers. The migration of the Student Information System (SIS) into a Peoplesoft platform may make this easier, and TEWG urges NYU to exploit such opportunities. More generally, it sees this problem as evidence of a need to heighten central operational capacity in the NYU teacher education program even while preserving decentralized or program-­‐area autonomy in many respects. A proposed change in the organization of faculty responsibilities in the Department of Teaching and Learning may help in this regard in its suggestion that TEWG should expand its faculty representation and its oversight of the core courses and field-­‐based elements of teacher education. Q6. How does the analysis of students’ responses to placement quality in any given semester affect subsequent placement options? A. The staff in the Office of Clinical Studies reviews the student teacher evaluations of cooperating teachers and the supervisor evaluations of cooperating teachers, then compares these, when appropriate, to any previous evaluations of the same cooperating teachers. If there are consistent negative evaluations, NYU notifies the school, and takes account of the evaluations in subsequent placement decisions. Meanwhile, NYU’s increasing emphasis on partnership schools, as well as the more recent development of residency options, signals its pursuit of multiple-­‐mentorship for its teacher education candidates whereby the weaknesses in one mentor are balanced by the strengths of other available ones within a broader mentoring environment. Q7. Does the online request system for student teaching placement reflect up-­‐to-­‐date checks on 95
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
availability? A. The online system does not indicate to students the actual availability of placements at any one school. Schools generally confirm available placements only after students submit their online requests. Q8. Findings suggest that the role of faculty with respect to the student teaching placement process varies across certification areas. How much does it vary (for example, how typical or atypical is the music example), and how does variance affect quality, efficiency, and accountability? A. There has been significant movement towards greater unification of placement procedures and documents across program areas, including the introduction of a single database, Apprentice. There has also been a substantial increase over the last several years in DRSTOS usage across all program areas. However, there remains variation in the involvement of faculty in fieldwork, and thus in the integration of campus-­‐based work and fieldwork in the experiences of students. A variety of factors account for the variation including staffing and resources. What seems crucial in terms of making progress in this area is sharing among the COPs. For example, how do those program areas that situate methods and other courses in field settings (Childhood, Early Childhood, Social Studies) manage the details? How do those program areas that handle the bulk of field supervision with full-­‐time faculty (Science, Music, Theatre Education) manage the load? Q9. What is the rate of response in supervisors’ evaluations of student teaching placements, and how are these evaluations used? A. The rate of response of the on-­‐line surveys for fall 2010 was only 55%. On one hand, there was a slow transition for many supervisors from the verbal feedback through meetings with the Office of Clinical Studies to the new on-­‐line survey; on the other hand, there were technical difficulties with the link on the web site, which prevented many supervisors from completing the survey . The link has been repaired and the Office of Clinical Studies expects to increase the formal reporting rate significantly with a goal of 100%. Steps taken include notifying supervisors that it can consider only formally rendered evaluations and that evaluating placements is an important part of their job responsibility. The Office compares the feedback by supervisors with feedback by student teachers to evaluate cooperating teachers. When it identifies consistent negative feedback, it informs the school that the cooperating teacher involved is not a suitable choice for future placements. Q10. Since general pedagogical core courses – as distinct from program area requirements -­‐ lie outside the boundaries of program areas and departments by definition, how does NYU assure the quality of their staffing and learning outcomes? A. The faculty has recently wrestled with this question. There is widespread agreement that assignment of general pedagogical core courses to program areas and departments does not by itself ensure that quality will be well tended. What seems key, however, is that a community of practice forms with respect to the course, that it deliberately tends to quality as a regular part of its agenda, and that it is led by one or more full-­‐time faculty members. There are such arrangements now in place for several general pedagogical core courses (Inquiries, Social Responsibilities, New Student Seminar, Educating Students with Special Needs, and Fieldwork in Schools and other Educational Settings). Building such arrangements for the others (Literacy and Language Acquisition, Educating Students with Disabilities in the Middle and High School, and Human Development/Adolescent Development) will constitute a major part of TEWG’s agenda in 2011-­‐2012. TEWG will work on this agenda in collaboration with relevant program areas – Literacy, English Education, and MMS for the Literacy and Language Acquisition course; 96
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Special Education and the secondary program areas for the Disabilities course; and the Steinhardt Psychology faculty as well as Department of Teaching and Learning Human Development faculty for the Human/Adolescent Development courses. Q11. Is the Math Director’s description of current COP efforts there typical of periodical reviews conducted across COPs? [“The Math Program Area Director reported that she and the faculty COP are looking at all the math courses, the sequencing of courses, the requirements, etc., with an eye to developing a more coherent overall pattern.”] A. The review she mentions was triggered by a major turnover in the math education faculty. Other review triggers include policy changes (for example, the re-­‐registration of teacher education programs in the late 1990s). However, programs also undergo change for many other reasons, including efforts to address student feedback. For example, Heather Hererra, Assistant Director of Curriculum Development, and a TEWG member, notes that changes were made recently to Early Childhood/Special Ed. and Childhood/Special Ed. based on feedback that some of the courses were redundant. Still other changes are the result of responses to evaluations such as the Levine Study (2006) in which a national sample of students reported that they felt less than satisfactorily prepared to work with technology in the classroom. On the basis of this finding, the NYU teacher education faculty collaborated with the Administration, Leadership, and Technology faculty and developed a new course, Integrating Technology into the K-­‐12 classroom. In their recommended action steps, however, the internal auditors urge that general reviews be more frequent and regularly scheduled. TEWG will consider this recommendation, and based on a planned survey of program area COPs in fall 2011, may call for periodic reviews. Q12. Why is a core course like New Student Seminar not evaluated? A. TEWG was not aware that this course has not been routinely evaluated. CRTL will add the course to its evaluation list beginning in the fall of 2011. Meanwhile, the Steinhardt School is implementing a school-­‐wide online course evaluation system. Implementation is in the pilot phase through fall 2011 and will launch in full for spring 2012 courses. Under this system, all courses will be evaluated every semester, including those that might not have been included in the past. Q13. Why was a transfer student required to take New Student Seminar in his/her fifth semester at NYU and second semester at Steinhardt? A. There are special sections for transfer students. If the course is taken in any semester other than the first, it generally means that the transfer sections available were at times that conflicted with the student’s required courses. The Steinhardt Website provides the following information on the New Student Seminar (E03.0001): During their first semester in residence, incoming freshmen and transfer students are required to register for New Student Seminar (E03.0001). The New Student Seminar is a noncredit course given on a pass/fail basis, organized by curriculum to explore professional issues and to provide ongoing orientation and guidance. Arguably, such a course could be valuable at any time. Q14. What mechanisms exist for ensuring that liberal arts courses taken in NYU schools other than the College of Arts and Science are comparable to those taken within CAS? A. Students may take liberal arts courses within the Steinhardt School to meet designated Morse Academic Plan requirements. The Steinhardt Dean of Faculty & Academic Affairs annually reviews the list of Steinhardt courses which satisfy liberal arts requirements, and requests that full-­‐time faculty teach these courses to ensure that undergraduates gain exposure to full-­‐time faculty across the curriculum. 97
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Instructors of these courses typically have terminal degrees in fields such as history, philosophy, sociology, biology, etc. The Steinhardt liberal arts courses must also be approved at the departmental level, and by the Committee on Courses and Programs. The courses are reviewed for content, level, appropriate course load, learning objectives, and adherence to the New York State Department of Education’s definition of liberal arts: • Independent of specific application • Breadth and scope in principle covered • Not definitely directed toward particular career or specific professional objectives • Not chiefly "how to" in manipulative skills or techniques • Not "applied" aspects of a field Note that Steinhardt, while a professional school, also has faculty with arts as well as arts and science practices in teaching and research – for example, within the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences in the Professions, and the Department of Applied Psychology. Even the three departments housing the Teacher Education Program have faculty with substantial scholarly records as – for example -­‐ historians, scientists, artists, and musicians. For the most part, however, Steinhardt undergraduates complete their Morse Academic Plan requirements through the College of Arts and Science. For the most part too (except in Art, Music, and Theatre), they complete their content requirements in the College of Arts and Science as electives, and as variations of the College of Arts and Science majors. At its April 26, 2011, meeting, the Teacher Education Council committed to making the question of what should constitute the content knowledge of teacher education candidates at NYU a recurring item on its agendas. Q15. Who approves exceptions to program requirements, and who records and maintains records of these exceptions? A. At the point of admission, program area directors may approve exceptions in program requirements, which are recorded with the particular office of admissions (UG or grad). In some cases, after matriculation, exceptions are granted which are proposed by program area directors, approved by the Dean of Faculty & Academic Affairs, recorded with the Office of Graduate Studies or the Steinhardt undergraduate advisement office, and ultimately agreed upon by the Registrar. Q16. What is the role of departmental curriculum committees with respect to teacher education as an interdepartmental effort of NYU? A. Departmental curriculum committees need to consider department resources as well as how changes to teacher education courses or program areas may impact students in other areas of departmental concern (for example, staffing courses in non-­‐certification areas). At the same time, interdepartmental faculty scrutiny is necessary for changes in, and continuing scrutiny of the teacher education core curriculum (including fieldwork). For this reason, the faculty is currently considering a plan to add faculty capacity to TEWG which would then collaborate with departmental curriculum committees on oversight of the core. This is one of several steps under consideration to develop a stronger center for NYU teacher education even while honoring the value and vitality of its de-­‐centralized features (e.g., links to the arts faculties and small communities of practice). Q17. Why is the evaluation of fieldwork placements and fieldwork supervision not integrated with the evaluation of other elements of the program – for example, coursework, educational beliefs, and student teaching outcomes? 98
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
A. Historically, the mechanisms at NYU for evaluating placements and supervisors developed earlier and on a different track from the systematic and schoolwide evaluation of courses at Steinhardt which is relatively recent. The separation has some pragmatic justification (for example, the need to use somewhat different instruments), but it also exemplifies traditional conceptions of fieldwork as posterior to coursework – a matter of application rather than of first-­‐hand learning. Clearly, new conceptions of teacher education have emerged which challenge these conceptions, and that therefore urge integration rather than separation. Indeed, NYU is in the forefront of teacher education programs nationally in its embrace of these new conceptions, as exemplified by its partnership schools program, its school-­‐based courses, its Learning Partners program, its emerging residency options, and other program features. This question is therefore one that the faculty should address soon, and TEWG will make it part of its fall 2011 agenda. Q18. Study abroad is a major university-­‐wide emphasis of NYU (as evident in recent online messages from the NYU President), but how prevalent is it among teacher education candidates? What are the incentives and deterrents to their participation? A. At the undergraduate level, about 20% of undergraduate students in the Teaching and Learning Department study abroad, many of them during spring semester of sophomore year. Steinhardt does not at this point measure teacher education participation across departments. The school-­‐wide average (which includes the teacher education portions of the Art and Music departments) is about 35%. The school is working to address the discrepancy between this overall school figure and the Teaching & Learning figure by starting study abroad advisement very early (in fact, at freshman orientation), delineating pathways for including study abroad in the undergraduate degree in teaching, and creating new opportunities for students to engage in related coursework and field experiences while studying abroad. New York State permits prospective foreign language teachers, for example, to obtain credit for clinical experiences in schools where the language they will teach is the language of instruction. Students learning to teach any other program may also do school-­‐based fieldwork at any of the three Anglophone NYU sites – London, Ghana, or Australia. Of these sites, NYU-­‐London is already prepared to offer pre-­‐
student teaching supervised field work for undergraduates. Through a recently concluded formal partnership with the University of London’s Institute of Education, graduate students will also gain opportunities to study teacher education there. Upper-­‐level undergraduates and graduate students also take short-­‐term, faculty-­‐led summer abroad courses, such as literacy teaching and learning in London, educational theatre in London and Dublin, and multilingual/multicultural studies in Shanghai. Q19. How might study abroad be made more evident on transcripts? A. NYU has just changed the course numbering system, so now all courses offered abroad at the undergraduate level will have a 9000-­‐level number. Graduate courses are marked by course title. Q20. Do faculty members from Steinhardt and the College of Arts and Science consult with each other regarding liberal arts and major content requirements? A. The examples cited by the auditors regarding differences between discipline-­‐related majors in CAS and those in Steinhardt are good ones for the Teacher Education Council to consider. Indeed, the Council has begun to wrestle with questions that underlie such differences – for example, Should a childhood education major have a single-­‐focus disciplinary arts and science major, or an interdisciplinary one? Should the English major and English Education major have the same study opportunities and demands with respect to English or not, and if not why not? At its meeting on April 26, when it reviewed findings 99
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
from the internal audit, the Teacher Education Council decided to make the question of the Childhood major’s content requirements a priority for discussion in the fall of 2011, and to take up other such questions as a recurring agenda item. The Teacher Education Council affords a great opportunity to explore such questions. It is co-­‐chaired by the Dean of the College of Arts and Science and the Dean of Steinhardt, and is comprised of equal numbers of Arts and Science faculty on the one hand, and Steinhardt teacher-­‐education or teacher-­‐
education-­‐related faculty on the other hand. It meets only once per semester, however. Thus the Council co-­‐chairs have urged members to meet informally too – within discipline-­‐alike groups. Recently, by means of such meetings, the Council has achieved notable success in planning and launching joint programs in French and Spanish, and a new educational minor designed to interest more CAS students in pursuing MAs in teacher education. Q 21. Is there validity to the auditors’ perceptions of more liberal allowance (or elective opportunity) in terms of liberal arts and content electives at CAS versus Steinhardt? If so, is this difference a matter of deliberate policy, or has it simply emerged over time as the Morse Academic Plan has evolved? A. Indeed, the Morse Academic Plan (MAP) requirements in the College of Arts and Science have evolved since the curriculum was first implemented. These changes were made to avoid duplication of course content and instructor resources between the MAP and Faculty of Arts and Science departments, while also enabling students to better integrate their general education foundation in MAP with the requirements of their departmental major. CAS students are thus permitted to fulfill some of their MAP requirements by taking departmental courses that have been reviewed and approved by the faculty steering committees for the two central components of the MAP curriculum – the Foundations of Contemporary Culture (FCC) and the Foundations of Scientific Inquiry (FSI). In FSI, the MAP continues to offer courses in Quantitative Reasoning, Natural Science I (physical science) and Natural Science II (life science). However, students can fulfill their Quantitative Reasoning requirement by taking an approved course in statistics offered by the Psychology, Economics, or Politics departments. Similarly, students can fulfill their Natural Science I and II courses by taking approved courses offered by the science departments. In FCC, MAP continues to offer courses in Expressive Culture, but there are approved departmental courses that allow students to fulfill this requirement. The Societies and Social Science requirement have been completely departmentalized to avoid redundancy between MAP and departmental course offerings. It should be stressed, however, that two MAP courses are still required of all students – Texts and Ideas (formerly Conversations of the West) and Cultures in Contexts (formerly World Cultures). It is true that the Steinhardt core liberal arts requirements tend to follow the older MAP scheme and thus incorporate fewer elective opportunities. However, Steinhardt students may take some portion of their liberal arts courses in Steinhardt (see Question 17 above). Ultimately, the Steinhardt faculty decides how MAP is implemented within its majors. One of the benefits of this audit, however, is that it alerts both faculties to differences in the MAP experiences of CAS and Steinhardt students – which again are good matters for the Teacher Education Council to discuss and address as needed. Faculty Q22. Tracking ratios of tenure-­‐track instructors to non-­‐tenure-­‐track instructors, and also full-­‐time instructors to part-­‐time instructors, are important means of checking on quality, but the auditors found that these are very difficult to do given current data limitations. Has NYU considered addressing these limitations? A. The auditors expressed frustration with having to check with different department administrators in 100
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
order to obtain information on the adjunct faculty. The TEAC Coordinators’ subsequent discovery of a faster route (see answer to Q 30) might have assuaged this frustration. Meanwhile, Steinhardt can identify ratios of tenure-­‐track to non-­‐tenure-­‐track instructors through its in-­‐house database of faculty appointments in the Office of Faculty Affairs, and even on the website which lists faculty by rank. It is also possible that the new Peoplesoft information system may make merging data from separate databases for reporting and accountability purposes easier than it currently is. Q23. How does NYU monitor the balance in faculty expertise and experience available to students? For example, is this a routine part of advisement and course staffing? A. One virtue of the Internal Audit as it was conducted this time, and of the Shadowing exercise tied to it, is that it made manifest the possibility of such imbalance. Following the recommendation of the auditors to hold internal audits on this same design at least every other year will provide a means of monitoring imbalance and checking on efforts to curtail it. These efforts should include – as this question suggests – making the monitoring of balance/imbalance in faculty expertise and experience a routine part of advisement. There is little evidence that it is now. However, it would be easy to change this, since all teacher education students must be cleared each semester by an advisor before they are allowed to register for courses. One element of this clearance should involve a check on faculty expertise. Meanwhile, department chairs and program area directors should also keep balance in mind as they staff the courses that comprise program requirements. They should ensure as well that all senior and tenure-­‐
track faculty teach courses in the teacher education program, and teach undergraduates as well as MA students. Where particular program areas seem too weighted toward clinical and/or part-­‐time faculty expertise, chairs and program area directors should shuffle requirements as needed – including opening more slots to electives – to ensure that students may also study with tenure-­‐track and senior professors. Finally, the Deans should be alert to the possibility that some program areas may suffer imbalance and should take this into account in developing faculty hiring plans. Q24. As the result of the recent addition of an arts-­‐focused staff member to the Office of Clinical Studies, the monitoring of quality with regard to the supervision of field placements will be one significant step easier, but are further consolidating steps contemplated – for example, storing duplicate copies of CVs in the Office of Clinical Studies? A. All supervisors’ CVs – whether they are part-­‐time or full-­‐time faculty – are stored in the department administrators’ files. This makes sense from an efficiency point of view, given the fact that the department administrators process all matters regarding supervisor appointments. Q25. The mentoring and evaluation of full-­‐time Steinhardt faculty seems well articulated with standards across departments, but what about part-­‐time faculty? A. The part-­‐time (adjunct) faculty is very important to the success of the NYU Teacher Education Program (see more on this in answer to Q53 below). However, adjunct faculty members differ considerably from each other, in role and in the curricular niche they fill – ranging, for example, from a notable professional theatre artist or currently practicing high school social studies teacher whose own work environments constitute part of their contribution, to a science education doctoral student or recently retired NYC literacy coach who teach courses on campus. This is one reason that their hiring, mentoring, supervision, and evaluation have always rested, for the most part, at the level of program areas and departments. Another reason is to ensure that their practice is well connected to the practice of the full-­‐time faculty, and that their expertise contributes to the program areas’ communities of practice. The exception to this “local” approach is that the work rules for part-­‐time faculty at NYU are governed by a collective bargaining contract worked out at the level of the whole university, and 101
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
overseen for teacher education by the Steinhardt Office of Administration and Finance. Candidates Q 26. Steinhardt and the Graduate School of Arts and Science have recently scaled up the French program to Chinese and Spanish language studies also, but are the systems of advisement and data sharing within and between the schools sufficient to the challenge? A. The two schools jointly operate a teacher education program in French, and are planning (pending final state approval) a teacher education program in Spanish and TESOL. These programs are in collaboration with NYU Study Abroad sites in Paris and Madrid respectively. There is no comparable program in Chinese, however. The auditors likely confused the French and Spanish/TESOL certification programs with a program for native Chinese speakers who study in a new program jointly operated by Steinhardt and East China Normal University, and who plan to return to China to teach English. The latter does not include New York State teacher certification As for the challenges of launching and operating such joint programs, the French program is instructive in alerting the faculty to predictable start-­‐up kinks and also to effective ways of addressing them. The program recruits students throughout the U.S. who spend the first year in Paris (at NYU/Paris), and the second year in New York City (mostly at Steinhardt). Professor Shondel Nero who oversees Steinhardt’s participation recently made an assessment of the experiences of the program’s first two cohorts, involving interviews of students and faculty, and a visit to the Paris Center. She found a number of problems, mostly involving the second year. One was “reverse culture shock” -­‐ students getting used to New York after a year in Paris. Another was students’ fear of losing their French fluency gains during their time in New York – especially given the second year’s focus on student teaching and its fairly light contact with the French Department. And third was students’ unfamiliarity with New York City schools and classrooms. She and her colleagues have addressed these problems by ensuring some on-­‐
site contact with Steinhardt faculty during the Paris year – focused particularly on learning about New York City schooling, and efforts to tweak the New York curriculum and to enhance the role of the French Department during the New York year. These solutions will also, of course, inform the launch of the new Spanish program. Q27. What is NYU’s plan for ensuring that all supervisors will be DRSTOS trained? A. As the Brief indicates, NYU has made great progress since its first TEAC review in scaling up the DRSTOS-­‐R assessment. Moving to 100% implementation, however, involves certain complications, as follows. First, there is the resource challenge. Supervisors must be trained, and the added time for training must be compensated. But even if the kind of resources that funded the original scale up (a grant from the Carroll and Milton Petrie Foundation) were still available, initial training is insufficient, as the DRSTOS-­‐R data disaggregated by program area reported in the Brief begin to suggest. Ongoing training is necessary to ensure inter-­‐rater agreement. This is one of several factors which seem to call for a re-­‐
conceptualization of the supervisor role in NYU teacher education. Thus supervisors may need to be more integrated with the full-­‐time faculty who form the program area communities of practice. All may need to be linked by technologies that permit ongoing, job-­‐embedded training in assessing teaching, and in mentoring those assessed in a standards-­‐based way. This might be part of a re-­‐conceptualization that also expands the supervisors’ contacts with candidates as well as with cooperating teachers, or even merges the roles of supervisor and cooperating teacher. Current experiments with residency-­‐based teacher education models – including some at NYU – are taking these paths. Meanwhile, New York State is about to pilot a statewide portfolio assessment of student teachers based (like DRSTOS-­‐R) on the Danielson Framework. NYU will participate in the pilot. It is possible that 102
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
the roll-­‐out of this new set of standards and assessment system will make DRSTOS-­‐R obsolete. For the moment, however, it makes sense for NYU to make modest investments in DRSTOS-­‐R training and re-­‐
training, and discuss and experiment with substantial modification of the current supervisory role. Q28. How do we ensure that DRSTOS-­‐trained supervisors complete and submit DRSTOS documents to CRTL? A. The DRSTOS-­‐R training and data collection processes have been designed to ensure and facilitate supervisors’ completion and return of documentation at the end of each semester. During initial DRSTOS-­‐
R training, it is made clear to participating supervisors that completing the DRSTOS-­‐R form is an ongoing expectation with an explicit statement of this expectation as well as discussion regarding how collection of evidence to inform DRSTOS-­‐R ratings and assignment of ratings can be integrated into supervisors’ existing mentorship and assessment practice. CRTL sends supervisors a minimum of two reminders per semester – one at mid-­‐term and one approximately two weeks before the assigned deadline. Supervisors are contacted using the email addresses provided to the clinical field office and/or any email addresses indicated as preferred. Submission deadlines are timed to coincide with the due dates for final grade submissions to assist the summative rating process. Supervisors have the option of returning digital or hard copies of the DRSTOS-­‐
R form according to their preference and hard copies are provided by request. In addition, supervisors are sent a confirmation email both when hard copies of the forms are provided and when forms have been received. If forms have not been received by the deadlines, follow-­‐up emails are sent to supervisors every 2-­‐3 weeks to check on the forms’ status until a month into the following semester. CRTL is in regular contact with program department heads and representatives from the Office of Clinical Studies who are also encouraged to make further reminders in their meetings with supervisors. As needed, CRTL addresses any questions or concerns regarding the DRSTOS-­‐R document and its administration via email and individual and/or group meetings. Any supervisors who have not returned forms by the mid-­‐term of the following semester are considered non-­‐submitters. Return rates since fall 2007 from trained supervisors in the field have been upwards of 80% per semester. In fall 2010, 65 of 70 trained supervisors in the field (92.9%) returned completed forms to CRTL. The 371 forms collected represented 92.1% of student teachers for the semester. Q29. Are the roles of and relationships among advisors, Certification Officer, and the staff member in the Office of Clinical Studies who processes paper work related to certification articulated clearly for the benefit of students? And are these as efficient as possible? A. Progress toward meeting certification requirements is fairly straightforward and articulated to students throughout their program so that they receive this information more than once, oftentimes 3 and 4 times. NYS Certification requires: ·∙ Fingerprint clearance ·∙ Passing scores on the required NYS certification exams (reported directly to NYS) ·∙ Completion of a state-­‐approved teacher preparation program. Fingerprinting is required by the NYCDOE before students can student teach, and happens well before graduation. NYCDOE then shares fingerprinting clearance with NYSED so students do not need to be fingerprinted again. During orientations (fast track), fieldwork seminars, student teaching seminars and stand-­‐alone certification workshops, the Certification Officer provides and reviews with students both the step-­‐by-­‐
step online application instructions for NYS certification, and an information packet outlining the 103
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
additional requirements for certification (exams, fingerprint clearance, etc.) in addition to degree requirements. Students are advised which exams they need to complete to satisfy NYS certification requirements, and warned that without the exams, NYSED will not certify them. The Certification Officer cannot monitor whether candidates register to take the exams until a score (pass or fail) appears in the TEACH system (NYSED's online database). Not all students complete the NYS certification exams. Some do not because they plan to move out of state upon graduation. Some undergraduates decide that they will complete their MA before they start teaching, and thus complete the exams while in graduate school. Some students complete the exams during the summer after they've graduated. CRTL monitors exam scores via the TEACH system as part of its annual reporting to the faculty and TEAC. Steinhardt does not recommend students for certification (nor complete out of state verification forms) until the degree is completed. The staff member in the Office of Clinical Studies (referred to in the question) is also the Certification Liaison for Teaching and Learning, and recommends only the graduates of Teaching and Learning electronically on the NYSED TEACH system. The Certification Officer recommends all other program completers electronically. NYSED provides access to TEACH to three individuals from each university. Progress in terms of academic requirements for certification is the same as progress toward degree completion which is monitored by the student’s advisor. Academic progress in terms of GPA requirement is monitored by Steinhardt Registration Services. Q 30. How does NYU track and confirm admitted candidates’ efforts to make up deficiencies in admission pre-­‐requisites? A. Teacher education MA applicants may be admitted with a deficiency of no more than 6 credits in their content specialization. The Office of Graduate Admissions provides a statement to each student who is missing credits that specifies how many credits and in what areas of study the student is deficient. Those credits must be taken at NYU in excess of degree requirements. A copy of the statement is also sent to the program adviser who meets with every student at least once a semester and reviews their progress toward degree completion, including missing pre-­‐requisites. Q 31. Does NYU have plans to develop a new and online or hybrid mentoring program, following the lead of other teacher education institutions? A. A number of recent high-­‐profile reform initiatives and policy papers on teacher education have suggested that the problem of low retention of early career teachers – an expensive problem for urban districts in particular – could be assuaged by post-­‐certification mentoring programs. Indeed, NYU has for the past 5 years had a program in place, called the New Teacher Support Network, which supported recent graduates teaching in New York City by means of a series of evening seminar sessions on topics of great interest to them – for example, teaching English language learners and classroom management. These were held in partnership schools, and drew equally on school and NYU expertise. The program was funded by grants from the Wachovia Foundation and the Petrie Foundation. But the end of the funding cycle, combined with a NYC job freeze ended this initiative. Online mentoring programs, like the one that Teach for America has created and recently presented at an NYU meeting, can be very expensive. TFA’s program cost millions of dollars to build, and requires a dedicated staff to maintain. Neither NYU nor Steinhardt have the funds to launch such an elaborate support structure at this time. At this point, the teacher education faculty should consider how it might deploy existing resources at a more modest scale and to the same end. Online is clearly the way to go if for no other reason than NYU graduates cannot depend for jobs on the local market alone. The Steinhardt administration could facilitate and assist this effort – for example, by pioneering ways to use 1-­‐ 3 credits of tuition funding on 104
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
post-­‐graduation support, and by exploring the use of blended learning platforms (those that combine short-­‐term coursework and resource libraries with social networking). Q32. The overall process of transitioning candidates from student status to certified teacher status is divided among various offices and roles: the Wasserman Center, the Certification Officer, departmental advisors who monitor progress, a staff member in the Office of Clinical Studies who handles final certification paperwork, a departmental listserv that posts job vacancies, and so on. Has NYU considered the possibility of redesigning for greater integration and efficiency? A. The steps involved in obtaining certification are listed above in response to another question. While there are always ways to improve efficiency, the actual certification process is more efficient than ever. Students now apply online for certification, exams scores are reported electronically to the NYSED and appear in their TEACH account, fingerprinting is done prior to student teaching by the NYCDOE and clearance forwarded electronically to the NYSED, and then institutions recommend electronically Although the Wasserman Center and the job vacancy listserv play no role in the certification process, they are, of course, useful in the employment of our students as teachers. Q33. Teacher education at NYU is highly prescriptive in terms of course requirements, with few or no non-­‐restricted electives depending on certification patterns. Students with special needs and interests therefore require significant advisement involvement. Does everyone who seeks flexibility get this kind of advisement? Would broader elective opportunities better serve student interests and needs? A. Indeed, most of the program areas of NYU teacher education offer few and often highly restricted elective opportunities. Some of these constraints are products of state mandates and of how previous faculty groups have interpreted these mandates. Recent perceptions on the part of the faculty and Deans of the need to reduce overall credit requirements in teacher education may further reduce elective opportunities. However, there are countervailing trends. One is an effort – notable within the Department of Teaching & Learning -­‐ to create greater economies in terms of faculty deployment by opening up courses previously devised for only one program area to several areas. Another is associated with a schoolwide effort to create courses that will attract students from other NYU schools to the study of education. These courses are likely to work best if they are constructed to appeal to Steinhardt students too, and if Steinhardt students can satisfy particular certification requirements by taking them. Finally, there is the effort to afford all NYU students – including those in teacher education – opportunities to study at one or more NYU study abroad sites. Such study is easier in a curricular environment that does not require that program areas be precisely duplicated site to site. Q34. Is there a consistent system across certification patterns, levels, and departments in how requested substitutions for program requirements are handled, negotiated, approved, recorded, and passed along to the Registrar? A. The policy is very clear within Steinhardt and NYU as a whole -­‐ namely that exceptions to program requirements are proposed by program area directors, approved by the Dean of Faculty & Academic Affairs, recorded with the Office of Graduate Studies or the Steinhardt undergraduate advisement office, and ultimately decided upon by the Registrar. Q35. Given the emphasis in current policy advocacy and in NYU’s TEAC claims on teacher content knowledge, should grades below C-­‐ count toward content requirements? A. The finding that provoked this question will lead to faculty deliberation this fall. Indeed, in its 105
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
guidelines regarding transcript review (of teacher candidates who have not graduated from a New York State approved teacher education program) NYSED says that undergraduate content course grades below C may not count toward meeting content core certification requirements. See http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/ag.html. For graduate students, no content core course below B-­‐ may count – again for the purposes of transcript review. The state defines “content core” as “coursework that instructs candidates in the specific subject matter of the certificate title sought (e.g. Mathematics, Biology, Spanish, etc.).” Because the NYU teacher education program is an approved program, however, it is exempt from this policy, and the advisor was right in telling the Auditor that the Steinhardt policy requiring at least a 2.5 overall GPA for undergraduate and graduate students to progress to student teaching is operative here. TEWG recommends that the faculty amend this policy to reflect the higher transcript review guidelines. Resources Q36. Are courses in teacher education expected to list relevant resources on the syllabus, and to tag these for easy reference in the library and online? A. Most faculty at NYU would regard this as good teaching practice at the university level. However, there is no explicit Steinhardt policy requiring this. One virtue of going online with all syllabi – as the College of Arts and Science recently did – is to make examples of good practice more available for emulation. See Question 4. Q37. What policies or review mechanisms exist at Steinhardt to ensure that undergraduates get a fair share of the attention of full-­‐time and tenure-­‐track as well as tenured faculty? A. What the auditors perceived in this regard deserves a fuller-­‐scale study. And, if indeed, particular sub-­‐
groups of students – by virtue of their status as undergraduates, their program areas, or other factors – are disproportionately taught by part-­‐time faculty, then the faculty must take steps to address the problem. Q38. What balance point does Steinhardt aspire to in terms of the proportion of full-­‐time and part-­‐time faculty teaching in its teacher education program? A. NYU has taken a number of steps to bring the NYU percentage of full-­‐time faculty teaching Teacher Education program students from 42% reported in the 2005 TEAC Brief, to 48.4% in 2011. These steps have included converting a number of highly regarded adjunct or visiting instructors into full-­‐time clinical faculty or master teachers (notably David Montgomery in Educational Theatre, Debbie Damast in Dance, and Rosa Pietanza in core studies). Future conversions are also likely, as are reductions in the overall number of courses required, and consolidation of courses. In the end, NYU aspires to reach 60% full-­‐time faculty with an overall mix of faculty that includes tenure-­‐track scholars, clinical faculty with deep practical knowledge, and master teachers and adjunct instructors with great currency in practice. 106
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
REFERENCES Jeffery, J.V. & Polleck, J. V. (2010). Reciprocity through co-­‐instructed site-­‐based courses: Perceived benefit and challenge overlap in an urban school-­‐university partnership. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37 (3), 81-­‐99. Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, D.C.: The Education Schools Project [http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf]. McDonald, J. P., Mohr, N., Dichter, A. & McDonald, E. C. (2007).The Power of protocols. NY: Teachers College Press. Meier, J. & Crowe, E. (2009).Evaluation of the Partnership for Teacher Excellence for the Carroll and Milton Petrie Foundation. New York: Arete Consulting. Poliakoff, A.R., Dailey, C.R. & White, R. (2011).Pursuing excellence in teacher preparation: Evidence of institutional change from TNE Learning Network universities. Washington, D.C.: Academy of Educational Development. 107
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Appendix B Evidence of Institutional Capacity for Program Quality INTRODUCTION The NYU Teacher Education Program is situated within one of the world’s largest private institutions of higher education: 18 schools and colleges, enrolling some 50,000 students. It occupies 5 million square feet of interior space at five centers in Manhattan, one in Brooklyn (the NYU Polytechnic Institute), and campuses throughout Europe as well as in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, South America, and (recently announced) Australia. NYU has 3100 full-­‐time faculty, including some of the most distinguished in the world, and a curriculum that combines more than 2500 courses with one of the most extensive set of professional internships in the world. In 2006, NYU was classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching as one of 76 “institutions of community engagement,” in recognition of its extensive involvement in community-­‐based teaching, learning, and research. In 2009, NYU’s research funding exceeded $270 million. From 2004 to 2008, the University received more income from the licensing of technologies developed at NYU than any other U.S. university, and in the past 20 years more than 55 start-­‐ups have been formed around NYU discoveries and ideas. NYU’s eight libraries hold over 4.5 million volumes. The University’s student support services have won multiple awards: its career counseling service won excellence awards in 2007 and 2010 from the National Association of Colleges and Employers; its Student Health Center won a 2010 American College Health Association award for innovative practices; and in 2009 and 2010, NYU’s student services were awarded six Gold Excellence and two Silver Excellence awards from the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. NYU teacher education is situated within the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, an undergraduate and graduate professional school that is the home of the third largest full-­‐time faculty at NYU (after Arts and Science, and Medicine). Steinhardt is currently ranked 15th in the 2011 U. S. News and World Report rankings of the country's top graduate schools of education. In addition to the 61-­‐member Teacher Education Faculty group, the 270-­‐member full-­‐time Steinhardt faculty includes groups in music and the arts (with whom music and art education faculty are integrated), as well as in media and communications, leadership and technology, applied psychology, humanities and social sciences in the professions, and health (nutrition, speech, physical therapy, and occupational therapy). Steinhardt’s mission is to advance knowledge, creativity, and innovation within all these areas and wherever possible at their intersection too, and to produce professionals conscious of the connections among professional practice, cultures, and urban communities worldwide. The school enrolls nearly 6200 students – of whom 2500 are undergraduates and 3700 Masters, advanced certificate, and doctoral students. Beyond diversity in their professional interests, Steinhardt students are diverse geographically, ethnically, and culturally. The undergraduates are 99% full-­‐time and predominantly residential. About half of them begin as freshmen, admitted as part of NYU’s university-­‐wide undergraduate admissions process, and primarily spend their first two years studying the liberal arts beside undergraduates from the College of Arts and Science and NYU’s other undergraduate schools. The other half of the undergraduates come to Steinhardt at a later point -­‐ when their professional interests begin to gel -­‐ and either as internal transfers (within NYU) or external ones (from other four-­‐year colleges or community colleges). Altogether the Steinhardt undergraduates are 71% female, 3% African-­‐American, 9% Latina/o, 15% Asian-­‐American, and 4% international. The graduate students are predominantly Masters-­‐level, 60% full-­‐time, 79% female, 8% African-­‐American, 11% Latina/o, 9% Asian American, and 16% international. Steinhardt has an extensive student services department that includes both an undergraduate and a graduate student organization, but Steinhardt students also have easy access to an even larger array of student services and activities maintained by the University centrally – including medical and counseling services, disabilities services, recreational services, and career services. The Teacher Education Program enrolls approximately 20% of Steinhardt’s undergraduate students and 108
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
15% of its graduate students, within program areas that run from early childhood and childhood through secondary foci in nearly every school subject. Teacher education has the third largest student enrollment at Steinhardt – after music and media/communications. However, the program is among the most inter-­‐connected of majors at NYU, working closely with the Faculty of Arts and Science, as well as the Steinhardt music and arts faculties, humanities and social science faculty, applied psychology faculty, and technology faculty, in such areas as undergraduates’ content and liberal arts content knowledge, and both undergraduates’ and graduates’ knowledge of the learning sciences and of the contexts and tools of teaching. The NYU Teacher Education Council and Teacher Education Working Group, with members from Arts and Science as well as these multiple Steinhardt faculty groups, oversee the ongoing development of the Teacher Education Program. The NYU Teacher Education Program places its candidates early and at multiple points in scaffolded field experiences – including NYU courses and seminars that meet in schools, observation assignments in schools and other community-­‐based learning centers, tutoring and small-­‐group teaching assignments, and student teaching. It has strong ties to New York City schooling. These include ties with the central New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE), with early childhood centers operated by multiple agencies and institutions, and with NYCDOE elementary and secondary schools in Manhattan, the Bronx, and Brooklyn. Occasionally, the program makes placements outside New York City too – typically for foreign language teaching (for example, in French or Chinese), or because of students’ special needs. The program also has a special relationship with a set of 22 NYC partnership schools – a relationship that has significantly expanded the program’s resources, including expertise, space, and learning opportunities for students and faculty. The purpose of the partnership is to strengthen teacher education and contribute to school improvement and learning gains for K-­‐12 students by means of deeper and wider ties between school and university. The partnership schools and NYU have signed a memorandum of understanding which articulates a commitment to work in the interest of each other’s students, by means, for example, of fieldwork that immerses teacher candidates in the teaching and learning life of the partner school, appointments of selected members of the schools’ faculties to the NYU adjunct faculty, and opportunities for the schools’ teachers and students to take advantage of learning opportunities available at the university. RESOURCE CAPACITY FOR QUALITY: DOCUMENTATION AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Table B.1 (Table 5 data) compares the Steinhardt Teacher Education Program to NYU overall and to other NYU schools and departments with regard to dimensions of resource capacity for quality. Table B.2 (Table 6 data) below provides documentation regarding NYU’s compliance with the TEAC requirements regarding resource capacity for quality. 109
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
TABLE B.1 [Table 5 data]: Capacity for Quality: A comparison of program and institutional statistics Capacity Dimension Program Statistics Institutional Statistics 3.1.1 Curriculum Undergraduate Teacher Education Undergraduate Studies at NYU (number of credits) To be eligible for a baccalaureate degree, A minimum of 128 credits are students complete a minimum of 128 required for the NYU baccalaureate credits within 10 years of matriculation. degree, with some requiring in excess of this The Teacher Education Program varies slightly among program areas (for example, 128 in science, math, and foreign language, but 129 in English, and 133 in educational theatre). Joint certification programs are still higher (for example, 137 in childhood/special education). http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teacher_certific
ation/#music1 Graduate Teacher Education Master’s Degree requirements for initial teacher certification range from a minimum of 36 credits to a maximum of 53 credits for the Dual Certification Program in Ed Theatre/English. Graduate students in Masters’ programs need to maintain a 2.5 GPA. Graduate Studies: GSAS, Wagner, Steinhardt Media, Culture & Communications To be awarded a Master of Arts and Master of Science Degree in the NYU Graduate School of Arts and Science, a student will complete at least 32 points of graduate credit (at least 24 in residence at the Graduate School, 16 points in one department or program) and have a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or better. http://gsas.nyu.edu/object/bulletin
0911.grad.admission 110
Difference/ Analysis Comparison/analysis No difference: The minimum number of credits required for the baccalaureate degree (either BA or BS) is 128, though some students take more, and dual majors may require more. http://cas.nyu.edu/page/ug.Majors
Minors.html Comparison/analysis There is variability in the number of credits required for a Master’s degree within the Teacher Education Program (by area), and across NYU programs and areas generally TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
3.1.2 Faculty (percentages at ranks; workload; diversity) New York University
Full-­‐time Teacher Education Faculty percentage at ranks. Table B.3 below lists Steinhardt faculty in terms of percentages at ranks. Full-­‐time University Faculty percentage at ranks Table B.4 below compares the Steinhardt faculty to the overall university faculty in terms of percentages at ranks. Comparison/Difference The Steinhardt percentage of faculty at full professor is lower (by 3.9%) than at the university as a whole, and thus those at associate and assistant levels are proportionally higher (3.4% and 2.4% respectively). In the clinical ranks, Teacher Education makes more use of the Teacher/Master Teacher rank, and almost no use of the Instructor rank. Otherwise the differences are minimal. Adjunct Teacher Education Faculty Adjunct other NYU Faculty Comparison/difference In the 2010-­‐2011 academic year, 48% of In the 2010-­‐2011 academic year, There is wide variability across NYU teacher education program courses 32% of courses in the Steinhardt schools in terms of the use of (excluding content area courses and liberal Department of Media, Culture and adjunct faculty. There are some arts courses for undergraduates) were Communication were taught by full generalities, however. One is that taught by full-­‐time faculty members. time faculty. when graduate students teach, they are appointed as adjunct faculty. Another is that the professional schools make great use of the field’s practitioners as adjunct faculty. This is true in both teacher education and media communication at Steinhardt . 111
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
3.1.3 Facilities (space & equipment provided) New York University
Faculty Workload in Teacher Education. A Steinhardt task force has recently studied issues related to faculty workload, and will report recommendations to the faculty. The task force was, in part, born out of a need to capture statistical data on teaching loads—which we currently do not have. The findings of the task force may result in adjustments to the current norm which generally assigns research-­‐active tenure-­‐track faculty a teaching load of two courses per semester, and clinical/master teacher faculty a teaching load of three courses per semester – with adjustments downward where research buy outs are involved, and equivalencies provided for student teaching supervision and administrative assignments (such as program area chair). Diversity of the Teacher Education Faculty. Table B.5 below provides statistics on teacher education faculty by gender and ethnicity. Faculty workload in the Faculty of Arts and Science There is some variation among departments and between the sciences and the humanities (given administrative assignments and the frequency of course buy-­‐outs for major research projects in the sciences). In general, however, members of the Faculty of Arts and Science teach two courses per semester. Comparison/Difference The norms are the same, and variation from the norms occurs for the same reason (i.e., research or other project buyouts, and administrative assignments). Diversity of other NYU faculty Table B.5 below compares the Steinhardt faculty to the overall university faculty by gender and ethnicity. Comparison/Difference In terms of diversity of faculty, Steinhardt’s percentage of women faculty is 59% versus 41% at NYU overall. Moreover its percentage of Black and Latino/Latina faculty is 12% versus 5% at NYU overall. Teacher Education Program The Teacher Education Program shares equally in many facility resources with other NYU units. For example, note the references above concerning classroom assignments, technology support, and library resources. Other Steinhardt: Media, Culture & Communication (MCC) The Dept. of Teaching & Learning (T&L) (educating most of the teacher education students) generates 9100 student credits per semester – only the third highest at Steinhardt, but it has the largest Comparison/Difference The comparison is mixed, but suggests a functional basis with no systematic bias. The Teacher Education program includes students from Music and Art (which have the highest OTPS budgets and space allocations at 112
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
3.1.4 Fiscal and administrative (support dollars/faculty member) Fiscal support per faculty in teacher education Table B.6 below provides a Comparison of Faculty Salary (Mean) for Steinhardt and the University, 2008-­‐2010. Individual Development Account (IDA) funds are also available to all Steinhardt faculty to support professional development: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/adminfinance/h
owdoi-­‐2010-­‐02-­‐22-­‐IDA\ OTPS The OTPS allocation to Steinhardt Departments for fall 2011 is $ 2,926,335. Of this amount, Teacher Education receives $463.503 or 15.8% ( based on fall 2010 enrollment points of 1111 Teacher Education majors) The Steinhardt financial report. A copy is available in the Dean’s Office and in the TEAC Coordinator’s Office. Of the $212,155,000 Steinhardt 2009-­‐2010 budget, 52.7 million (26%) was allocated for Instructional salaries and 11 million full-­‐time faculty, and at 12,426 sq. ft., it also occupies more space, and has a higher OTPS budget than MCC, the second highest enrollment department. Fiscal support for faculty university-­‐
wide See Table B.6. Steinhardt). However, most teacher education students are in the Dept. of Teaching & Learning which is first in faculty size and third in both OTPS and space). Comparison/difference There are significant differences: for Professors, a gap of roughly $43,000; for Associate Professors, $11,000; and for Assistant Professors, $22,000 Other Steinhardt department: MCC By comparison, of the total $2,926,335 OTPS allocation for departments, MCC received $204,910 for fall 2011 or 7% of the budget based on fall enrollment points of 914 MCC majors. Comparison/difference Within Steinhardt, the teacher education program is among the most highly funded programs. For example, the Dept. of Teaching & Learning, which has the bulk of teacher education students but generates fewer credits than either the Media or Music depts., has many more full-­‐time faculty. Comparison/Difference NYU schools and programs within schools are funded on the basis of annual budgets negotiated between Deans and Provost at the University level and between Deans and Department Chairs at the Overall NYU Financial Report. The report for 2009-­‐2010 is available at: http://www.nyu.edu/financial.servi
ces/cdv/pdf/CFS_2010.pdf See also: http://www.nyu.edu/administrativ
113
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
3.1.5 Student support services (equal access to services) New York University
(5%) for OTPS e.services/ http://www.nyu.edu/budget2010/b
udget/ http://www.nyu.edu/about/leaders
hip-­‐university-­‐
administration/office-­‐of-­‐the-­‐
president/office-­‐of-­‐the-­‐
executivevicepresident/finance-­‐
and-­‐budget/budget-­‐and-­‐
planning.html Teacher education student support services All Teacher Education majors are assigned advisors. Student complaints are addressed following the policies and procedure indicated on the website: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/policies/proced
ures All teacher certification program applicants are considered for financial aid and school-­‐based scholarships. Decisions are based on merit of the application as well as financial need as determined by the FAFSA. Additionally teacher education students are eligible to receive scholarships, which are exclusively for education students, such as the Jewish University-­‐wide Student Support Services NYU Office of Student Affairs: provides students support services as noted at: http://www.nyu.edu/about/leader
ship-­‐university-­‐
administration/office-­‐of-­‐the-­‐
president/office-­‐of-­‐the-­‐
provost/university-­‐life/office-­‐of-­‐
studentaffairs.html and advisement: http://www.nyu.edu/advisement/y
our.advisor/ 114
school level. Funding varies in terms of University and School priorities. It should be noted in this regard that the University has recently added $45 million in debt to help Steinhardt finance the capital campaign that will put all of Teaching and Learning and all teacher education program areas in other departments into better, more usable, more contiguous, and technologically sophisticated space. The total capital plan is about $110 million. Comparison/difference Student Support services provided to Teacher Education majors are parallel to services provided by other NYU Schools. Teacher Education majors have access to all University-­‐wide Services. TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
3.16 Student feedback (course evaluation, mean number of complaints) New York University
Foundation for Education of Women, The Noyce Foundation, The Gateway Project, and Math for America. For 2009 and 2010, on average, 27% of entering students (schoolwide) received a school-­‐based scholarship. The 2009-­‐2010 financial aid provided to Steinhardt students was $26 million -­‐ (13%) of the overall Steinhardt budget, Excluding externally funded scholarships, the proportion expended on teacher education students was proportional to their share of credits. Individual scholarship amounts covered between 20% and 40% of tuition costs. Teacher Education Program course evaluations Students routinely complete course reaction forms at the end of each semester. CRTL currently provides analysis of these evaluation forms and the results are shared with department chairs and program directors as well as with individual faculty members. Steinhardt is currently in the process of moving to an online course faculty evaluation system. One department piloted the online system in spring 2011. Other NYU The NYU College of Arts and Science provides a Course Evaluation Guide compiled from student surveys dating from the year 2000 to present. Results for FAS are made available online http://www.nyu.edu/cas/ceg/ In Stern, all students must fill out an online Course Faculty Evaluation (CFE) for each course for which they are registered. The responses to all online evaluations are completely anonymous and confidential. Students may fill out the CFE online through the following link: https://ais.stern.nyu.edu 115
Comparison/analysis Steinhardt is currently moving to online course evaluations for all Steinhardt programs-­‐ consistent with NYU FAS, Wagner, and Gallatin, and will be posting results of the evaluation online beginning with the spring 2012 semester TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Teacher Education student complaints. Student complaints are not systematically tracked within Steinhardt or across NYU. However, the Steinhardt School’s Student Complaint Procedure is published in the Steinhardt Student Handbook as well as in departmental materials. https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/policies/proce
dures#Student%20Complaint%20Procedur
e Student government also provides a platform for discussing student issues and concerns and referring students to appropriate sources for resolution. All departments elect representatives to both the undergraduate and graduate student governance bodies. NYU Wagner’s website contains the faculty evaluation by students for courses offered at Wagner during each semester. This is a password protected site. Only Wagner students, faculty and administration with valid NYU IDs have access to this section. http://wagner.nyu.edu/cgi-­‐
bin/evaluation03NEWe.cgi?start=0
&end=0&table=evaluation Overall NYU student complaints Student complaints are not systematically tracked within across NYU. 116
Comparison/difference The Associate Dean for Student Affairs reports that complaints from teacher education students have not been disproportionate to those of Steinhardt students overall. TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
TABLE B.2 (TABLE 6 data): References to institutional documents for each requirement TEAC requirements for quality control of Documentation capacity (3.2) 3.2.1 Curriculum Credit hours required in the subject matter are tantamount to an academic major. Credit hours required in pedagogical subjects are at least tantamount to an academic minor. 3.2.2 Faculty Majority of faculty have a terminal degree (major or minor) in the areas of course subjects they teach. Teacher Education programs are approved by NYSED and adhere to certification regulations which dovetail with this requirement: http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/regulations.html http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/part80-­‐3.html Teacher certification program requirements at the baccalaureate and master’s level exceed this requirement. They are included on the Steinhardt website as well as in Appendix D. A list of state registered teacher education curricula leading to initial and professional teacher certification is included in Table 1.1 on page 5 of the Inquiry Brief. Generally, academic minors at the College of Arts and Science (CAS) require 4 courses of 4 credits each (16 credits total). Education minors at Steinhardt for CAS or for students from other NYU schools do not lead to certification except in combination with a reduced-­‐credit Masters degree. Credit requirements for academic minors at both Steinhardt and the College of Arts and Science (CAS) are listed respectively at the following websites: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/minors#why http://cas.nyu.edu/object/ug.academicprograms.crossschoolminors The credentials of the teacher education faculty amply exceed this requirement (see Appendix C.1). Copies of Teacher Education faculty CVs have been collected by the TEAC Coordinators and are available in their files. The Teacher Education talent pool is enriched by adjunct faculty members (Appendix C.2) and by adjunct supervisors of student teachers (Appendix C.3) available at the Steinhardt password protected website: (www.Steinhardt/secure/TEAC). Faculty guidelines on recruitment, personnel performance reviews, appointment and professional development are available via the following Steinhardt websites. http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/steinhardt/faculty_affairs/pdfs/faculty_search_guidelines.pdf http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_affairs/personnel_reviews http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/cb5/Clinical_Guidelines/Clinical_Faculty_Appointment_
117
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
3.2.3 Facilities Facilities are appropriate and adequate. New York University
Guidelines_Final_12-­‐7-­‐10.pdf http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_affairs/professional_development_fund_request http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_affairs/personnel_reviews#annual_reviews Table B.3 in Appendix B shows the breakdown of full-­‐time faculty by rank for Steinhardt overall and for the teacher education faculty. NYU is currently embarked on a multi-­‐million dollar capital project to upgrade existing instructional, laboratory, research, and faculty office space. Recent specific projects include the complete renovation of the 6th floor of the Education Building (home of the Teacher Education Program areas of Music, Educational Theatre, and Dance) to house new performance and recording space, and a campus-­‐wide renovation of general purpose classroom space to afford greater access to technologies for teaching. Forthcoming projects (for which specific plans are available) include the complete renovation of the East Building, home of the Department of Teaching and Learning, which will integrate the Department’s currently dispersed faculty office and meeting spaces, and include a state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art science education laboratory. http://www.nyu.edu/about/leadership-­‐university-­‐administration/office-­‐of-­‐the-­‐president/office-­‐of-­‐the-­‐
provost/redirect/academic-­‐facilities.html Classrooms are assigned by the university based on the number of students registered in the class. Web pages describing classrooms are available at: http://www.nyu.edu/campusmedia/classrooms/room/ Media is requested at the same website. Most Steinhardt full-­‐time faculty have private offices. The exception is Master Teachers who may share an office since they spend the bulk of their time in the field. Access to space and resources for adjunct faculty and students are provided by the department. Information regarding NYU technology and library systems, drawn from http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/academics/affairs/faq/, is as follows: Technology: New York University provides networked PCs and Macs with Internet access and electronic mail capability to all faculty and staff. A computer technical help desk and full-­‐time network administrators are available for assistance and troubleshooting through Information Technology Services. The University also has six computer labs and special resources for media production, arts technology, and science and humanities computing. ITS provides particularly strong resources for social science and statistics programs 118
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
that include lectures, workshops, and expert consultations. Also, NYU’s wireless network continues to expand into new areas of the campus. 3.2.4 Fiscal and Administrative The institution housing the teacher education program is financially healthy. Program administrators are qualified for their positions Resources are adequate to administer the program Library: New York University maintains eight libraries containing over 4.5 million volumes, five million microforms, 500,000 government documents, 80,000 sound and video recordings and a wide range of electronic resources. The main library, the Elmer Holmes Bobst Library and Study Center, is one of the largest open stack research libraries in the country. The main collection continues to grow by more than 140,000 volumes a year. The University also has six specialized libraries that contain over 168,000 volumes, 2,000 periodicals, computer software and audiovisuals. The NYU Television Center, which also acts as a resource, manages satellite downlinks for instructional and educational programming, and provides on-­‐campus teleconferencing. Library users have access to “the Arch,” the NYU library’s database of electronic resources as well a virtual reference desk, which allows users to email questions and receive email responses within 24-­‐
hours or, for more immediate information, to “chat” online with a reference librarian. To support scholarship, the library provides free bibliographic software (RefWorks, ProCite, and End Note). In addition, the library subscribes to various online educational resources such as Education Full-­‐Text, Education Index, and ERIC. The NYU library offers full off-­‐ and on-­‐campus access to the library's subscription databases, e-­‐
journals and e-­‐books. Access also includes access to partner library collections, as follows: http://www.oclc.org/research/activities/shares/partners/default.htm The overall NYU financial report is available at http://www.nyu.edu/budget2010/ The Steinhardt Office of Administration & Finance, headed by Associate Dean Robert Knight, monitors the school’s financial and administrative resources. The Steinhardt budget is available in the Office of Administration and Finance and also at the TEAC Coordinators’ office. Resumes showing qualifications of program administrators are available in the TEAC coordinator’s office. They are evaluated annually as are those for faculty and staff. Each year, departments assess needs and make budget requests. Department chairs meet with the administration to negotiate the departmental budget for the next academic year. Space and budgets are allocated by department. Each year, the School Planning Committee of the Faculty Senate seeks faculty input on how Steinhardt should allocate its budget. Faculty priorities for the School's budget play a crucial role in Steinhardt's deliberations with University administrators about the allocation of School resources.. In 2010-­‐
2011, they identified faculty recruitment, salary increases, and doctoral support as the top three concerns. The School Planning Committee meets every month and undergraduate and graduate student government 119
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
3.2.5 Student Support Adequate student support services are available. New York University
officers are on the committee. Survey results are presented at Steinhardt Faculty Meetings. Copies of the results are available in the TEAC coordinators’ files. The Office of the Associate Dean for Student Affairs provides a broad array of academic and student services, programs, activities and opportunities to help students be informed, get connected, and access services. See http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/studentaffairs/dean The Steinhardt Student Affairs website newsletters entitled “student matters” provide up-­‐to-­‐date information: http://blogs.nyu.edu/blogs/ejf9434/nyusteinhardtstudentaffairs/ Upon initial registration, all Teacher Education students at NYU are assigned advisors – including staff and faculty. Advisors introduce students to their program area, offer course selection advice, and clear students for registration. Services for students are available at NYU Wellness Center http://www.nyu.edu/999/ and at the Student Health Center http://www.nyu.edu/shc/ The Steinhardt website includes a Teacher Certification timetable : providing information on New York State Certification and New York City Public Schools Employment: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teacher_certification/timetable Coordinated by the Office of Clinical Studies, the Apprentice System is a comprehensive online platform designed to support and document students’ fieldwork experiences. The site includes the handbook for student teachers/ guidelines for field supervisors, a directory of student teaching sites, and links to teacher education resources: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/apprentice/default/resources Post graduation-­‐ career advisement is available via: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/portal/current_students and the NYU Wasserman center for career development http://www.nyu.edu/careerdevelopment/ and at: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/job_strategies The services provided at the Office of Counseling and Student Support Services are listed at: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/counseling/ 120
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
Students complete the program at reasonable rates. 3.2.6 Policies An academic calendar is published. A grading policy is published and accurate. There is a procedure in place for students’ complaints to be evaluated. The transfer of credit policy is published and is accurate. New York University
Support for students with disabilities is provided at the NYU Moses Center: http://www.nyu.edu/life/safety-­‐health-­‐andwellness/students-­‐with-­‐disabilities.html The retention rate for NYU Steinhardt undergraduate students has steadily increased from 83.6 % in 1990 to 91.3% in 2008. This mirrors the overall NYU retention rate which increased from 85.5% in 1990 to 92.4% in 2008.The graduation rate for Steinhardt MA candidates that registered in fall 2005 is 87.4%. The retention rate: 91%. For Certification MA students, the graduation rate is 92.9% NYU Calendars are published at: http://www.nyu.edu/registrar/calendars/ Steinhardt Academic calendars are available via: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/registration/calendars The Teacher Education Program adheres to the academic standards listed at http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/registration/standards Steinhardt grading policies are available at: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/registration/standards#grading_policies The overall NYU grading policy is available at: http://www.nyu.edu/registrar/transcripts-­‐certification/grades-­‐information.html Procedures for evaluating students’ complaints are listed at: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/policies/procedures#Student%20Complaint%20Procedure Transfer of credit policy is posted per undergraduates and graduate students. Undergraduate: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/undergraduate_transfer/transfer_credit Graduate: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/advisement/masters/transfer_credit 121
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
TABLE B.3
Steinhardt Full-Time Teacher Education Faculty by Rank, Fall 2010- Spring 2011
Rank
Professor
Steinhardt
Overall
Number (%)
70 (26.7)
Steinhardt
Teacher
Education
Number (%)
11 (18)
Steinhardt Teacher
Education Related
Program Faculty
Number (%)
46(37.4)
Steinhardt
Other Faculty
Number (%)
13(16.7)
Associate Professor
60 (22.9)
13 (21.3)
31(25.2)
16(20.5)
Assistant Professor
48 (18.3)
10 (16.4)
23(18.7)
15 (19.2)
Clinical Professor
6 (2.3)
2 (3.3)
2(1.6)
2(2.6)
Clinical Associate Professor
18 (6.9)
4 (6.6)
5(4.1)
9(11.5)
Clinical Assistant Professor
17 (6.5)
5 (8.2)
9(7.3)
3 (3.8)
Teacher or Master Teacher
20 (7.6)
12 (19.7)
2(1.6)
6 (7.7)
Music Associate Professor
4 (1.5)
0
0
4 5.1)
Music Assistant Professor
8 (3.1)
0
0
8 (10.3)
Visiting Associate Professor
2 (0.8)
1 (1.6)
1(0.8)
0
Visiting Assistant Professor
7 (2.7)
3 (4.9)
2(1.6)
2(2.6)
Other(Assistant Professor/Faculty Fellow
TOTAL
2 (0.8)
262
0
61
2(1.6)
123
0
78
122
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
TABLE B.4
Comparison of Full-time Steinhardt and University Faculty by Rank, 2009-2011
Title
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Clinical Professor
Clinical Associate Professor
Clinical Assistant Professor
Instructor
Teacher or Master Teacher
Visiting Professor
Visiting Associate Professor
Visiting Assistant Professor
Assistant Curator
Language Lecturer
Library Associate
TOTAL
2008-2009
Number (%)
Steinhardt
2009-2010
Number (%)
74 (27.3)
63 (23.3)
46 (17.0)
6 (2.2)
18 (6.6)
25 (9.2)
1 (0.4)
23 (8.Is this
the year
whw5)
2 (0.7)
2 (0.7)
11 (4.1)
66 (25.5)
65 (25.1)
49 (18.9)
6 (2.3)
22 (8.5)
23 (8.9)
1 (0.4)
20 (7.7)
2010-2011
Number
(%)
70 (26.7)
70 (26.7)
52 (19.8)
6 (2.3)
18 (6.9)
17 (6.5)
2 (0.8)
17 (6.5)
1 (0.4)
2 (0.8)
5 (1.9)
0 (0.0)
2 (0.8)
8 (3.1)
271
259
262
123
2008-2009
Number (%)
University
2009-2010
Number (%)
2010-2011
Number (%)
721 (31.2)
460 (19.9)
338 (14.6)
54 (2.3)
129 (5.6)
138 (6.0)
47 (2.0)
147 (6.4)
733 (30.8)
476 (20.2)
358 (15.1)
63 (2.7)
155 (6.5)
147 (6.2)
35 (1.5)
128 (5.4)
750 (30.5)
478 (19.4)
379 (15.4)
67 (2.7)
174 (7.1)
156 (6.3)
26 (1.1)
135 (5.5)
34 (1.5)
11 (0.5)
27 (1.2)
53 (2.3)
142 (6.1)
10 (0.4)
2311
31 (1.3)
18 (0.8)
35 (1.5)
54 (2.3)
136 (5.7)
8 (0.3)
2377
33 (1.3)
7 (0.3)
37 (1.5)
56 (2.3)
157 (6.4)
7 (0.3)
2462
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
TABLE B.5
Comparison of Full-time Steinhardt and University Faculty by Gender & Ethnicity, 2008-2011
Gender
Ethnicity
Black/AfricanAmerican
Caucasian
Asian
Hispanic/Latino
2008-2009
Female Male
13
6
128
15
4
Steinhardt
2009-2010
Female Male
14
6
95
5
5
125
9
3
2010-2011
Female Male
16
4
91
6
5
121
13
4
91
6
7
International
TOTAL
160
111
151
108
154
108
2008-2009
Female Male
47
49
University
2009-2010
Female Male
56
52
2010-2011
Female Male
60
56
707
75
46
1070
97
46
731
88
44
1106
102
52
767
92
4
1133
101
57
61
104
47
97
46
90
937
1374
968
1409
1017
1445
Table B.6
Comparison of Faculty Salary (Mean) for Steinhardt and the University, 2008-2010
Steinhardt
Rank
Professor
University
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
N=271
N=259
N=262
N = 2311
N = 2377
N =2462
$129,593
Associate Professor
$129,920
$
132,526
$92,216
$
$93,329
Assistant Professor
$171..700
$ 175,900
$103.700
$101.500
$ 103,800
$93.500
$92.700
$ 95,000
N/A
N/A
92,823
$72,034
$71,528
$170.700
$
73,009
$
92,939
All Ranks
N/A
$92,453
$92,305
124
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
APPENDIX C
Qualifications of the Faculty
TABLE C.1
Full-Time Teacher Education Faculty
2010-2011
Faculty profiles and bios are available at: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/faculty_bios/list/Faculty/All
Faculty teaching load will vary based on other responsibilities, i.e. serving as department chair or program director, supervising student
teachers, administering research and program grants, etc.
Listing of faculty scholarly publications are posted on the NYU Steinhardt Website at
HTTP://STEINHARDT.NYU.EDU/FACULTY_BIOS/LIST/PUBLICATIONS and in faculty profiles available at Steinhardt’s password protected
website (www.steinhardt/secure/teac) and will be made available during the TEAC site visit.
NAME
RANK/TITLE
DEGREE
INSTITUTION
YEAR
Alter, Mark
Professor of
Educational
Psychology
Ph.D.
Yeshiva
University
1980
Beck, Sarah
Associate
Professor
Ed.D.
Harvard
University
2002
FIELD
Special Education
EXPERTISE
Special Education,
instructional
programming, teacher
education, and
professional
development.
NYS permanent special
education teacher.
Secondary
Cultural contexts for
English Education literacy learning; equity
issues in education;
urban education;
adolescent literacy
125
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
Over
25
years
4 during
academic
year, 2
summer
8
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
On
sabbatical
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
NAME
RANK/TITLE
DEGREE
Benedict,
Cathy
Assistant
Professor
Coordinator of
Undergraduate
Studies in
Music Ed
Ed.D.
Bennison,
Sarah
Visiting
Assistant
Professor of
Social Studies
Master Teacher
Ph.D.
Blonstein,
Jason
New York University
INSTITUTION
Teachers
College
Columbia
University
YEAR
FIELD
2004
Music Education
New York
University
2006
History of
Education
MAs
New York
University
1970
MA
Fordham
1998
Burgunder,
Anne
Master Teacher
of Math
Education
MS
Bank Street
1994
Carothers,
Suzanne
Professor
Ph.D.
New York
University
1987
EXPERTISE
Social and critical
theory contexts in
education and music
education. Music
Education
undergraduate advisor.
19th c. American
women's history,
religious history, and
the history of the West
Science Education 35 yrs. Teaching in
NYC; Former CoFounder & Co-Director,
Cascades High School,
Administration & a New Visions school;
Teacher of the Year,
Supervision
NYC Alternative High
Schools; Co-Founder,
Alternative High
Schools and Programs
Professional Dev.
Committee
Secondary Math
Role of visual images in
Education
math education and
various methods for
teaching mathematics
Curriculum &
Over 30 years teaching
Instruction in
experience in Early
Childhood
Childhood Education;
126
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
7
5
5
3
8
6
5
3
12
2
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
NAME
RANK/TITLE
DEGREE
New York University
INSTITUTION
YEAR
FIELD
Education
Cohen,
Robert
Professor
of Social
Studies
Education
Ph.D.
University of
California/
Berkeley
1987
History
Damast,
Deborah
Darts, David
Master Teacher
MA
2002
Dance Education
Assistant
Professor of
Art Education
Ph.D.
New York
University
University of
British
Columbia
2004
Studio Art
Desai, Dipti
Associate
Professor of
Art and Art
Education
Ph.D.
University of
WisconsinMadison
1989
Art Education
127
EXPERTISE
Specialist in the preschool teaching of inner
city and minority
children.
Affiliated professor in
History Department
Metropolitan Studies.
History of Education
Social Studies
Education Reform in
New York City schools
Dance Education
Convergences between
education,
contemporary art and
media, technology and
democracy;
Media literacy in art
classroom, research in
art education studio
courses in Venice
Has been teaching art
for 20 years and
involved in
interdisciplinary art
education curriculum
development and
assessment. Publication
record in prominent art
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
12
2
10
3
5
2
12
5
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
NAME
RANK/TITLE
DEGREE
New York University
INSTITUTION
YEAR
FIELD
EXPERTISE
education journals and
published/ exhibited
original artworks.
Nominated for the
Manual Barkan Award
for scholarly
contribution to the field
of art education.
Educational experiences
of immigrant and U.S.born children of color
and their families
TESOL, Foreign
Language Education &
Bilingual Education,
Applied Linguistics
Philosophy of music,
music cognition,
curriculum
development,
multicultural music,
research methods
Coordinator of the Early
Childhood Special
Education Program.
Doucet,
Fabienne
Assistant
Professor of
Education
Ph.D.
University of
North Caroline
Greensboro
2000
Early Childhood
Education
Eisenstein
Ebsworth,
Miriam
Associate
Professor
Ph.D.
CUNY
1979
Linguistics
Elliott, David
Professor
Ph.D.
Case Western
Reserve
University
1983
Music Education
Fleisher, Lisa
Associate
Professor
Ph.D.
University of
Illinois
1979
Special Education
Ph.D.
Pennsylvania
State University
1982
Science Education Science Education;
Director of Mathematics
Science Technology
Enhancement Program
Fraser-Abder, Associate
Pamela
Professor
Director of
Science
128
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
6
4
26
4
9
6
26
4 during
academic
year, 1
summer
2
21
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
NAME
Friedlander,
Helen
RANK/TITLE
Education
Master Teacher
DEGREE
MA
New York University
INSTITUTION
New York
University
Columbia
University
YEAR
FIELD
1970
Special Education
1969
Music Education,
Musicology,
Composition
Gilbert, John
Associate
Professor
Ed.D.
Gottlieb, Jay
Professor
Ph.D.
Yeshiva
University
1972
Psychological
Educational
Research in
Special Education
Gouck,
Maura
Master Teacher
MA
New York
University
1970
English Literature
129
EXPERTISE
(MSTEP)
NYS & NYC Special
Education (K-12); NYS
& NYC School
Administration and
Supervision; program
development.
Creative Process in
Music Education,
Technological Trends in
Music Ed.
Interdisciplinary study,
Collaborative
Education, Dissertation
Proposal Seminar,
Research Design and
Method.
Certified Teacher of
Biology, General
Science, & primary
school; Educational
Evaluator, researcher for
various educational
institutes including the
US Office of Education,
Bureau of Education for
the Handicapped.
30 years secondary
English teaching
experience in NYC.
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
9
4
41
11
26
5
8
3
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
NAME
RANK/TITLE
DEGREE
New York University
INSTITUTION
YEAR
FIELD
EXPERTISE
Supervises Teaching
Fellows
Use of technology in
mathematics education
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
2
6
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
Green, Judith
Master Teacher
MA
New York
University
2003
Math Education
Hull, Glynda
Professor of
English
Education
Ph.D.
University of
Pittsburgh
1983
2
On Leave
Jacobs,
Benjamin M.
Assistant
Professor of
Social Studies
Education and
Jewish studies
Ph.D.
Teachers
College
2005
1
2
Jeffery, Jill
V.
Visiting
Assistant
Professor of
English
Education and
Literacy
Associate
Professor
Associate
Professor of
Science
Education
Ph.D.
New York
University
2010
English Education Literacy development in
the context of digital
technologies and
globalization
Teacher
Social Education,
Education and
Jewish Education,
Jewish Studies
history of education,
curriculum studies, &
education of ethnic
groups
English Education Teaching and
and Literacy
assessment of writing
Education
using integrated
methodological
approaches
1
3
Ph.D.
University of
Maryland
Harvard
University
1997
Mathematics
Mathematics Education
5
On Leave
1996
Science Education Investigations of
teaching and learning,
science in urban
elementary schools, and
studies of teacher
learning in the areas of
science & inclusion
3
4
King, Karen
Kirch, Susan
A.
Ph.D.
130
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
NAME
RANK/TITLE
DEGREE
New York University
INSTITUTION
YEAR
FIELD
Kirkland,
David E.
Assistant
Professor of
English
Education
Ph.D.
Michigan State
University
2006
English and
Urban Education
Koff, Susan
Clinical
Associate
Professor
Clinical
Associate
Professor
Ed.D.
Temple
University
1995
Dance Education
Ed.D.
Teachers
College,
Columbia
1982
Curriculum &
Teaching
Labov,
Joanna
Clinical
Assistant
Professor in
TESOL
Ph.D.
University of
Pennsylvania
2000
TESOL
Leou, Mary
Clinical
Associate
Professor
Director of the
Wallerstein for
Urban
Environmental
Education
Visiting
Assistant
Professor
Ed.D.
Teachers
College,
Columbia
1997
Curriculum &
Teaching
Ph.D.
New York
University
2010
Childhood
Education
Krasnow,
Maris
Light,
Rebecca
131
EXPERTISE
Urban youth culture,
language and literacy,
urban teacher
preparation, and digital
media
Dance Education,
Research, Professional
Development
Early Childhood ,
Special Education,
Urban Education and
Mentoring New
Teachers.
Preparation of student
teachers to teach ESL,
the effectiveness of ESL
pedagogy & methods to
improve second
language pronunciation
Teacher Development
(pre-service & inservice), urban
environmental
education, school
reform, experiential
learning
Informal language used
by early childhood
teachers in preschool
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
4
5
6
6
12
6
2
3
(on leave in
fall 2010)
10
4
1
2
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
NAME
RANK/TITLE
DEGREE
New York University
INSTITUTION
YEAR
FIELD
EXPERTISE
settings
Testing, Research,
Second Language
Acquisition
Human learning and
performance
Llosa, Lorena Assistant
Professor
Ph.D.
UCLA
2005
TESOL/Bilingual
Education
Magill,
Richard
Professor,
Acting Chair of
the Department
of Teaching
and Learning
Assistant
Professor of
History and
Social Studies
Associate
Professor
Ph.D.
Florida State
University
1974
Educational
Psychology
Ph.D.
Columbia
University
2002
Ed.D.
University of
Maine
1995
McDonald,
Elizabeth
Master Teacher
CAS
Harvard
University
1991
McDonald,
Joseph
Professor
Ed.D.
Harvard
University
1986
History and Social Relationship between
Studies Education northern philanthropy
and southern education
history
Literacy
Over 20 years
Education
experience as classroom
& college teacher
specializing in the
application of literacy
acquisition to teaching
practice
Administration
27 years of classroom
teaching, Elementary
administration, &
professional
development
English Education School partnerships and
reform
Malczewski,
Joan
McCallister,
Cynthia
132
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
5
5
4
2
4
4
7
3
10
4
10
4
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
NAME
Milne,
Catherine
RANK/TITLE
Associate
Professor
DEGREE
Ph.D.
.
New York University
INSTITUTION
YEAR
FIELD
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
Curtin
University of
Technology
Perth,
Australia
1988
Science Education The role of history and
philosophy of science in
school science; learning
science in urban schools
8
2
Drama Education,
theatre for young
audiences, student
teaching and integrated
arts
17 years experience
teaching pk-6 grade in
NYC. Early Childhood
& Mathematics
Education
Education of second
language and second
dialect speakers
Urban Education,
minority education
5
6
9
6
3
4
8
2
Relationships with
mothers and teachers
and the impacts of these
relationships on
children’s development
in early and middle
childhood
5
1
Montgomery,
David
Clinical
Assistant
Professor
Ph.D.
New York
University
2006
Educational
Theatre
Mulligan,
Carole
Master Teacher
MA
St. John’s
Graduate
Institute
1978
Liberal Arts
Nero,
Shondel
Associate
Professor
Ed.D.
Teachers
College
1997
MMS/TESOL
Noguera,
Pedro
Professor
Director, Metro
Center on
Urban
Education
Assistant
Professor
Ph.D.
UC: Berkeley
1989
Sociology
Ed.D.
Harvard
University
2005
Early Childhood
Education
O’Connor,
Erin
EXPERTISE
133
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
NAME
Pietanza,
Rosa
Pitts, Harriet
Rafter,
Joseph
Romandetto,
Patricia
Rosenberg,
Joan
Salvatore,
Joseph
RANK/TITLE
Master
Teacher
DEGREE
New York University
INSTITUTION
YEAR
FIELD
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
24 years of teaching
and administration.
Coordinator School
Partnerships
5
4
Literacy
5
4
Over 30 years as an
elementary school
teacher in NYC.
Administration and
Supervision
10
4
5
2
EXPERTISE
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
MA
Hunger
College,
1975
Italian
CAS
Brooklyn
CollegE
Rutgers
University
1981
Administration &
Supervision
Childhood
Education
Ph.D.
New York
University
1993
Psychology
MS
Lehman
College
1975
Childhood
Education
Ed.D.
Teachers
College,
Columbia
University
University of.
Massachusetts,
Amherst
1994
Sp Ed/Admin
Special Education. Preservice Teacher
Development
14
4
1998
Theatre,
Dramaturgy/
Directing
Artistic/Education
director for non-profit
youth theatre company,
curriculum
development, active
director in theatre in NY
& NJ. Received James
Baldwin Playwriting
Award, 1998
9
6
For preservice
Theatre
Educators
Clinical
Assistant
Professor
Clinical
Assistant
Professor
Master Teacher
Assistant
Director, Office
of Clinical
Studies
Clinical
Assistant
Professor
Ed.D.
Teacher
MFA
1984
134
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
NAME
RANK/TITLE
DEGREE
New York University
INSTITUTION
YEAR
FIELD
Schiffman,
Howard S.
Visiting
Associate
Professor
Ph.D.
University of
Wales
2006
Environmental
Education
Schwartz,
Barbara
Clinical
Associate
Professor
Ph.D.
New York
University
1987
Educational
Psychology with
Special Education
Focus
Simon,
Martin
Professor
Ph.D.
University of
Massachusetts
at Amherst
1986
Elementary Math
Education
Smithner,
Nancy
Teacher
Ph.D.
2002
Educational
Theatre
Stahl,
Katherine
Dougherty
Assistant
Professor
Ed.D.
University of
Georgia
2003
Literacy
Tang, Lixing
Clinical
Ph.D.
New York
1984
Secondary
New York
University
135
EXPERTISE
The law of the sea,
marine conservation law
and policy and
international dispute
settlement
35 years in the field of
Early Childhood Special
Education.
Served as an Adjunct
Instructor in Ed Psych
beginning in 1978 and
Full-Time from 1990 to
present.
Development of
mathematics teachers as
they learn to teach
mathematics with a
conceptual focus
20 years directing
experience. Expertise in
Physical theatre, acting,
mime, and movement
research. Integration of
text, movement, and
music
Reading acquisition and
reading comprehension
in the elementary years
Over 35 years teaching
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
1
3
11
4
5
2
19
5
5
6
10
2
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
NAME
RANK/TITLE
Professor
Director,
Multilingual
Multicultural
Studies
Taylor, Philip Program
Director,
Associate
Professor of
Educational
Theatre
Tobias,
Clinical
Robert
Professor
Director of the
Center for
Research on
Teaching and
Learning
DEGREE
(Frank)
New York University
INSTITUTION
YEAR
University
FIELD
TESOL
Ph.D.
New York
University
2002
Educational
Theatre
MA
Temple
University
1969
Psychology
Turk, Diana
Associate
Professor
Ph.D.
University of
Maryland
1999
American Studies
Vukovic,
Rose
Assistant
Professor
Ph.D.
University of
British
Columbia
2006
Special Education
& School
Psychology
136
EXPERTISE
English as a second/
foreign language in
secondary schools and
colleges in China and
the U.S.
Qualitative research,
reflective praxis, drama
and arts education,
applied theatre
33 years as teacher,
researcher, and
Assessment Specialist
for NYC public schools.
Retired in 2001 as
Executive Director of
Assessment and
Accountability.
Facilitates research and
evaluation of Teacher
Education program
US History, women’s
history, educational and
historical methods,
teaching with
technology
Math difficulties & How
math difficulties
develop in children
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
On
sabbatical
in fall 2010
4
4
8
2
8
4
4
4
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
NAME
Zaslavsky,
Orit
RANK/TITLE
Professor
DEGREE
Ph.D.
New York University
INSTITUTION
Technion:
Haifa
YEAR
1987
FIELD
Math Education
EXPERTISE
Development of
teacher-educators, the
nature of productive
mathematics-related
tasks and examples
YEARS
AT
NYU
# TEACHER
ED.
2
4
COURSES
TAUGHT
ANNUALLY
TABLE C.2 Adjunct Faculty 2010-2011 and TABLE C.3 Supervisors 2010-2011 will be made available on the NYU Steinhardt’s
password protected website (www.Steinhardt/secure/TEAC). and copies are available for the site visit.
137
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
Appendix D Program
Requirements
New York University
UNDERGRADUTE
1. Admissions
Admissions to the NYU Steinhardt Teacher Education Program for undergraduate
students is administered centrally by NYU, and requirements are posted at
http://www.nyu.edu/admissions/undergraduate-admissions/applying-for-admission/freshmanapplicants/general-requirements.html. The capacity for successful undergraduate work is
measured through careful consideration of secondary school records; the application essay;
recommendations from guidance counselors, teachers, and others; and scores on standardized
tests (SAT 1 & 2 or ACT). Participation in meaningful school and community activities is an
important factor. NYU actively seeks students who are varied in interests, talents and goals, as
well as in social and economic backgrounds.
Admissions to the Teacher Education Program for transfer students is administered at
Steinhardt http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/undergraduate_transfer/
Undergraduate admissions statistics for NYU, including graduation and retention rates
are available at http://www.nyu.edu/admissions/undergraduate-admissions/is-nyu-right-foryou/faqs.html
2. Program Requirements and Standards
The teacher education program offers pre-service curricula at the baccalaureate degree
level leading to initial certification in Childhood, Early Childhood, and Special Education,
Educational Theatre, English Education, Foreign Language Education, Mathematics Education,
Music Education, Science Education: Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, Physics and Social
Studies Education.
The Teacher Education Requirements reported below are also listed in the Undergraduate
Bulletin 2010-2012 available at http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/bulletin/
3. Course titles and descriptions
The Plan of Study for all the baccalaureate curricula areas leading to initial certification are listed
in Table D1.1
4. Graduation requirements
The school-wide requirement is that students must successfully complete all course
requirements with a general grade point average of at least 2.0 for graduation with a
baccalaureate degree. Additional requirements may be imposed by each program of study.
Teacher education students meet the same requirements as other Steinhardt students.
138
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
Graduation requirements are provided at http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/registration/standards.
The Registrar’s Office Degree Audit and Graduation Services checks for the completion of
requirements as outlined on the students’ program of study:
http://www.nyu.edu/registrar/transcripts-certification/degree-progress.html
and will not confer any degree if all course work and credit requirements for graduating students
as outlined by program of study are not satisfied.
GRADUATE
1. Admissions
Admissions to the graduate Teacher Education Program is administered at Steinhardt and
an overview is provided at: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/graduate_admissions/.
Application guidelines for all graduate programs, including fast track are listed at
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/graduate_admissions/guide. Steinhardt School requirements for
graduate students are listed at http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/graduate_admissions/guide/masters
Content area requirements for admissions to graduate teacher education certification areas
are listed at following website:
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/000/779/TeacherCertificationRequirements.pdf
.
2. Program Requirements and Standards
Program requirements are stated in the Steinhardt Graduate bulletin at:
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/steinhardt/bulletin/nyu_steinhardt_graduate_bulletin_2010_info.
New York University
pdf
3. Course titles and descriptions
The Plan of Study for all the graduate curricula areas leading to teacher certification are listed in
Table D1.1
4. Graduation requirements
School-wide requirements are that students must successfully complete all degree
requirements. A scholastic average of at least 2.5 for both the total record and for courses in
specialization is required for graduation. Additional requirements may be imposed by programs
of study. Teacher education students meet the same requirements as other Steinhardt students.
Graduation requirements are provided at http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/registration/standards. The
Registrar’s Office Degree Audit and Graduation Services checks for the completion of
requirements as outlined on the students’ program of study:
http://www.nyu.edu/registrar/transcripts-certification/degree-progress.html
and will not confer any degree if all course work and credit requirements for graduating students
as outlined by program of study are not satisfied.
139
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
NYS TEACHER CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
New York State Teacher Certification Requirements listed below are noted in the
Steinhardt Graduate Bulletin for 2009-2011
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/steinhardt/bulletin/nyu_steinhardt_graduate_bulletin_2010_info.pdf
TEACHER CERTIFICATON PROGRAM AT NYU
The requirements for registration of curricula in teacher education are outlined at the
NYS Education Department Office of Higher Education website:
http://www.highered.nysed.gov/ocue/52.21.htm and as noted in Appendix A and Appendix
B, the NYU teacher certification program curricula areas are registered with the NYSED and
are listed in the Inventory of Registered Programs available at
http://www.nysed.gov/heds/IRPSL1.html.
The NYU Teacher Education Program adheres to requirements stipulated by the NYS
Office of Teaching Initiatives and to the Regulations of the NYS Commissioner of
Education: http://www.highered.nysed.gov/tcert/regulations.html and the Pedagogical Core
requirements as outlined in the NYSED Higher Education website:
http://www.highered.nysed.gov/ocue/aipr/documents/pedcoregeneral-Dec2010.doc
Table D.1.1 lists the NYU teacher certification curricula areas with the links to the
corresponding 2010-2011 plans of study. Each plan of study lists course requirements for the
Morse Academic Plan (liberal arts and science required courses at the undergraduate level)
and lists the content core courses –that correlate to TEAC Principle I - 1.1 Subject Matter
knowledge, as well as the general pedagogical core, specialized pedagogical core, fieldwork
and student teaching and practica, and the culminating/terminal experience (graduate level).
Table D.1.2 available on the Steinhardt’s password protected website
(www.Steinhardt/secure/TEAC) and in the TEAC coordinators’ office
lists the teacher certification areas and specific courses that meet NYS general pedagogical
core requirements, specialized pedagogical core requirements and the fieldwork
requirements. We have correlated these courses to TEAC Principle I (1.2, 1.3,
1.4.1, 1.4.2 and 1.4.3).
140
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Table D.1.1
Graduate and Undergraduate NYS Registered Teacher Education Curricula Options with credit and course requirements
(Content Core and Pedagogical Core)
GRADUATE
Curricular Area
Program of Study
Teaching Educational Theatre, All Grades
Teaching Music, All Grades
Teaching Dance, All Grades
Teaching Art, All Grades
Childhood Education
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/edtheatre/curriculum/graduate/edta
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/education/curriculum/graduate
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/dance/curriculum/all_grades
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/art/education/curriculum
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/early_childhood/ma/program_of_stu
dy/
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/early_childhood/ma/program_of_stu
dy/
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/english/ma/program_of_study
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/foreign/ma/program_of_study#with
_certification
Early Childhood Education
Teaching English, 7-12
Teaching a Foreign Language 7-12 (Chinese, French,
German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Russian, or
Spanish)
Teaching Biology 7-12
Teaching Chemistry 7-12
Teaching Physics 7-12
Teaching Mathematics 7-12
Teaching Social Studies 7-12
Bilingual Education for Teachers
Literacy (B-6, 5-12)
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
(TESOL)
Special Education in Childhood
Special Education in Early Childhood
Dual Certification:
Educational Theatre, All Grades, with English
Education 7-12
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/science/ma/program_of_study
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/science/ma/program_of_study
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/science/ma/program_of_study
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/math/ma/program_of_study
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/social_studies/ma/program_of_stud
y
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/bilingual/ma/program_of_study
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/literacy/ma/program_of_study
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/tesol/ma/program_of_study#with_ce
rtification
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/special/ma/childhood#sech
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/special/ma/early_childhood#seec
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/edtheatre/curriculum/graduate/eted
141
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Educational Theatre, All Grades, with Social Studies
Education 7-12
Teaching a Foreign Language 7-12 (Chinese, French,
German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Russian, or
Spanish) with TESOL;
Childhood Education/Childhood Special Education;
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/edtheatre/curriculum/graduate/etss
Early Childhood Education/Early Childhood Special
Education
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/special/ma/early_childhood#esee
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/foreign/ma/program_of_study#dual
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/special/ma/childhood#csec
UNDERGRADUATE
Curricular Area
Educational Theatre, All Grades
Teaching Music, All Grades
Teaching English 7-12
Teaching a Foreign Language
Teaching Biology 7-12
Teaching Chemistry 7-12
Teaching Physics 7-12
Teaching Earth Science 7-12
Dual Certification-Childhood Ed./Childhood Special
Ed.
Dual Certification-Early Childhood Ed./Childhood
Special Ed.
Teaching Mathematics 7-12
Social Studies: 7-12
Program of Study
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/edtheatre/curriculum/undergraduate
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/education/curriculum/undergraduate
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/english/bs/program_of_study
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/foreign/bs/program_of_study
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/science/bs/program_of_study#bio
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/science/bs/program_of_study#chem
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/science/bs/program_of_study#physi
cs
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/science/bs/program_of_study#earth
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/childhood/bs/program_of_study
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/early_childhood/bs/program_of_stu
dy
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/math/bs/program_of_study
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/teachlearn/social_studies/bs/program_of_study
142
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
* All Course Codes are being updates beginning summer 2011. NYU is transitioning to PEOPLESOFT- a new Student Information
System.
Table D 1.2. NYS Pedagogical Core Requirements for Certification in Teacher Education is available on the Steinhardt
password protected website (www.Steinhardt/secure/TEAC) and will be made available to TEAC auditors during the site visit). Table D.1.2 identifies curricula area courses that meet the NYS Pedagogical Core Requirements (general requirements, program
specific requirements, and field requirements) and corresponding TEAC Quality Principle I (1.2 Pedagogical knowledge, 1.3 Caring
and effective teaching skill, 1.4.1 Cross-cutting theme: Learning how to learn, 1.4.2 Cross-cutting theme: Multicultural perspectives
and 1.4.3 Cross-cutting theme: Technology. We included course titles only. All NYU course numbers are changing as of summer
2011. Course Descriptions are available at: http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/courses/
143
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Appendix E: Inventory: Status of evidence from measures and indicators for TEAC Quality Principle I
Type of Evidence
Note: items under each
category are examples.
Program may have more or
different evidence
Available and in the Brief
Relied on
Reasons for including the results
in the Brief
(Location in Brief)
Not Available and Not in the Brief
Not relied on
For future use
Reasons for not relying
on this evidence
Reasons for including in future Briefs
(Location in the Brief)
Not for future use
Reasons for not including in future Briefs
Grades
1. Student grades and grade
point averages
Content Knowledge GPA,
Pedagogical Knowledge GPA,
Teaching Skills GPA, and CrossCutting Theses GPA are valid
and reliable measures of student
mastery of the skills and
knowledge that are associated
with the claims. (pp 44-46)
Scores on standardized tests
2. Student scores on
standardized license or board
examinations
Scaled scores on the NYSTCE
Content Specialty Tests and
Assessment of Teaching SkillsWritten exams are valid, reliable,
and sensitive measures of
Content Knowledge and
Pedagogical Knowledge, while
scaled scores on the Liberal Arts
and Sciences Test are valid
measures of the cross-cutting
theme of Learning-to-Learn,
which requires a broad and deep
understanding of the tools and
concepts of the liberal arts and
sciences. (pp 38-41)
3. Student scores on
undergraduate and/or graduate
admission tests of subject matter
knowledge and aptitude
NYU’s claim of Content Knowledge
pertains to the knowledge of program
completers. Faculty believes that admissions
tests for undergraduates taken four or more
years prior to graduation are not valid
measures of the claim because they are distal
in time and not well aligned with the
constructs in content. Admissions tests are
optional for graduate admissions and few
students submit them.
144
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
4.Standardized scores and gains NYU used the VAM test score
of the program graduates’ own gains of the pupils of graduates
students
teaching in grades 4-8 in the
NYC public schools to measure
Clinical Competence. We
provide evidence that VAM
scores are moderately valid and
reliable measures of teacher
effectiveness, which is a
construct that is aligned with
Clinical Competence. (pp 54-55)
Ratings
5. Ratings of portfolios of
academic and clinical
accomplishment
Portfolio data were not included in the
original Brief and will not be used in this
Brief. Attempts to develop a standard rubric
to score portfolios proved unsuccessful due
to insufficient inter-rater agreement.
6. Third-party rating of
program's students
NYU considered using third-party
ratings of program students but
determined the procedures to be not
feasible logistically. However, the
faculty considers this to be valuable
additional evidence and will attempt
to design feasible methods in the
future.
7. Ratings of in-service, clinical, An important measure used to
and PDS teaching
assess all four claims and the
cross-cutting theme of Learningto-Learn is the DRSTOS-R. This
observation protocol is used by
field supervisors to assess the
developing pedagogical
proficiency of student teachers in
clinical practice. Evidence of
empirical validity and reliability
is presented in the Brief. (pp. 3237)
NYU believes that in-service ratings
of the teaching of its graduates can
provide useful data for reflecting
back upon the quality of graduates’
program preparation. Efforts to
develop methods to do this have been
complicated by negotiations between
the NYC and NYS Departments of
Education and respective collective
bargaining agencies. NYS has
passed a new law that will lead to the
development of a common teacher
evaluation system across the entire
state. NYU is hopeful that this
system will provide in-service data
that can be used in future inquiries.
145
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
8. Ratings by cooperating
teacher and college/
Student teachers’ work samples
university supervisors, of
are used as an important source
practice teachers' work samples of evidence for DRSTOS-R
assessments. The work samples
include journals, lesson plans,
written reflections on practice,
and pupil work. Field
supervisors review the work
samples and then use them
holistically to arrive at the ratings
of related DRSTOS-R items.
This evidence is cited in the
protocols completed by the field
supervisors. (pp. 32-37)
Rates
9. Rates of completion of
courses and program
The faculty believes these data are not valid
measures of the claims and, therefore, they
are not included in the Brief.
146
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
10. Graduates' career retention
rates
11. Graduates' job placement
rates
New York University
NYU was able to obtain data
from its Graduate Tracking Study
to compute retention rates up to
three years for graduates teaching
in the NYC public schools. The
data were obtained for a large
sample of 1,108 graduates from
the classes of 2004-08. These
data are reliable and valid for
assessing the claim that graduates
are Caring Professionals who
have the commitment and skill to
sustain their careers in inner-city
schools. (pp. 51-54)
Job placement rates are
reported in this Brief
based on data from the
Graduate Tracking Study
and One-Year FollowUp Survey. These data
are not used to support
the claims, since they are
subject to the
vicissitudes of the job
market. Accordingly,
they are used
descriptively but not
tested against any
program standard.
(pp.49-54)
12. Rates of graduates'
professional advanced study
NYU collected these data in its
Program Exit Surveys for 2009 and
2010. Faculty believes additional
data from future surveys will be
needed in order to generate reliable
estimates of rates of professional
advanced study.
13. Rates of graduates'
leadership roles
NYU will be collecting these data in
a planned Five-Year Follow-Up
Survey and they will appear in future
reports.
14. Rates of graduates'
professional service activities
NYU will be collecting these data in
a planned Five-Year Follow-Up
Survey and they will appear in future
reports.
147
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Case studies and alumni competence
15. Evaluations of graduates by
their own pupils
NYU believes that the questionable
reliability and validity of these data render
the high resource expenditures required to
collect them unwarranted.
16. Alumni self-assessment of
their accomplishments
NYU will be collecting these data in
a planned Five-Year Follow-Up
Survey and they will appear in future
reports.
17. Third-party professional
recognition of graduates (e.g.
NPTS)
NYU will be collecting these data in
a planned Five-Year Follow-Up
Survey and they will appear in future
reports.
18. Employers' evaluations of
the program's graduates
Principals’ ratings of all teachers
will be part of the new NYS teacher
evaluation system. NYU plans to
obtain these data for its graduates and
use them in future studies.
19. Graduates' authoring of
textbooks, curriculum materials,
etc.
NYU will be collecting these data in
a planned Five-Year Follow-Up
Survey and they will appear in future
reports.
20. Case studies of graduates’
own pupils’ learning and
accomplishment
NYU believes the cost of collecting these
data would be excessive and the inferences
that might be drawn from them concerning
graduates’ effectiveness would have weak
validity.
Other Data
148
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
21. Students’ self-ratings of
NYU uses the ETFQ to assess
growth during student teaching. student teachers’ perceptions of
growth in Content Knowledge,
Pedagogical Knowledge, and
Clinical Skills. The results of
this assessment have theoretical
validity and have been consistent
across many cohorts. (pp. 41-42)
22. Students’ dispositions to
teaching.
NYU has developed EBMAS, a
survey that assesses students’ self
perceptions of general teaching
efficacy, personal teaching
efficacy, and social
justice/multicultural attitudes.
EBMAS has demonstrated
empirical validity and internal
consistency reliability for
measuring these dispositions
which research has linked to
teacher quality. (pp. 42-44)
149
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
23. Graduates ratings of the
their preparation for teaching
NYU conducts two surveys of
teacher-education program
graduates: the Program Exit
Survey and the One-Year
Follow-Up Survey. These
surveys assess the extent to
which graduates feel that the
program has prepared them to be
successful teachers. The surveys
show consistency of results for
successive administrations,
convergence of findings between
the two surveys, and consistency
with the results from a source
survey developed by Arthur
Levine. In addition, the items are
well aligned with NYU’s claims.
(pp. 46-51)
24. Demographics of
graduates’ schools of
employment
Through its electronic graduate
tracking study, NYU assesses the
demographic characteristics of
the NYC public schools in which
graduates are employed. These
data are used to assess the
graduates’ commitment to
working in inner-city schools,
which is aligned with the claim
of Caring Professionals (pp. 5154)
New York University
150
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
Appendix F
Local Assessments
New York University
F-1
F-2
F-3
F-4
F-5
Domain Referenced Student Teacher Observation Scale-Revised (DRSTOS-R)
Educational Beliefs and Multicultural Attitudes Survey (EBMAS)
End of Term Feedback Questionnaire for Student Teachers (ETFQ)
Program Exit Survey 2010
First Year Teacher: Feedback Form
151
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Domain Referenced Student Teacher Observation Scale - Revised
(DRSTOS-R)
Student Teacher & Placement Information
Please check one:
Junior
Senior
Undergraduate
Regular Track
Fast Track
Graduate
Major/Program(s):
Certification track?
Yes
Native English Speaker?
Placement
Information
Yes
1
2
3
4
Placement
(check one)
No
out
out
out
out
of
of
of
of
No
4
4
4
4
General Education
Self-Contained Special Education
CTT
1 out of 2
2 out of 2
* Early Childhood Majors Only
1 out of 3
2 out of 3
3 out of 3
0 - 25% English Language Learners
26 - 50% English Language Learners
School Name/PS #
Grade(s)
Content/Specialty Area (if applicable)
Additional Notes on Placement
(ex: push-in, pull-out, SETTS/Resource Room)
Cooperating Teacher
First
LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
51%+ English Language Learners
Last
152
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
ELEMENT
NOT YET PROFICIENT
PLANNING AND PREPARATION
1. PEDAGOGICAL
CONTENT
KNOWLEDGE
2. KNOWLEDGE OF
CONTENT
STANDARDS
1
Student teacher displays
inadequate evidence of
familiarity with content
standards.
1
3. LONG/SHORT
TERM PLANNING
Planning for instruction is not
connected to longer-term
goals or to the pedagogical
content knowledge of the
subject, the pupils, or the
standards, and are unclear to
most pupils in the class.
1
Student teacher displays
basic content knowledge
but does not articulate
connections among
content, pedagogy, and
pupil development.
Student teacher displays
inadequate understanding of
pedagogical issues involved in
pupil learning of the content.
ENTRY LEVEL
PROFICIENT
PARTIALLY PROFICIENT
2
Student teacher displays
basic knowledge of
content standards, without
evidence of connecting to
standards beyond the
current lesson.
2
Planning for instruction is
partially connected to
longer-term goals and
there is limited use of
pedagogical content
knowledge of the subject,
the pupils, or the
standards.
PROFICIENT
Student teacher displays
sufficient content
knowledge but does not
sufficiently articulate
connections among
content, pedagogy, and
pupil development.
3
Pedagogical practices
reflect current research on
best pedagogical practice
within the discipline and
the anticipation of potential
pupil misconceptions.
Student teacher makes
connections with or to
other disciplines.
4
Student teacher displays
a sufficient understanding
of the city/state content
standards and makes
connections to other
standards within and/or
beyond content area.
3
Student teacher displays a strong understanding of
the city/state content
standards and makes
connections to other
standards within and/or
beyond content area.
4
Planning for instruction
connects to longer-term
goals and sufficiently uses
pedagogical content
knowledge of the subject,
the pupils, or the
standards.
Planning for instruction
connects to longer-term
goals and effectively uses
pedagogical content
knowledge of the subject,
the pupils, or the
standards.
3
4
2
153
EVIDENCE
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
ELEMENT
4. CONSTRAINTS ON
TEACHING AND
LEARNING
5. CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS
1
The proposed approach
contains no clear criteria or
standards.
6. FEEDBACK,
REFLECTION AND
USE FOR
PLANNING
Information from assessments
(tests, observations,
conferences, etc.) affects
planning for these pupils only
minimally.
1
ENTRY LEVEL
PROFICIENT
PARTIALLY PROFICIENT
Student teacher
understands some of the
curricular and resource
possibilities and
constraints of the context
but does not effectively
use them in planning or
teaching.
Student teacher plans and
teaches without regard to the
particular possibilities and
limits of his/her classroom
context.
1
NOT YET PROFICIENT
LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE
2
Student teacher
sufficiently understands
the curricular and
resource possibilities and
constraints of the context
and begins to use them in
planning or teaching.
3
Assessment criteria and
standards are unclear.
Assessment criteria and
standards are generally
appropriate and
sufficiently clear.
2
3
Student teacher uses
assessment results to
plan for the class as a
whole.
PROFICIENT
Student teacher uses
assessment results to
plan for individuals and
groups of pupils as well as
the class as a whole.
2
3
154
EVIDENCE
Student teacher
thoroughly understands
the curricular and resource
possibilities and
constraints of the context
and uses them effectively
in planning or teaching.
4
Assessment criteria and
standards are well
developed and explicit.
4
Student teacher uses
assessment results to plan
for individuals and groups
of pupils as well as the
class as a whole and uses
pupil input in assessment
planning.
4
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
7. STUDENT TEACHER
INTERACTION
WITH PUPILS
8. CLASSROOM
INTERACTION
9. FUNCTIONING OF
LEARNING
GROUPS
Student teacher’s voice
controls the classroom
environment. Students’
thoughts need to be nurtured
and validated.
10. TRANSITIONS
1
Classroom interactions are
frequently characterized by
conflict, sarcasm, or putdowns.
1
Pupils not working with the
student teacher are not
productively engaged in the
task(s). Students in groups are
off-task or are working
independently.
1
Much time is lost during
transitions.
1
Student teacher is
beginning to elicit
students’ thoughts in the
classroom environment.
2
Classroom interactions
are occasionally
characterized by conflict,
sarcasm, or put-downs.
2
Tasks for group work are
partially organized,
resulting in some off-task
behavior when student
teacher is involved with
one group. Students sit
together to work but
interact minimally.
Student teacher regularly
provides students with a
venue to share their
thoughts and ideas.
3
Classroom interactions
are generally polite and
mutually respectful.
3
Tasks for group work are
organized, and groups are
managed so most pupils
are engaged most of the
time. Student teacher
facilitates interaction
between group members.
3
Classroom functions as a
genuinely polite, caring
and mutually respectful
community.
4
Tasks for group work are
well organized, and
groups are managed so
most pupils are engaged
at all times and are
working collaboratively.
4
Transitions mostly occur
smoothly, with minimal
loss of instructional time.
2
3
155
2
Transitions are
sporadically efficient,
resulting in some loss of
instructional time.
The classroom
environment reflects a
balance of student
teacher’s and students’
thoughts. Students’
thoughts are nurtured and
encouraged.
4
Transitions occur
smoothly, with almost no
loss of instructional time.
4
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
11. MATERIALS AND
SUPPLIES
12.
MUTUAL
EXPECTATIONS
Materials are handled
inefficiently, resulting in
significant loss of instructional
time.
1
13.
AWARENESS OF
PUPIL BEHAVIOR
No standards of conduct
appear to have been
established, or pupils are
confused as to what the
standards are.
1
Pupil behavior is not
monitored, and student
teacher is unaware of what
pupils are doing.
1
Routines for handling
materials and supplies are
sporadically efficient,
resulting in some
disruption of instruction.
2
Standards of conduct
appear to have been
established for most
situations, and most
pupils seem to understand
them.
2
Routines for handling
materials and supplies are Routines for handling
materials and supplies are
mostly efficient, with
consistently efficient.
minimal disruption of
instruction.
3
Standards of conduct are
clear to all pupils.
3
Student teacher is
generally aware of pupil
behavior but misses the
activities of some pupils.
4
Standards of conduct are
clear to all pupils, and
there is evidence of some
student participation in
their formulation.
4
Student teacher is alert to
Student teacher is alert to
pupil behavior most of the
pupil behavior at all times
time.
and pupils participate in
the monitoring process.
2
3
4
INSTRUCTION
14. LESSON
STRUCTURE AND
TIME
MANAGEMENT
The lesson has no clearly
defined structure. The pace of
the lesson is too slow, or
rushed or both. Classroom
time is not spent on instruction
or there is significant loss of
instructional time.
1
The lesson has a
recognizable structure,
although it is not uniformly
maintained throughout the
lesson. Pacing of the
lesson is inconsistent.
There is some loss of
instructional time.
2
The lesson has a clearly
defined structure around
which the activities are
organized. Pacing of the
lesson is generally
appropriate with minimal
loss of instructional time.
3
156
The lesson’s structure is
highly coherent, so that
there is almost no loss of
instructional time. Pacing
of the lesson is
appropriate for all
students.
4
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
15. CLARITY OF GOALS
16. KNOWLEDGE OF
STUDENTS:
PUPILS’ SKILLS ,
CULTURAL
HERITAGE,
KNOWLEDGE,
INTERESTS,
LEARNING STYLES
INSTRUCTIONAL
NEEDS
17. STUDENT TEACHER/
PUPIL
COMMUNICATIONS
18.
DISCUSSION
STYLE
1
Student teacher demonstrates
an inadequate knowledge of
pupils’ skills, knowledge and
learning styles, and does not
indicate that such knowledge is
valuable.
1
Goals are inappropriately
selected and are not suitable
for most pupils.
Student teacher’s or pupils’
spoken language is inaudible,
or written language is illegible.
Spoken or written language
may contain many grammar
and syntax errors. Vocabulary
may be inappropriate, vague,
or used incorrectly, leaving
pupils confused.
1
Interaction between student
teacher and pupils is
predominantly recitation style,
with student teacher mediating
all questions and answers.
Goals are appropriately
selected and partially
suitable for most pupils.
2
Student teacher
recognizes the value of
understanding pupils’
skills, knowledge and
learning styles, but
displays this knowledge
for the class only as a
whole and rarely for those
with special needs.
Goals are sufficiently
selected in their content
and level of expectations
and are suitable for most
pupils in the class.
3
Student teacher
demonstrates a sufficient
knowledge of pupils’ skills,
knowledge and learning
styles for groups of pupils
including those with
special needs and
recognizes the value of
this knowledge.
2
3
Student teacher’s or
pupils’ spoken language is
audible, and written
language is legible. Both
are used correctly.
Student teacher
vocabulary is correct but
limited or is not
appropriate to pupils’ ages
or backgrounds.
Student teacher’s and
pupils’ spoken and written
language are sufficiently
clear and appropriate to
pupils’ age and interests.
2
3
Student teacher attempts
to engage pupils in
discussion, with uneven
results.
157
4
Student teacher
demonstrates a strong
knowledge of pupils’ skills,
knowledge and learning
styles for groups of pupils
and recognizes the value
of this knowledge
including those with
special needs.
4
Student teacher’s spoken
and written language is
clear, correct, and
enhances the learning of
the subject. Pupils are
mastering the standard
written language as
writers and readers.
4
Most classroom
interaction represents
discussion, with student
teacher taking a
facilitating role.
Goals are highly sufficient in their selection of
content and level of
expectations and are
suitable for most pupils in
the class.
Classroom interaction
represents discussion,
with student teacher
stepping, when
appropriate, to the side so
pupil-pupil talk dominates.
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
1
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
19. RELATIONSHIPS
1
20. CULTURAL
CONTEXT OF
SCHOOL AND
COMMUNITY
ABILITY TO
Student teacher appears to be
unaware of the cultural context
of the school and community.
1
21.
2
Student teacher
demonstrates knowledge
of the cultural context of
the school and the
community.
Support and cooperation
characterize relationships
with others.
3
Student teacher
demonstrates sufficient
knowledge of the cultural
context of the school and
the community.
2
3
Student teacher has no suggestions for how a Student teacher makes
Student teacher is
lesson may be
general suggestions about becoming a reflective
improved another time. how a lesson may be
practitioner and makes a
few specific suggestions
of what might be tried if
the lesson was taught
again.
improved.
REFLECT
1
3
Student teacher’s relationships Student teacher maintains
with adults are negative or self- cordial relationships with
serving.
adults.
WITH ADULTS:
SUPERVISOR,
COOPERATING
TEACHER,
TEACHERS,
SCHOOL STAFF, &
PARENTS/
GUARDIANS.
2
2
3
158
4
Student teacher is able to
maintain positive
relationships with adults
and functions effectively
as part of a team.
4
Student teacher
demonstrates an
expanding knowledge of
the cultural context of the
school and the
community.
4
Student teacher is a reflective
practitioner, is able
to learn from
mistakes and
successes and
adjusts accordingly.
4
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
OTHER COMMENTS
PLANNING AND PREPARATION
CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
INSTRUCTION
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
159
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON TEACHING AND LEARNING
Educational Beliefs and Multicultural Attitudes Survey
TODAY’S DATE:
NET ID:
STUDENT ID NUMBER (N#):
In an ongoing effort to get your feedback to help inform improvements in our teacher education programs at
Steinhardt, we are asking you to complete this survey about your beliefs and attitudes about teaching, the role of
culture in education, and your efficacy as a prospective teacher. Completion of this survey is voluntary and will
not affect your standing in the program. Your responses are confidential and will be used only for program
development and evaluation. Thank you for your participation!
1. Degree Level (Check one):
Undergraduate
Graduate*
*If you are a graduate student, are you in a fast track program?
YES
NO
2. Certification Program: (Check all that apply):
Art Education
Literacy Education
Mathematics Education
Childhood Ed
Music Education
Childhood Ed/Childhood Special Ed
Early Childhood Ed
TESOL/Bilingual Ed
Early Childhood Ed/Early Childhood Special Ed
Special Education
Educational Theatre
Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology
English Education
Social Studies Education
Science Education
Dance Education
Foreign Language Education
Other:
3. Gender:
Male
Female
4. Are you an international student?
Yes
No
5. What language(s) do you usually speak at home?
Only a language other than English
English and another language equally
More another language than English
More English than another language
6. Ethnicity:
Only English
(e.g. Latino/a; African American; Asian; White/Euro-American )
7. Do you have any prior experience in teaching (e.g.: tutoring, student teaching, classroom teaching, etc)?
YES
NO Please specify:
7a. Have you student-taught prior to this semester?
YES* NO *If yes, how many times?
7b. Have you ever previously worked with minority students in a school setting?
YES* NO
*If yes, what is your estimate of the percentage of minority students in that school setting?
8. Total number of credits completed in your program at NYU (DO NOT include current semester) Check one:
0-15
106 -120
16-30
31-45
121 or more 46-60
61-75
76-90
160
91-105
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
DIRECTIONS: Please indicate the
extent to which you agree or disagree
with each statement below by circling
the appropriate numeral to the right of
each statement.
1
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
2
MODERATELY
DISAGREE
3
SLIGHTLY
DISAGREE
4
SLIGHTLY
AGREE
5
MODERATELY
AGREE
6
STRONGLY
AGREE
1.To be an effective teacher, one needs
to be aware of cultural differences
present in the classroom.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. I can learn a great deal from students
with culturally different backgrounds.
3. Teachers are not a very powerful
influence on student achievement when
all factors are considered.
4. I have enough training to deal with
almost any learning problem.
5. Being multiculturally aware is not
relevant for the subject I teach.
6. The amount a student can learn is
primarily related to family background.
7. Teachers have the responsibility to be aware of their students' cultural
background.
8. If one of my students couldn't do a
class assignment, I would be able to
accurately assess whether the
assignment was at the correct level of
difficulty.
9. Teachers are responsible for
developing their students’ sense of
community.
161
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
10. When a student does better than
usually, many times it is because I exert
a little extra effort.
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
11. If a student in my class becomes
disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know some techniques to redirect
him/her quickly.
12. Teaching methods need to be
adapted to meet the needs of a culturally
diverse student group.
13. Multicultural training for teachers is
not necessary.
14. When the grades of my students
improve, it is usually because I found
more effective teaching approaches.
15. The problems and realities that exist in low-income and low-performing
schools are too complex for teachers to
address.
1
16. Multicultural awareness training can help me to work more effectively with a
diverse student population.
17. My teacher training program and/or
experience will give (has given) me the
necessary skills to be an effective
teacher.
18. In all cases, respecting students is a
teacher's obligation.
162
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
19. If a student masters a new concept
quickly, this might be because I knew
the necessary steps in teaching that
concept.
20. The education system is obliged to
address social injustice.
21. Most students with disabilities can
and should be accommodated within
general education classrooms.
22. When it comes down to it, a teacher
can't do much because most of a
student's motivation and performance
depends on his or her home
environment.
23. Teaching students about cultural
diversity will only create conflict in the
classroom.
24. When a student gets a better grade
than he/she usually gets, it is usually
because I found better ways of teaching
that student.
25. I think that there is too much
emphasis placed on multicultural
awareness and training for teachers.
26. It is the role of the teacher to model
and instruct students in social skills
(e.g., caring and cooperation).
27.If a student did not remember
information I gave in a previous lesson,
I would know how to increase his/her
retention in the next lesson.
28. All students can be taught to think
critically.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
163
3
4
5
6
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
End of Term Feedback Questionnaire for
Student Teachers (ETFQ)
School Evaluation
Hello, . This semester, you were placed at
Please answer the following questions about to the best of your ability.
1. Your Grade Level Placement:
Pre-K
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2. How well maintained is the physical facility?
o Poorly
o Adequately
o Well
o Very well
3. How would you rate the general climate of ? (e.g., tone, safety, friendliness and openness of staff and administration)
o Excellent
o Good
o Fair
o Poor
Cooperating Teacher Evaluation
This semester, you were assigned. Please evaluate to the best of your ability.
4. Approximately how many years of teaching experience does have?
First year teacher
2 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
More than 10 years
Don’t know
164
Very
poorly
Poorly
Average
How well did your cooperating teacher include you in the school community? (e.g. introduce you to the
faculty, school resources and facilities)
How well did your cooperating teacher provide you with opportunities to take control of the classroom?
Very well
Well
5. Please rate on the following items
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
Excellent Good
Average
How would you rate the classroom environment established by the cooperating teacher? (e.g., safety,
orderliness, respect, friendliness)
How would you rate your cooperating teacher's assistance in furthering your organizational teaching skills?
(e.g. planning, structuring lessons, assessment)
How would you rate your cooperating teacher's assistance in helping you to enhance your teaching
practice? (e.g.inform you about instructional philosophies and methods used in the classroom)
How would you rate your cooperating teacher's assistance in helping you to develop content knowledge
specific to your field and age group? (e.g. math, science, early childhood, etc.)
How would you rate your cooperating teacher's assistance in helping you to become a reflective
practitioner? (e.g., observing your teaching, conferring
withyou
youon
onaaregular
regularbasis)
basis)
confering with
How would you rate your cooperating teacher's assistance in developing your classroom management
skills? (e.g., routines, norms, student discipline)
How would you rate your cooperating teacher's availability?
Fair
Poor
Fair
Average
End of Term Feedback Questionnaire for Student Teachers (ETFQ)
Good
6. Please rate on the following items
Excellent
New York University
Poor
How would you rate the quality of your rapport with your cooperating teacher?
In summary, rate the cooperating teacher's overall assistance
7. Please identify and evaluate (as good, helpful, not helpful, etc.) specific ways in which responded to you and your
teaching, e.g., ways in which support, advice and assistance were offered and resources shared. If the experience was
not a good one, please describe the aspects of the cooperating teacher's behavior that seemed problematic:
Supervisor Evaluation
Excellent Good
Average
How would you rate your supervisor's assistance in furthering your organizational teaching skills? (e.g.
planning, structuring lessons, assessment methods)
How would you rate your supervisor's assistance in helping you to enhance your teaching practice? (e.g.
inform you about instructional philosophies and methods used in the classroom)
How would you rate your supervisor's assistance in helping you to develop content knowledge specific to
your field or age group you work with? (e.g. math, science, early childhood, etc.)
How would you rate your supervisor's assistance in helping you to become a reflective practitioner? (e.g.,
observing your teaching, confering with you on a regular basis)
How would you rate your supervisor's assistance in developing your classroom management skills? (e.g.,
routines, norms, student discipline)
How would you rate your supervisor's availability?
How would you rate the quality of your rapport with your supervisor?
9. Were you told the number of times that your supervisor would visit?
o
o
Yes
No
10. If yes, how many times did you expect your supervisor to visit?
Once
Twice
Three Times
Four Times
Five Times
More than Five Times
11. Did your supervisor visit as frequently as you were told s/he would?
More frequently than I was told
As frequently as I was told
Less frequently than I was told
I was not told how often the supervisor would come
Fair
Poor
Fair
Average
Good
Excellent
This semester, you were assigned . Please evaluate to the best of your ability.
8. Please rate your Supervisor on the following criteria
Poor
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
End of Term Feedback Questionnaire for Student Teachers (ETFQ)
12. In summary, rate the supervisor's overall assistance (check one)
o Excellent
o Good
o Fair
o Poor
13. Please identify and evaluate (as good, helpful, not helpful, etc.) specific strategies which your supervisor may
have used with you, e.g., informal conversations, email discussions, observations, conferences etc. If the
experience was not a good one, please describe the aspects of the supervisor's behavior that seemed
problematic.
166
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Page One
Program Exit Survey 2010
1. Completion of the survey makes you eligible for optional entry into a lottery for an 8 Gig iPod nano digital player. If you
would like to join in the lottery, please provide your email address:
2. NYU NetID (Your initials followed by a number):
3. Degree:
Bachelor of Science
Master of Arts
Advanced Certificate
Bachelor of Music
4. Program area:
Art Education/Therapy/Studio
Bilingual Education
Childhood Education
Dual Childhood Education/Childhood Special Education
Dance Education
Early Childhood Education
Dual Early Childhood Education/Early Childhood Special Education
Educational Theatre
English Education
Mathematics Education
Music Education
Science Education
Social Studies
Special Education
TESOL
Other (please specify)
Untitled Page
Utilize different pedagogical approaches
Maintain order and discipline in the classroom
Understand how students learn
Impact your students ability to learn
Implement state or district curriculum and performance standards
Use student performance assessment techniques
Address needs of students with disabilities
Address needs of students with limited English proficiency
Address needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds
Work with parents
Work collaboratively with teachers, administrators, and other school personnel
Identify and utilize the resources within the community where you teach
Participate as a stakeholder in the community where you teach
Integrate
Integrate Technology
Technology into
into teaching teaching
167
VeryWell ModeratelyWell SomewhatWell Not
Have a mastery of your subject area
Somewhat
Well
Not Well
at All
Moderately
Well
Very
Well
5. In your opinion, how well did your teacher preparation program at NYU prepare you with the following skills and knowledge
to begin teaching
All
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Program Exit Survey 2010
6. What are your plans for the next school year? (Required)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Attend graduate school full time
Teach in a NYC public school
Teach in a public school outside NYC
Teach in a private school in NYC
Teach in a private school outside NYC
Work in a non-teaching job
I do not have plans yet
Other (please specify):
7. What would be your purpose in pursuing further education? (Please check all that apply)
□ Deepen content knowledge
□ Deepen pedagogical knowledge
□ Qualify for salary increase
□ Obtain another degree
□ Obtain additional certification
□ Qualify for promotion
□ Train for a career other than teaching
□ Other (please specify)
8. Which school and district/borough (if known)?
9. What will be your job title (if known)?
10. Which career will you be trained for?
11. Which school and borough?
12. Which school and location?
Untitled Page
Veryeffective Somewhateffective
Somewhatineff ective
Very
ineffective
Somewhat
ineffective
Somewhat
effective
Very
effective
13. Please rate the overall effectiveness of fieldwork observations (100 hours) in advancing your learning for each of the
following.
Veryineffective
Subject matter knowledge
Pedagogical knowledge
Veryeffective Somewhateffective
Pedagogical knowledge
Ability to manage the realities of teaching in public schools
168
Somewhatineffective
Very
ineffective
Subject matter knowledge
Somewhat
ineffective
14. Please rate the overall effectiveness of student teaching in advancing your learning for each of the following.
Somewhat
effective
Ability to manage the realities of teaching in public schools
Very
effective
Veryineffective
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
Program Exit Survey 2010
Subject matter knowledge
Veryeffective Somewhateffective
Somewhatineff ective
Very
ineffective
Somewhat
ineffective
Somewhat
effective
Very
effective
15. Please rate the overall effectiveness of Steinhardt course work in advancing your learning for each of the following.
Veryineffective
Pedagogical knowledge
Ability to manage the realities of teaching in public schools
16. Which Steinhardt courses/experiences best prepared you with the skills and knowledge to begin teaching?
17. Which Steinhardt courses/experiences least prepared you with the skills and knowledge to begin teaching?
20. Please rate the following logistical arrangements as they contributed to your success in the program.
Excellent
Registration process
Good Fair
Advisement
Program schedule
Physical facilities
Opportunities for interaction with your cohort
Opportunities for interaction with faculty
21. What is your overall rating of the program?
□ Excellent
□ Good
□ Fair
□ Poor
22. Please share any of your other comments related to your study at NYU.
23. We would like to stay in contact with you as you pursue your career beyond graduation. Please indicate the ema1l address we
may use to contact you:
169
Poor
Untitled Page
Fair
Good
19. Please rate the overall level of coherence between method courses and field experiences.
o Excellent
o Good
o Fair
o Poor
Excellent
18. Please rate the overall quality of Steinhardt faculty.
□ Excellent
□ Good
□ Fair
□ Poor
Poor
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
First Year Teacher: Feedback Form
Page One
1. Completion of the survey makes you eligible for optional entry into a lottery for an 8 Gig iPod nano digital player.
There will be three winners in total. If you would like to join in the lottery, please provide your email address:</span
2. Graduation Date
o January 2009
o May 2009
3. The degree that you earned at NYU
o BS
o MA
o Advanced Certificate
4. Your certification area (s):
Art Education/Therapy/Studio
Bilingual Education
Childhood Education
Dual Childhood Education/Childhood Special Education
Dance Education
Early Childhood Education
Dual Early Childhood Education/Early Childhood Special Education
Educational Theatre
English Education
Mathematics Education
Music Education
Science Education
Social Studies
Special Education
TESOL
Other (please specify)
Untitled Page
5. Current teaching status (Required)
o Teaching in a NYC public school
o Teaching in a NYC private school
o Teaching in a school outside of NYC
o Not teaching at the present time
6. What school and district are you teaching in?
7. What grade level are you currently teaching?
8. What subject are you currently teaching?
9. Are you currently
o Attending graduate school full time?
o Working full time
170
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
o Other (please specify)
10. What is the name of your graduate school? What degree and program are you in?
11. Where are you working and what is your position?
12. Do you plan on entering teaching?
o Yes
o No
13. Where do you
o New York
New York
outside of
o Not sure
plan on entering teaching?
City public school o
City private school o
New York City
14. Why do you not plan on entering teaching?
15. Which best describes where you see yourself teaching in the next 2-5 years
Continue teaching in the same school
Teach in a different school in the same New York City district
Teach at different New York City district
Teach outside of New York City
Leave teaching
16. Which best describes where you see yourself teaching in the next 2-5 years?
Continue teaching in the same school Teach in a
New York City public school Teach in a school
outside of New York City Leave teaching
17. Which best describes where you see yourself teaching in the next 2-5 years?
Continue teaching in the same school
Teach in a New York City school
Teach in another school outside of New York City
Leave teaching
171
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
Somewhat
Well
Not Well
at All
Moderately
Well
All
VeryWell ModeratelyWell SomewhatWell Not
18. In your opinion, how well did your teacher preparation program at NYU prepare you to:
Very
Well
New York University
Utilize different pedagogical approaches
Have a mastery of your subject area
Maintain order and discipline in the classroom
Understand how students learn
Impact your students ability to learn
Implement state or district curriculum and performance standards
Use student performance assessment techniques
Address needs of students with disabilities
Address needs of students with limited English proficiency
Address needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds
Work with parents
Work collaboratively with teachers, administrators, and other school personnel
Identify and utilize the resources within the community where you teach
Participate as a stakeholder in the community where you teach
Integrate technology into the grade level or subject taught
Untitled Page
ExtremelyUseful
SomewhatUseful
Core courses
Methods courses
Curriculum/content courses
Other NYU courses
L
Stu
eadrneinntgTPa
eartn
chiexperience
enrgexperience
student
teaching)
Learning
Partner
(pre(pre
student
teaching)
Student Teaching
20. What course/experience at NYU do you feel was most helpful in preparing you for teaching?
21. What course/experience at NYU was least helpful in preparing you for teaching?
22. In which aspect(s) of teaching did NYU prepare you best?
172
Notuseful
Not Useful
at All
Not very
useful
Somewhat
Useful
19. How valuable were the following parts of your NYU experience in preparing you for teaching:
Extremely
Useful
All
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
23. In which aspect(s) of teaching did
NYU prepare you least?
24. What recommendations do you have for NYU to improve its teacher education programs
for future teachers?
25. Are you receiving assistance from a mentor teacher?
o Yes
o No
26. How often do you see the mentor?
o twice weekly
o once weekly
o every ten days
o rarely
27. What does the mentor do with you?
o observes my lessons and offers feedback
o provides teaching resources
o helps me with lesson plans
o invites me to observe his/her teaching
o helps me review assessments and student work
o offers general advice and information
o other
28. How effective is the help from the mentor?
o Very effective
o Somewhat effective
o Somewhat ineffective
o Very ineffective
29. When you work with the mentor, do you discuss any form of teaching standards?
o Yes
o No
o Not Sure
30. Would you be willing to participate in a focus group? (For more information, please
contact [email protected])
o Yes
o No
31. NYU and the DOE are offering additional mentoring support to complement the support you
are receiving at your school. Would you be interested in receiving such support? (For more
information, please contact [email protected] )
o Yes
o No
173
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
APPENDIX G: Accreditation of NYU Professional Education Programs
Additional Program Titles listed in the New York State Education Department Inventory of Registered Programs (NYSED IRP), with the Accreditation Areas and Accreditation Agency are listed in Table G.1 TABLE G.1 Accreditation of NYU Professional Education Programs Accreditation Area: Accreditation Agency (submitted by NYU) Professional Child/School Psychology (PsyD): American Psychological Association Code (NYSED IRP) 79311 Program Title (NYSED IRP) CHILD/SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY HEGIS (NYSED IRP) Award (NYSED IRP) 2099 PSY D Speech-­‐Language Pathology (MA): American Speech-­‐
Language and Hearing Association-­‐Council on Academic Accreditation 24691 COMMUNICATIVE SCIENCES AND DISORDERS 1220 MS Counseling Psychology (PhD): American Psychological Association 13853 COUNSELING AND GUIDANCE 0826.01 PHD School Psychology (PhD and PsyD): American Psychological Association Notation: On moratorium-­‐being phased out NYU status: accredited-­‐but inactive: http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/programs/accred-­‐
school.aspx See letter p. 176 7890 SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY See letter p. 175 PHD PsyD 2099 On moratorium-­‐being phased out NYU status: accredited-­‐but inactive: http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/programs/accred-­‐
school.aspx Letters from the American Psychological Association for the Counseling Psychology Ph.D, and the Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology for Communicative Sciences and Disorders (MS) are provided below:
174
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
p. 001/001
OCT-12-2011 10:40
AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION
August 19, 2008
John E. Sexton, Ph.D., J.D.
President
Office of the President
New York University
New York, NY 10003
Dear President Sexton,
At its meeting on July 17-20, 2008, the Commission on Accreditation (formerly the Committee
on Accreditation) conducted a review of the doctoral Ph.D. program in Counseling Psychology
at New York University. This review included consideration of the program's most recent self
study report, the preliminary review of October 12, 2007 and the program's response to the
preliminary review on February 27, 2008, the report of the team that visited the program on April
17-18, 2008, and the program's response to the site visit report on June 12,2008.
I am pleased to inform you that, on the basis of this review, the Commission voted to award
accreditation to this program. In so doing, the Commission scheduled the next accreditation site
-. visit to be held in 2013. During the interim, the program will be listed annually among
accredited programs of professional psychology in the American Psychologist and on the
Accreditation web pages. The Commission also encourages you to share information about your
program's accredited status with agencies and others of the public as appropriate.
Drs. Carlton Parks, Ruperto Perez, and Norma Simon recused and therefore did not participate in
the discussion and vote on your program.]
The Commission would like to provide the program with a summary of its perceived relative
strengths and weaknesses. 1bis will be provided below according to each of tl(e accreditation
domains. At the end of the letter, the program will be provided with an itemized list of any
actions that the program needs to take prior to the next accreditation review._ A summary of the
Commission's review of this program is provided below.
Domain A: Eligibility
As a prerequisite for accreditation, the program's purpose must be within the scope of the
accrediting body and must be pursued in an institutional setting appropriate for the doctoral
education and training of professional psychologists.
750 First Street. NE Wosh;ngton, DC 20002·∙4242 12021 336·∙5500 12021 336-­‐6123 TDD
175
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
New York University
OCT-12-2011 10:39
P.001
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT
August 28, 2009
Celia F. Stewart, PhD New
York University Steinhardt
School of Education
Dept. of Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology
719 Broadway, Suite 200
New York, NY 10003
CAA File #15 - Master's program in speech-language pathology
Dear Dr. Stewart,
I am pleased to inform you that during its meeting on July 29 - August 1, 2009, the
Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology
(CAA) voted to re-accredit the graduate education program in speech-language
pathology at New York University for a period of 8 years beginning July 1, 2009
through June 30,2017.
The issues provided in the attached Accreditation Action Report should be addressed in
the program's next annual report. Your first annual report will be submitted using the on
Iiue report format via the Higher Education System and according to the revised Annual
Report submission date on August 1, 2010. Approximately three months prior to the due
date of your reports, you will be sent a reminder .that the program's next report to the
CAA is due for submission.
Notification of Program Changes:
In accordance with Standard 1.5 and 1.7, notification of any change to the program
director must be provided in writing to the CAA within 30 days of the change. This
notification should include reporting temporary or interim replacements resulting from
searches for a new program director and sabbatical leave. Notice of a change should also
include a vita for the new/interim director and the program's plan for implementation of
the change.
2200 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 310
Rockville, MD 20850·3289
176
TEAC Inquiry Brief , November 15, 2011
OCT-12-2011
New York University
P.002
10:39
Congratulations to you, the faculty and staff in the program, as well as the
administration, on this national distinction.
Sincerely,
.o- .....PT
Judith L. Page, PhD, Chair
Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology
cc:
Barnett W. Hamberger, Associate Provost for Academic Program Review
Susan Flesher, ASHA National Office
CAA Members
177