THE STATE
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY
OF THE STATE OF |
TO: |
Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee |
FROM: |
Richard P. Mills |
SUBJECT: |
Regents Accreditation of Teacher Education
Recommendation of Accreditation Action: |
DATE: |
January 23, 2007 |
STRATEGIC
GOAL: |
Goals 1, 2,
and 3 |
AUTHORIZATION(S): |
|
Issue for Decision
Required by State regulation.
Proposed Handling
This question
will come before the Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee at its
February 2007 meeting, where it will be voted on and action taken. It will then come before the full Board
at its February 2007 meeting for final action.
Procedural History
The Board of
Regents adopted a new teaching policy, "Teaching to Higher Standards:
Background
Information
At its September 2006 meeting, the Board of
Regents considered conditional accreditation of the institution's programs but
deferred action pending further documentation of the College's satisfaction of
RATE standards. In response to that
charge, a team of peer reviewers and staff conducted a focused site visit on
November 28 and 29, 2006. Staff are
available to answer questions about the focused-visit findings and the proposed
accreditation action.
Recommendation
Consistent with the recommendation of Deputy
Commissioner Duncan-Poitier, it
is recommended that the Board of Regents accredit for three years the teacher
education programs offered by
Information in
Support of Recommendation
Chartered in
1970,
Accreditation Review Process
Summary
The RATE review process at
The initial
RATE team visited the College from March 6 - 9, 2005, as part of the
accreditation review process. The team identified 24
areas for improvement across 8 RATE standards relating to commitment and vision;
philosophy, purposes, and objectives; program registration; teaching
effectiveness of graduates; assessment of candidate achievement; resources;
support services; and advertising.
Key concerns focused on the number of full-time faculty, the lack of
program alignment with the conceptual framework and the New York State Learning
Standards, and inconsistencies in the curriculum, including fieldwork and
student teaching.
The PSPB reviewed all materials and
considered the application on November 17, 2005, at which point it tabled action
pending review of new information.
At its January 19, 2006, meeting, the PSPB voted to
recommend denial of accreditation.
After reviewing the PSPB's recommendation and the entire record of the
accreditation process, Deputy Commissioner Duncan-Poitier recommended denial of
accreditation. The institution
submitted its appeal in May 2006.
The Deputy
Commissioner found that the College had satisfactorily addressed 13 of the 24
areas for improvement and that the College's responses signaled substantive
efforts and demonstrable improvements to address key concerns identified by the
PSPB and the Department. On that basis, in September the Board of Regents
considered a proposal to accredit the programs for three years with
conditions. The Board deferred action on the accreditation and
charged staff to return with information to confirm the status of the College's
satisfaction of RATE standards.
Department staff and College representatives
met to identify the information needed from the College and to begin
preparations for a focused site visit.
A team of peer reviewers and staff conducted that site visit on November
28 and 29, 2006, and focused on the elements identified in the attached Actions to be Taken by Touro College to Meet
Regents Standards.
Focused Site
Visit Findings - Highlights
The November
2006 site visit team found the following:
1)
Assessment:
˛
Touro has hired
a new Associate Dean of Faculties to oversee faculty evaluations and related
program improvements.
˛
A Director of
Assessment was appointed and charged with ensuring collection of assessment data
aligned with the mission and goals of the programs and with supplying data
reports for faculty analysis.
˛
The College has
contracted with a company specializing in evaluation and data collection; it has
worked with faculty and administration to develop strong assessment tools
aligned with goals and objectives.
˛
Programs have
been refined as a result of data analysis.
˛
Systematic and
ongoing assessment of all candidates provides a sound measure of quality
assurance.
2)
Syllabi:
˛
Faculty have
developed syllabi that align with State Learning Standards and the goals and
objectives of the programs.
˛
All syllabi have
clear objectives that support the College's ability to collect data for analysis
and program improvements.
3)
Culminating
Experiences:
˛
All field
experiences and student teaching requirements are clearly delineated in
documents provided to candidates, cooperating teachers and field
supervisors.
˛
Faculty use a
newly developed instrument to improve the quality of culminating projects, to
evaluate those projects, and to monitor consistency among candidates. The instrument includes a detailed
rubric tied to project objectives.
4)
Diversity:
˛
To increase
candidate diversity, a director has been appointed to network with organizations
and visit schools serving underrepresented groups to provide information on
teacher preparation programs and recruit new students.
˛
The College is
actively engaged in outreach to underrepresented groups and historically has
served the Hispanic community.
5)
Resources:
˛
The College has
made significant improvements to facilities, including remodeling classrooms,
improving technology resources, acquiring new properties for instructional use,
and consolidating course offerings to fewer venues.
˛
A large number
of educational publications and journals are available through the many
libraries supported by the College; a new tracking system provides information
to inform decisions about the acquisition of new
resources.
The Department confirmed through the recent
focused site visit that the College is addressing all identified areas for
improvement. Considering the recent
findings from the focused site visit and the
progress that continues to be made by the institution to address the issues
identified by the Department and the PSPB, the Department recommends
accreditation for a period of three years.
This is consistent with recommendations on other institutions that have
shown evidence of progress to address areas for improvement and where continued
monitoring will help sustain that progress. If accredited as recommended, the
College would be required to submit annual reports to the Department to provide
evidence of progress on all areas for improvement identified in the Compliance
Review Report.