NCATE and the Accreditation Process

Table  2-3:  Assessment Indicators, Timelines, and Function of Assessment:  Initial and Advanced
	How Assessed	When Assessed	Use of Assessment Data
Candidates
Internal Assessment	GPA: Major	End of each transition phase	Candidate progression through  program Candidate review for possible remedial support (strengths and weaknesses) and candidate admission and dismissal
	GPA: Education
	GPA; Cumulative
	Benchmark Assignments	End of each semester
	Candidate Interviews	Beginning of Induction phase
	Comprehensive Exams	End of synthesis phase
	Portfolio Artifacts	End of each transition  phase
	Dispositions Assessment
	Capstone Projects
	Candidate Concern Forms
	Letters of Recommendation for Student Teaching	Beginning of Reflective Practice phase
	Pathwise System	During each semester in the Reflective Practice phase
	Clinical/Field Evaluations	End of each semester	Candidates can ask themselves "Do I want to teach?" Self improvement
External Assessments	Letters of Recommendation	Beginning of Induction phase	Candidate Admission
	SAT/GRE Scores	Beginning of Induction phase
	NYSTCE: LAST, CST, ATS-W	Eight times a year	Candidate progression through  program
	Clinical/Field Evaluations	End of each semester	Candidates can ask themselves "Do I want to teach?" Self improvement
Program
Internal Assessment	Aggregated Benchmark	End of academic year	Program Improvement
	Course Evals.  (5 Questions)	End of each semester
	Graduate Exit Survey
	Candidate Focus Groups	Each academic year
	SOE  Standing Committees	During each semester
External Assessment	SOE Alumni Survey	Every 2 years	Program Improvement State Approval Continued National Recognition
	Employer Survey	Once a year (October)
	Aggregated NYSTCE Scores	End of each academic year
	NYS Dept. of Education	Every five years

By the beginning of each semester, the program directors and the Dean's Office update the data detailing the number of candidates, grades, benchmark/portfolio scores, dispositions and the number of candidates who were successful/unsuccessful or left the program, at each transition point.  As described before, several of the programs are now creating program databases of these data on EXCEL spreadsheets, available in the program data books in the Exhibit Room.

The unit has adopted a model of self-monitoring for each of the programs. Program faculty has the responsibility for ensuring fair, accurate, and reliable assessments. These are demonstrated through the use of multiple assessments and multiple independent raters.  Within programs, faculty have collectively designed, administered, and analyzed candidate assessments.  One of the advantages of the introduction of Livetext to "capture" program-based data is that there is the opportunity to look at interrater reliability with regard to benchmark assignments and portfolios for some programs in order to adjust scoring as needed.  Exhibit S2-21 offer examples of portfolios scores for the Standards across faculty members in an individual program.  Program faculty appraises assessment tools for validity in the review of candidate growth, as well as, for overall review of the program.  The faculty continuously monitor procedures and assessment activities and will often conduct a review to assure accuracy in the collection, reporting, and analyses of the data.  Faculty members, as a group, make changes to procedures or assessments as deemed appropriate.

Candidates in all initial and advanced programs must maintain a "B" average.  As indicated in the Adelphi Graduate Bulletin (Exhibit G-3), any candidate who receives a second C+, or lower, will be put on academic probation and blocked from further registration until receiving academic clearance from an advisor.  Any program judging a candidate to be performing below expectations can require additional coursework as a means to evaluate the candidate's continuation within the certification program or at the institution.  Because of the assessment plan that was adopted by the unit, the monitoring of candidate progress has been strengthened.  The Communication Sciences and Disorders Department has begun use of the Knowledge and Skills Assessment issued from ASHA, monitoring candidates of concern and holding faculty meetings on candidate issues every two weeks during the year (available as Exhibit S2-22).  And in Spring 2006, the faculty in several of the initial and advanced programs adopted an identification and intervention system of candidate progress involving two levels:  1) identification within and during individual classes; 2) identification during formal review of all candidates' progress, whether this occurs at the end of every semester or academic year. 

Level #1: Identification of candidates for intervention during classes:  candidates are identified as being of concern to faculty and a form (Exhibit S2-23) is filled out within the first ten hours of class meeting time and forwarded to the program director or department chair.  A meeting of program faculty (either the entire program or a subcommittee) occurs before mid-semester, devoted to the review of these candidates, the discussion of the criteria leading to the candidates' identification, and establishment (with the candidates' faculty members) of intervention (e.g. referral for literacy support, personal counseling, and accommodation of candidates' needs through instructional strategies).  The candidates identified on these forms are then reviewed again in terms of their progress at the end of the semester by a second meeting of faculty for possible action (see #2 below).  A key activity for the faculty is to discuss the behavioral indicators that they believe would warrant concern about candidates' progress, related to the checklist on the attached form.  This is important for greater congruence within the program, through the establishment of expectations for candidates that can be explicitly communicated to them, and also allows for potential professional development topics to emerge for the program faculty with regard to candidate needs and pedagogy.|

Level #2: Identification of candidates for intervention during semester/annual review:  faculty meet about candidate progress at the end of every semester.  While each program may have its own structure for review of data, the previously-described template is intended to integrate information from admissions (a profile of candidates' achievement upon entry), the registrar's office (candidates' grades), and program data (benchmarks, dispositions, and letters of concern) on individual candidates for review of their progress.  Criteria for determining intervention were developed by each program's faculty and disseminated to all of those teaching in the program, as well as the candidates.  When candidates have been identified as in need of intervention, the program/department faculty decides the course of action (based on previously-established policy that has been formally communicated to candidates).  The following are recommendations for possible program options to support the candidates with progress of concern, assuming the available resources: