Graduate Teaching Area Program Revisioning Blueprints

Graduate Teaching Area Program Revisioning Blueprints Institutions are required to submit to the State Board of Education by July 1, 2010 blueprints of their proposed graduate teaching area programs that have been revisioned to meet the new standards for graduate teaching programs adopted by the Board in January 2009. (The standards are included on pages 15-16.) The blueprints (program proposals) are to include the following components: A. A description of how the proposed program has been revisioned to reflect the Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates and the 21 st century knowledge, skills, and dispositions embedded in them and the rationale for the changes. Institutions may provide this description in a narrative or use Tables A1 and A2 (pp 12-14). B. A description of how public school partners were involved in the revisioning of the program and how they will be involved in the delivery and evaluation of the program. (1-2 pages maximum) C. A description of the 1-4 electronic evidences the institution will use to demonstrate candidates meet the standards. At least one electronic evidence is required; three additional evidences may be utilized. Regardless of the number of electronic evidences utilized, all standards must be demonstrated. The template to be used for this section of the proposal is provided in the following pages. It is to include: 1. A brief description of the evidence and the standards it addresses. (Section C-1 of the template) 2. A matrix showing the key evidence in which each standard is primarily demonstrated. (Section C-2 of the template) Note: While a standard may be demonstrated in more than one evidence, this matrix should identify the one evidence reviewers should consider in determining if the candidate has met the standard. 3. A detailed description of the evidence (Section C-3 of the template) including: a. the specific artifact(s) that will be submitted by the candidates; b. the specific directions and/or requirements for the evidence provided to the candidates; c. how/why the institution believes the evidence specifically addresses the standards; and d. how the evidence will be evaluated by the institution. The narrative section for each evidence is limited to 2-5 pages. No attachments are to be included. D. The timeline for implementation that includes a transition plan for currently enrolled/admitted candidates. (1 page maximum) NOTES: 1. Candidates who hold a teaching license and are adding a new teaching area at the graduate level must submit the institution s approved EE 1 and EE 2 for the initial license area in addition to the graduate evidence(s) and satisfy NCLB requirements to be designated highly qualified. 2. Candidates earning their first teaching license at the graduate level (e.g., MAT programs) must submit the institution s approved electronic evidences for the initial license area in addition to the graduate evidence(s) and satisfy NCLB requirements to be designated highly qualified. 3. For graduate EC programs in ED, LD, ID, SID, institutions must submit an electronic evidence that candidates meet the specialty area standards in addition to the graduate evidences. This means that candidates for the ED, LD, ID, and/or SID license will submit at least two [one for the specialty area standards and one for the graduate standards], and may submit up to five [one for the specialty area and up to four for the graduate standards] electronic evidences. 1

SECTION A Provide a description of how the proposed program has been revisioned to reflect the Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates and the 21 st century knowledge, skills, and dispositions embedded in them and the rationale for the changes. Institutions may provide this description in a narrative or use Tables A1 and A2 provided on pages 12-14. If the tables are used, please insert them here. (This is not a revision. It is a new master s program, given NCDPI authorization on May 7, 2010. The first cohort was admitted in summer of 2010.) Barton College began campus-wide commitment to 21 st century learning and teaching with the decision to adopt a strategic plan that went fully into effect in Fall 2009. The faculty as a whole determined the 21 st century skills that it believed should be core focal points for Barton students: global awareness, critical thinking, and communication skills. A task force drafted the new master s program based around those foci and the needs of 21 st century students as discussed in the 21 st Century Skills for 21 st Century Learners by the Metiri Group and A Vision for 21 st Century Learning at www.21stcenturyskills.org. Thus, the Barton College Teacher Education Program faculty was able to construct the new master s program in part from a platform the College was already creating. We carefully examined the guidelines from the State Board of Education related to the North Carolina Standards for Teachers and the 21 st Century knowledge, skills, and dispositions embedded in them to determine what needed to be put in place to create a solid program. We began by examining our conceptual framework, The Evolving Professional Teacher. As we scrutinized our framework, we noted that much of the framework is applicable to the new standards. The conceptual framework for all candidates in Education programs at Barton College focuses on the development of four components: knowledge of content, pedagogical skills, cultural responsiveness, and leadership skills. These four components are also applicable to our master s candidates. The unit conceptual framework fits well with the new M-level professional teaching standards, which include demonstrating leadership, establishing respectful environments for a diverse population of students, applying knowledge of content, facilitating learning for students, and reflecting on practice. Barton College School of Education s conceptual framework is further supported by a context of three attributes our master s candidates already possess to some degree and will further expand over the 14 months of the program. The first is an interest in lifelong learning and continued professional growth, a crucial commitment if graduates are to foster the global awareness that is a core focal point of the College s 21 st century knowledge and skills. The second is the desire and ability to continuously reflect on one s teaching effectiveness to improve instruction, what Donald Schon (1987) would call reflection in action, and demonstrate critical thinking as they encounter educational issues in classrooms, schools, communities, and the education profession. The third attribute is to implement effective communication skills as a proactive and valued participant in a variety of learning communities - from those formed within classrooms, to the networking that takes place in professional organizations, to the cohort community of learners embodied in this master s program. Recent theorists have described a growth trajectory for teachers, moving from novice teacher to distinguished teacher and ideally to master teacher leader. Harris and Muijs (2003) describe two key dimensions of teacher leadership: first, a focus on improved learning, and second, an emphasis upon collaborative professional activity. Teacher leadership incorporates three main areas of activity: 1. The leadership of other teachers through coaching, mentoring, and leading working groups; 2. The leadership of developmental tasks that are central to improved learning and teaching; and 3. The leadership of pedagogy through development and modeling effective forms of teaching (p. 41). 2

In a shared leadership environment, teacher leaders are seen as experts, who spend the majority of their days in the classroom but take on the roles of innovators and developers when necessary (Leech & Fulton, 2008; Harris & Muijs, 2003). Teacher leaders model effective instruction and collaborate to form the vision of the school in order to improve the performance and culture of the school (Harris, 2005; Murphy, 2005). Toward that end, our new master s program seeks to facilitate a process of transformative role reconstruction, as candidates revisit and expand their professional identities as teachers and as leaders within their profession. Transformation helps to take us beyond the mold of pre-existing categories, the current limits of social structure, the pull of cultural conditioning, and the box of self-definition (Hart, 2001, p. 149). We have designed our M. Ed. program in ways that allow us to remain committed to the four components of our conceptual framework and the three attributes we wish to foster in our teacher leader candidates while incorporating our focal 21 st century knowledge and skills, and reflecting the guidelines from the State Board of Education related to the North Carolina Graduate Teaching Program Standards and all descriptors of these standards. Programmatic courses are all required courses and are comprehensive in nature, involving all five standards wherever practical. However, each course aligns most closely with one of the five North Carolina Graduate Teaching Program Standards, as indicated in the chart below. How the Program Courses Reflect the NC Graduate Teaching Program Standards Standard Courses of Primary Emphasis 1: Teacher Leadership EDU 512 Contemporary Issues In Education EDU 518 Seminar in Graduate Research Techniques EDU 524 Educational Research 2: Respectful Educational EDU 516 Education in a Multicultural Context Environments EDU 522 Special Learning Needs of Students 3: Content and Curriculum Expertise EDU 532 Teaching Diverse Learners EDU 520 Elementary Curriculum EDU 526 Advanced Literacy EDU 530 Integrating Mathematics and Science in the Elementary School 4: Student Learning EDU 510 Advanced Psychological Theory in the Classroom EDU 514 Instructional Technology EDU 528 Assessment 5: Reflection EDU 534 Preparing the Portfolio EDU 536 Presenting the Portfolio 3

References Harris, A. (2005). Teacher leadership: More than just a feel-good factor? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 201-219. Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2003). Teacher Leadership and School Improvement. Education Review,16 (2,) 39-42. Hart, T. (2001) From information to transformation: Education for the evolution of consciousness. New York: Peter Lang. Leech, D., & Fulton, C. (2008). Oppressors or Emancipators: Critical Dispositions for Preparing Inclusive School Leaders. Education, 128(4), 630-644. Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 4

SECTION B Describe how public school partners were involved in the revisioning of the program and how they will be involved in the delivery and evaluation of the program. (1-2 pages maximum) The Barton College School of Education has carefully involved public school partners in the initial design of the program and will continue to involve them as adjunct instructors as appropriate and in an ongoing advisory role as the program is implemented and continues to evolve. Input of public school partners regarding the design and delivery of the new masters program has been sought from the very beginning of the design process. In Fall of 2005, Barton College designed a Master's of Education survey and administered it to eleven counties in September and October of 2005. The eleven counties were: Edgecombe, Franklin, Greene, Halifax, Johnston, Lenoir, Nash - Rocky Mount, Pitt, Wake, Wayne, and Wilson. Halifax County did not return the consent form to participate, and Wake County declined to participate in the survey. The survey was sent, via e-mail, to a representative from each participating county office. This representative then distributed the survey to all licensed teachers in the district. In total, 1043 completed surveys were received from public school teachers in an 11 county area. Key Findings: 27.9% of all respondents who expressed interest in earning a Master's degree resided in Nash County; 19.3% lived in Wilson County. 50.1 % of all respondents indicated that cost was the most important factor when choosing a Master's degree program. Salary increases were the primary motivation (40.4%), but by no means the only motivation, for respondents interest in obtaining a Master's degree. Educational Administration and Elementary Education were the most desired programs as indicated by all respondents (25.1 % and 21.2%, respectively). Regardless of desired program, half of respondents indicated they would prefer the program to be a combination of on-line and on-campus courses (50.75%). 37.1 % of respondents would be interested in attending Barton College if the cost were somewhat higher than a state university if more personal attention was offered. 31.0% of respondents were not sure. After analyzing the results of the survey, the Barton College administration and the School of Education decided to investigate offering a Master of Education degree program in Elementary Education. Although survey participants indicated a little more interest in a program in school administration, we decided that we should focus on a program in Elementary Education, where we already had a very strong history of success and credibility. In March of 2006, a committee was formed to undertake three years of intense study and curriculum design. The resulting Barton College M. Ed. obtained NCDPI approval on May 7, 2010. The new M.Ed. program follows a format similar to the NCDPI-approved program at Elon University, which is based on the delivery system of students progressing through the program in cohorts. We agreed with Elon s recommendation to admit a maximum of 25 cohort members in a model that involves offering face-to-face courses in the summer, when students have time to travel to campus, and hybrid (mainly online with one or two face-to-face meetings) courses in the fall and spring and semesters, when candidates are teaching and cannot easily travel to campus. We also follow the Elon plan of having the cohort begin the program in summer, when they would take courses, establish a cohort culture, and build collegial relationships. We plan to involve qualified public school personnel in our master s program as adjunct instructors and guest presenters. Two current adjunct faculty members have expressed interest in teaching in the new 5

master s program. (We submitted their curriculum vitae with our now approved NCDPI program authorization request materials.) Dr. Patti Sanders-Smith is currently employed as the Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services for Wilson County; Dr. Eddie Ingram is currently the Superintendent of Schools in Franklin County. Public school partners will also be actively involved in the ongoing evaluation and revision of the program. An advisory board will be formed in fall of 2010. Membership invitations will be extended to all of the first cohort members principals and to key public school personnel from the Wilson County Schools. Principals of cohort members will be invited to remain on the board for the year in which they have one or more teachers enrolled in the program while additional public school personnel will be invited to serve two-year terms. 6

7 SECTION C SECTION C-I: Key Evidence(s) Institutions must use at least one and may use up to four electronic evidences to demonstrate standards. Name of Evidence Brief Description of Evidence Standards Addressed 1 2 3 4 Required Teacher Leadership Philosophy and Action Plan Optional Literacy Case Study Optional Video Lessons Analysis Optional Qualitative Action Research Project Beginning/capstone beliefs pertaining to teacher leadership will be addressed in a research-based working philosophy of teacher leadership. The final copy at the end of the program will include an implementation-ready action plan that supports ongoing reflection and professional development, collaborative leadership, and the mentoring and coaching of new teachers. Using a variety of assessment tools, candidates will evaluate three different students in grades 1-5, one with special needs, on the five essential areas of reading as identified by the National Reading Panel. Individual strengths and weaknesses each of the three students will be identified at the start of the semester. The finished product at semester s end will consist of assessment results and strategies for addressing areas of need. Candidates will select three students at the start of the fall semester and create three video clips with each student in math, science, and a content area of each candidate s choice. After working with the students over the course of the school year, the process will be repeated in the last month of the spring semester. Video analyses will be compared to identify growth in content knowledge, pedagogical skill, and alignment with 21 st century skills. Candidates will conduct action research projects in which they will interview two elementary teachers. Each teacher interviewed will be asked to share how they identify with racial or ethnic groups, how they see with a cultural eye and what impact this has in the classroom when it is and when it is not included. Research project results will be shared and final papers will include implications for families, schools, and facilitating culturally responsive learning communities. 1 Teacher Leadership 5 - Reflection 4 Student Learning 3 Content and Curricular Expertise 2 Respectful Educational Environment 12.01.2009

8 SECTION C-2: Relationship of the Evidence to the Standards NORTH CAROLINA TEACHER STANDARD KEY EVIDENCE FROM SECTION C-1 DEMONSTRATING THE STANDARDS NOTE: ONLY 1 EVIDENCE SHOULD BE MARKED FOR EACH STANDARD. IT SHOULD BE THE EVIDENCE WHICH PRIMARILY DEMONSTRATES THE STANDARD IS MET. 1. TEACHERS LEADERSHIP Teacher leaders assume the roles and responsibilities of collaborative leaders in schools and communities. Teachers demonstrate leadership in their classrooms, schools and professional organizations; they advocate for students and effective educational practices and policies; and they are role models for ethical leadership. Teacher leaders will know and be able to: #1 #2 #3 #4 Demonstrate effective ongoing communication, collaboration, and team-building among colleagues. Facilitate mentoring and coaching with novice teachers. Set goals and establish priorities while promoting educational initiatives that positively affect student learning. Participate in professional learning communities. 2. RESPECTFUL EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT Teacher leaders model leadership by establishing a positive and productive environment for a diverse population of students, their families, and the community. Teachers are knowledgeable about cultures and global issues and how they are contextualized locally. Teachers help colleagues develop effective strategies for students with special needs. They encourage positive, constructive relations among colleagues and students. Teacher leaders: #1 #2 #3 #4 Facilitate the development of inviting, respectful, supportive, inclusive, and flexible educational communities. Create collaborative partnerships with families, schools, and communities to promote a positive school culture. Facilitate and model caring and respectful treatment of individuals within the learning community. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of diverse world cultures and global issues. Encourage high expectations for all students. Collaboratively design and implement curriculum and instruction that is responsive to learner differences. 12.01.2009

9 NORTH CAROLINA TEACHER STANDARD KEY EVIDENCE FROM SECTION C-1 DEMONSTRATING THE STANDARDS NOTE: ONLY 1 EVIDENCE SHOULD BE MARKED FOR EACH STANDARD. IT SHOULD BE THE EVIDENCE WHICH PRIMARILY DEMONSTRATES THE STANDARD IS MET. 3. CONTENT AND CURRICULUM EXPERTISE Teacher leaders have a deep knowledge of the subjects they teach and understanding of curriculum theory and development. They value collaboration and the interconnectedness of disciplines. They understand the importance of curriculum relevance in engaging students in content. Teacher leaders: #1 #2 #3 #4 Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Model the integration of 21 st century content and skills into educational practices. Develop relevant, rigorous curriculum. 4. STUDENT LEARNING Teacher leaders facilitate student learning through evidence-based practice informed by research. They understand and apply research in child and adolescent development, cognitive development, and general and specialized pedagogy. They encourage critical reading, writing and thinking in the learning process. They foster instructional and evaluation methods that embrace variety and authenticity. They promote student reflection and self-assessment. They encourage colleagues and students to take on leadership roles and work in teams. Teacher leaders: Seek out and use existing research to inform school practices. Design action research to investigate and improve student learning and school policies and practices. Model technology integration that supports student learning. Critically analyze student and school performance data to determine needs and plan instruction that is rigorous, coherent, and substantiated within a theoretical and philosophical base. 5. REFLECTION Teacher leaders contribute to systematic, critical analysis of learning in their classrooms and beyond. They are lifelong learners who model and support ongoing professional development. Teachers embrace critical thinking, problem solving, and innovation. Teacher leaders: Promote an educational culture that values reflective practice. Model the development of meaningful professional goals. Model personal and professional reflection to extend student learning and school improvement #1 #2 #3 #4 #1 #2 #3 #4 12.01.2009

SECTION C-3: Detailed Description of Key Evidence(s) For each of the key evidences identified in Section C-1 provide a detailed description of: a. the specific artifact(s) that will be submitted by the candidates; b. the specific directions and/or requirements for the evidence provided to the candidates; c. how/why the evidence specifically addresses the standards; and d. how the evidence will be evaluated by the institution. The narrative section for each evidence is limited to 2-5 pages (1 margins, 10 pt. font, single-spaced). No attachments are to be included. 10 12.012009

Evidence #1 (Required) Name: Teacher Leadership Philosophy and Action Plan Specific Artifact(s: A reflection and action paper Standard(s) Addressed by the Evidence: Standard 1 (Teacher Leadership) and Standard 5 (Reflection) A. Artifact: Teacher Leadership Philosophy and Action Plan (Programmatic Key Evidence #1 and Program Portfolio Component #1) B. Requirements for evidence as presented to candidates in a list of program portfolio required contents: Each candidate will write a short philosophy of teacher leadership (5 pages) that reflects upon personal beliefs related to what students should learn, the role of education in today s world, and what constitutes teacher leadership. Candidates will include an autobiographical discussion of how these views were shaped and how these beliefs are evident in personal teaching practice. The philosophy paper will be reviewed and beginning/capstone beliefs pertaining to teacher leadership addressed in a research-based working philosophy of teacher leadership that will include documentation of participation in one or more professional learning communities. The final copy at the end of the program will include an implementation-ready action plan that supports ongoing reflection and professional development, collaborative leadership, and the mentoring and coaching of new teachers. Produced initially in EDU 512 Contemporary Issues in Education (summer 1, SS I) with final copy prepared at the end of the program in EDU 536 Presenting the Portfolio (summer 2, SS II). C. How and why the evidence addresses the standard: The Teacher Leadership Philosophy and Action Plan were designed to emphasize the development and formative assessment of leadership skills (component #4 of our conceptual framework) by requiring that candidates document the ways in which they as teacher leaders communicate, collaborate, mentor and coach novice teachers, and contribute to team processes as educational professionals. The project aligns with our second attribute expected of graduate students, an ability to reflect on one s teaching, which in turn fosters standards-based abilities to set goals and priorities and promote educational initiatives that have the potential to positively impact student learning. The project also aligns with our third attribute expected of graduate students, to be a proactive participant in one or more learning communities, which aligns with the NCDPI requirement of participating in professional learning communities. D. How evidence will be evaluated by the institution: An assessment rubric will be designed prior to summer, 2011, to assess the final project. This project essentially provides bookends for the program. Candidates write and submit a working philosophy of teacher leadership in EDU 512 Contemporary Issues in Education, taken in the first summer session of the first summer spent in intensive on-campus coursework. After they have progressed through the coursework and experiences of the program, one of their last projects during the second summer session of their second summer on campus, in EDU 536 Presenting the Portfolio, is to revisit the philosophy, expand it, and revise it. ( Now that you have been through this program what does it mean to be a teacher leader? ) Candidates will then design an action plan for how to put the philosophy s beliefs into action on a daily basis after they complete the master s program. A rubric to assess the initial working philosophy, produced in the first summer session, has already been designed and may be found on the next page. 11 12.012009

Assessment Rubric: Philosophy of Teacher Leadership Initial Document in EDU 512 [20 possible points] Component 0 1 2 3 4 Format specifications Three Specified Components Addressed Autobiographical Discussion Putting Beliefs into Practice Edited Copy <4 or >5 pages, no APA cover page, or difficult to follow. Two or all components (Curriculum, Role of Education in Society, Teacher Leadership) missing or vague. Autobiographical discussion missing or insufficient to support how beliefs were shaped. Discussion of beliefs or their implementation in practice is missing >7 typo, APA, or mechanical errors 4-5 DS pages, APA cover page, but challenging to follow in places. One of three components missing, vague, or little/no mention of mentoring and coaching. Beliefs re: teaching and learning not addressed in autobiographical discussion. Discussion of beliefs or their implementation in practice is vague 6-7 typo, APA, or mechanical errors 4-5 DS pages, a few errors re: APA cover page, well-organized. All three components addressed with mention of mentoring/ coaching. General statements about how beliefs re: education, teaching, or learning were shaped. Discussion of beliefs and their implementation in practice is adequate. 4-5 typo, APA, or mechanical errors 4-5 DS pages, APA cover page, wellorganized. Clear sections for all three components, mention of mentoring/ coaching. Specific examples(s) of how beliefs re: education were shaped. Beliefs and their implementation in practice are clear. 2-3 typo, APA, or mechanical errors 4-5 DS pages, APA cover page, well-organized, w/ at least one reference or direct quote. Clear sections for all three components, strong treatment of mentoring/ coaching. Specific example(s) of how beliefs re: teaching and learning were shaped. Beliefs supported by at least one reference; implementation in practice clear. 0-1 typo, APA, or mechanical errors 12 12.012009

Name: Literacy Case Study Evidence #2 (Optional) Specific Artifact(s): Assessment results and subsequent strategies Standard(s) Addressed by the Evidence: Standard 4 (Student Learning) A. Artifact: Literacy Case Study (Programmatic Key Evidence #2 and Program Portfolio Component #2) B. Requirements for evidence as presented to candidates in a list of program portfolio required contents: Using a variety of assessment tools, such as an IRI, running records, and instruments designed to assess phonics, fluency, and vocabulary, candidates will evaluate three different students, one with special needs, over the course of a semester, on the five essential areas of reading as identified by the National Reading Panel. (These areas are: phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary.) One student must be in a primary grade, with the other two in grades 3 5. Collaboration with building colleagues and administrators will be necessary to enact this project. At least one of the students must also be a child with identified special needs such as special education, gifted, or ELL/ESL). Individual strengths and weaknesses for each of the three students will be identified. The finished product will consist of assessment results and strategies for addressing areas of need. Produced in EDU 526 Advanced Literacy (spring semester). C. How and why the evidence addresses the standard: The Literacy Case Study was designed to emphasize the development of applied content knowledge in reading and print/verbal literacy, pedagogical skills, and cultural responsiveness (components #1, #2, and #3 of our conceptual framework), by requiring that candidates design and implement curriculum, assessment, and instruction that encourages high expectations for all students and is responsive to learner differences. The case study will also require that candidates demonstrate the ability to create collaborative partnerships with colleagues and families in order to facilitate respectful, supportive, and flexible learning communities. D. How evidence will be evaluated by the institution: An assessment rubric will be designed in fall, 2010, to assess the final project. 13 12.012009

Name: Video Lessons Analysis Evidence #3 (Optional) Specific Artifact(s): Directed analysis of pre-post video clips Standard(s) Addressed by the Evidence: Standard 3 (Content and Curricular Expertise) A. Artifact: Video Lessons Analysis (Programmatic Key Evidence #3 and Program Portfolio Component #3) B. Requirements for evidence as presented to candidates in a list of program portfolio required contents: Candidates will select three elementary students with whom they will work over the course of a full academic year and will obtain written permissions from the parents and the students before beginning the video recording sessions. In the first month of the fall semester (for EDU 534), candidates will prepare three video segments of their work with each of the three students. One clip will focus on a selected mathematics objective, one on a science objective, and one on a lesson in the content area of the candidate s choice. The candidate will view each video clip and will write a detailed analysis of each lesson. The process will be repeated in the last month of the spring semester, in the same content areas, and with the same students if possible (for EDU 520). The two analyses experiences will be compared to reflectively identify growth in content knowledge, pedagogical skill, assessment, and alignment with 21 st century skills. Produced in EDU 534 Advanced Seminar: Preparing the Portfolio (fall semester) and EDU 520 Elementary Curriculum (spring semester) with final copy and reflections ready for EDU 536 Presenting the Portfolio (summer 2, SS II). C. How and why the evidence addresses the standard: The Video Lessons Analysis was designed to emphasize the development of pedagogical skill, formative and summative assessment, and expanded content knowledge with an emphasis on mathematics and science. (Content knowledge and pedagogical skill are the first two components of our conceptual framework.) The analysis involves a longitudinal process conducted over the course of a full academic year. Between the initial and final videotaping sessions, candidates will be expected to demonstrate increased in-depth knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment in the areas of mathematics and science. They will also need to model the integration of the NCSCOS and 21 st century skills as they develop relevant, rigorous curricula in mathematics, science, and another content area of candidates choice (other than reading/literacy, which is addressed in Key Evidence #2). D. How evidence will be evaluated by the institution:. How evidence will be evaluated by the institution: An assessment rubric will be designed in fall, 2010, to assess the final project. 14 12.012009

Evidence #4 (Optional) Name: Qualitative Action Research Project Specific Artifact(s): Interviews, results, and implications for culturally responsive educational contexts Standard(s) Addressed by the Evidence: Standard 4 (Respectful Educational Environment) A. Artifact: Qualitative Action Research Project (Programmatic Key Evidence #4 and Program Portfolio Component #4) B. Requirements for evidence as presented to candidates in a list of program portfolio required contents: Candidates will conduct an action research project in which they will interview two elementary teachers who are not members of the cohort. One teacher will be white and the other will be a person of color. Candidates will conduct an interview with each educator. They will explain to each teacher the concept of seeing with a cultural eye at the beginning of the interview. Each teacher interviewed will be asked to share how he or she identifies himself or herself as part of a racial and/or ethnic group. Each participant will then be asked to explain how he or she tries to see with a cultural eye and what impact this has in the classroom. Interview subjects will be asked to provide suggestions for how the concept of seeing with a cultural eye can be included in a classroom and the impact that it might have when it is and when it is not included. Research results will be shared in class for collaborative analysis. Research project papers will summarized with an emphasis on implications of results from all interviews conducted by class members and implications for families, schools, and facilitating culturally responsive learning communities. Produced in EDU 516 Education in a Multicultural Context (summer 1, SS II), with additional reflection in EDU 518 Seminar in Graduate Research Techniques (summer 1, SS II) and at the time of preparing the programmatic exit portfolio in EDU 536, Presenting the Portfolio (summer 2, SS II). C. How and why the evidence addresses the standard: The Qualitative Action Research Project was designed to emphasize the development of cultural responsiveness (the third component of our conceptual framework). The project is constructed to provide first-hand insight into the realm of teachers from cultural/ethnic backgrounds that differ from those of the candidates. Collaborative analysis of research results is intended to assist candidates in deepening their knowledge and understanding of diverse cultures so they are better able to create partnerships with people with diverse backgrounds in schools, local communities, and the global community in a respectful, inclusive manner. D. How evidence will be evaluated by the institution: An assessment rubric will be designed in late summer, 2010, to assess the final project. 15 12.012009

Standards for Graduate Teacher Candidates The North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Commission developed teaching standards based on a new vision of teaching in light of 21 st century opportunities, needs and demands. The following five graduate program standards are parallel to and expand upon those standards. These are advanced standards, appropriate for teacher education programs to use as guidelines in developing their graduate level teaching programs. Teachers granted the master s degree license are expected to be teacher leaders in their specialty area, to facilitate the creation of healthy educational environments, to have deep knowledge and skills in their content and curriculum, to use research in making decisions about effective practice for student learning, and to be continuous, reflective practitioners who model the values of lifelong learning, critical thinking, problem-solving and innovation. Standard 1: Teacher Leadership Teacher leaders assume the roles and responsibilities of collaborative leaders in schools and communities. Teachers demonstrate leadership in their classrooms, schools and professional organizations; they advocate for students and effective educational practices and policies; and they are role models for ethical leadership. Teacher leaders will know and be able to: Demonstrate effective ongoing communication, collaboration, and team-building among colleagues. Facilitate mentoring and coaching with novice teachers. Set goals and establish priorities while promoting educational initiatives that positively affect student learning. Participate in professional learning communities. Standard 2: Respectful Educational Environments Teacher leaders model leadership by establishing a positive and productive environment for a diverse population of students, their families, and the community. Teachers are knowledgeable about cultures and global issues and how they are contextualized locally. Teachers help colleagues develop effective strategies for students with special needs. They encourage positive, constructive relations among colleagues and students. Teacher leaders: Facilitate the development of inviting, respectful, supportive, inclusive, and flexible educational communities. Create collaborative partnerships with families, schools, and communities to promote a positive school culture. Facilitate and model caring and respectful treatment of individuals within the learning community. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of diverse world cultures and global issues. Encourage high expectations for all students. Collaboratively design and implement curriculum and instruction that is responsive to learner differences. Standard 3: Content and Curriculum Expertise Teacher leaders have a deep knowledge of the subjects they teach and understanding of curriculum theory and development. They value collaboration and the interconnectedness of disciplines. They understand the importance of curriculum relevance in engaging students in content. Teacher leaders: Demonstrate in-depth knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Model the integration of 21 st century content and skills into educational practices. Develop relevant, rigorous curriculum. Standard 4: Student Learning Teacher leaders facilitate student learning through evidence-based practice informed by research. They understand and apply research in child and adolescent development, cognitive development, and general and specialized 16

pedagogy. They encourage critical reading, writing and thinking in the learning process. They foster instructional and evaluation methods that embrace variety and authenticity. They promote student reflection and self-assessment. They encourage colleagues and students to take on leadership roles and work in teams. Teacher leaders: Seek out and use existing research to inform school practices. Design action research to investigate and improve student learning and school policies and practices. Model technology integration that supports student learning. Critically analyze student and school performance data to determine needs and plan instruction that is rigorous, coherent, and substantiated within a theoretical and philosophical base. Standard 5: Reflection Teacher leaders contribute to systematic, critical analysis of learning in their classrooms and beyond. They are lifelong learners who model and support ongoing professional development. Teachers embrace critical thinking, problem solving, and innovation. Teacher leaders: Promote an educational culture that values reflective practice. Model the development of meaningful professional goals. Model personal and professional reflection to extend student learning and school improvement. 17

Section D. Plan for Transition As previously stated, this is a new program, granted initial NCDPI authorization on May 7, 2010. Therefore we will not have students who had enrolled in the program under different requirements. 18