1

P-20 Executive Council P-20 Executive Council

Contact Information:

Dr. Doris Santamaria-Makang Frostburg State University dsantamaria@frostburg.edu Dr. Janet Wilson Garrett County Public Schools jwilson@ga.k12.md.us Dr. Kim Green Allegany County Public Schools kim.green@acps.k12.md.us

Executive Council Meeting, May 2014

Garrett County Public Schools (GCPS)* Allegany County Public Schools (ACPS) Frostburg State University (FSU) * Allegany College of Maryland (ACM)

Summary of last meeting’s discussions and related documents

Allegany College of

Maryland

Garrett County Public Schools

Allegany County Public Schools

Frostburg State University

2

P-20 Executive Council Agenda

Next Meeting: September 2014

MSP Grant Update Karen Bundy Eric VanSlyke Emily Milleson

STEMfest Update Kim Rotruck

Karen Bundy

FSU Education Unit/NCATE Conceptual Framework Revision

Doris Santamaria-Makang Marcia Cushall

P-8 Program Updates Jodi Welsch

Middle School Program Updates Jodi Nichols

PDS Updates Emily Milleson

Summer Events Updates ACPS GCPS ACM FSU

Kim Green Janet Wilson Robin Seddon/ Maureen Brown Kim Rotruck William (Bill) Seddon

Other Items…?

Meeting Adjourn

3

P-20 Executive Council

Table of Contents

Inside this issue:

Allegany County Public Schools…………….…………..……….4-6

Frostburg State University……………………………………..7—10

Next Meeting : TBA

4

MSP Grant

The MSP grant professional development project focuses on teacher awareness of the Next Gener-ation Science Standards, Common Core Literacy Standards for Math Science and Technical Sub-jects, Disciplinary and Environmental Literacy. ACPS will partner with Higher Ed to provide and model job-embedded, discipline-specific practices of instruction including STEM Standards of Prac-tice, writing, speaking and listening, Standards for Mathematical Practice, UDL, and disciplinary and environmental literacy. Sessions embedded in real world context will allow teachers to be en-gaged in inquiry, logical reasoning, critical thinking, and collaboration and communication using technology strategically as a team. As a result, teachers will create STEMcentric lessons. Three planning sessions have been held with ACM and FSU Higher Ed faculty from the Arts and Sci-ences and College of Education. One faculty member form each will work collaboratively with an ACPS teacher to plan a STEM lesson that incorporates the practices listed above. These STEM les-sons will be developed during the summer of 2014 and grades 5 - 8 math and science teachers will be actively engaged as participants when the college professors teach the lessons during the 2014 - 2015 school year. Participating teachers will then critiques the lessons to identify the STEM SOPs, ELA and Math Standards incorporated and the UDL and disciplinary literacy strategies that were integrated. If absent in the lessons, teachers will modify the lesson to incorporate the missing com-ponents so it can be replicated during their classroom instruction. A 1/2 day training was provided by ACPS staff to inform Higher Ed of the expectations of STEM SOPs, UDL, DI, and NGSS in ACPS lesson plans. Arts and Science Higher Ed faculty are currently collaborating with College of Education Professors and an ACPS teacher on the development of the STEM lessons to be delivered during the 2014-2015 school year. The potential impediment of the Arts and Science professors not knowing about the MD STEM SOPs, UDL and DL seems to have been removed by a training session where ACPS Professional Development and STEM coordinator informed them of the expectations of ACPS STEMcentric lesson plans. Throughout the 2014-15 school year, groups of teachers will be presented six lessons prepared as indicated above. The teachers will prepare STEMcentric lessons that model the lessons they ob-served. Teachers will be able to take the observed lesson plans along with ones that they create and use them within their classrooms.

For additional information, please contact Eric VanSlyke at eric.vanslyke@acps.k12.md.us, Karen Bundy at karen.bundy@acps.k12.md.us, or Emily Milleson at ekmilleson@frostburg.edu

Allegany County Public Schools Updates

5

Allegany County Public Schools Updates

FSU, ACPS, and the University of Maryland Center for Environ-mental Science Appalachian Lab hosted the 3rd annual Western Maryland STEM Festival on May 3, 2014 from 10a.m. to 2p.m. Compton Science Center and Frampton Hall were utilized for this event. A bus courtesy of ACPS was used to transport students to and from demonstrations at the Appalachian Lab. The festival was geared toward elementary school age children to garner their interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Local STEM based businesses, such as ATK, the Robotics Lab, and Bietzel Corporation participated in the event to engage students in the pathways to STEM careers within the Western Maryland ar-ea. Six hundred t-shirts were distributed from FSU students. Ad-ditional grants will be utilized and lessons will be integrated for a week long Educational Technology Summer Camp titled Zest for Tech from June 23-27 from 9am to 4pm. For additional information, please contact Karen Bundy at karen.bundy@acps.k12.md.us, or Kim Rotruck at krotruck@frostburg.edu

STEMfest

6

Allegany County Public Schools Updates

Summer Course

Kim Green announced that individuals are still able to apply for the summer course for College and Career Readiness, which will be held on July 22 and July 23. For additional information, please contact Dr. Kim Green at kim.green@acps.k12.md.us

7

Frostburg State University

Updates

Education Unit/ NCATE

The Conceptual Framework is the standard at FSU in which all ma-

jor assessments, syllabi, and rubrics are aligned. The CF was de-

veloped in 2000 and revised in 2006; however, constant review

and ongoing improvements are necessary due to changing educa-

tional trends. The CF is being examined and evaluated for how

well it fits different classroom objectives.

Click here for additional information on the Conceptual Frame-

work.

Click here for an ongoing review of the Conceptual Framework.

For additional information please contact Dr. Marcia Cushall at

mcushall@frostburg.edu or Dr. Doris Santamaria-Makang at

dsantamariamakang@frostburg.edu.

8

Frostburg State University

Updates

P-8 Program

With the addition of new policies, evaluation tools and assignments planned for upcoming semesters in the P-8 programs, communication with mentors will need to be improved. Since a limited amount of people attended the voluntary training held last fall, executive council members were asked to consider and suggest possible strategies for increasing mentor participation in training and professional develop-ment related to working with Frostburg State University in-terns. Members stressed the importance of improving communica-tion. They also proposed a mandatory training in professional devel-opment and giving the mentors a deadline in which the training needs to be completed. Kim Rotruck proposed giving three dates of train-ings and requiring attendance of one. The training would be worth a Professional Development Credit. Dr. Rotruck stressed the im-portance of this email coming from the Board of Education rather than Frostburg State University.

One change is that P-8 will now become the P-9 Program. New poli-cies include interns being evaluated on dispositions and the service learning project being move from Internship I to Internship II.

For additional information, please contact Dr. Jodi Welsch at jwelsch@frostburg.edu

9

Middle School Program Jodi Nichols announced that the Foundations Course offered at FSU for the upcoming Fall 2014 semester has 15 students en-rolled, more than ever before. More mentor teachers are needed, especially in the area of Social Studies. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. It was also proposed to have two interns per mentor in order to meet the need. For additional information, please contact Jodi Nichols at jlnichols@frostburg.edu

Frostburg State University Updates

10

Frostburg State University

Updates

Professional Development Schools

A meeting was held with the program council in April. Exit Inter-views were held on May 12, 2014 and Entrance Interviews were held on May 19, 2014. Allegany High School and a school in Grantsville were selected for a visit. For additional information, please contact Dr. Emily Milleson at ekmilleson@frostburg.edu

11

Frostburg State University

Updates

STEM Outreach Center

Bill Seddon is pursuing a STEM outreach center at Frostburg State University. The plan is to begin with a focus toward elementary-age children because Dr. Seddon is familiar and has contacts with professionals in that age group. For additional information, please contact Dr. William Seddon at wseddon@frostburg.edu

12

Upcoming Meeting

P-20 Executive Council Meetings will resume following summer break.

13

14

Frostburg State University

Professional Education Unit

Conceptual Framework

The theme of our conceptual framework Linked Hands, Heads, and Hearts: Building Powerful Learning Communities has not changed since the last NCATE visit. The Unit conceptual framework, first drafted in January 1999, was approved by the Unit faculty and Steering Committee in September 1999. University and Education fac-ulty, and PreK-12 faculty reviewed the document in July 2000, which resulted in minor revisions and changes in wording of indicators under the Unit outcomes of the conceptual framework. After final revisions, the conceptual framework was approved by the Steering Committee and Unit faculty in October 2000.

The Unit has a single conceptual framework for initial and advanced programs. The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) principles and the Institutional Performance Criteria of the Mary-land Redesign of Teacher Education were considered and incorporated.

Mission and Vision Consistent with and guided by the University and Unit mission statements, as well as the newly created

Institutional Learning Goals, the Unit outcomes associated with the Conceptual Framework clearly and consistent-ly communicates its committed to preparing professionals dedicated to success, capable of providing leadership in the classroom, committed to continually assess and reflect on their own practices, motivated to collaborate with their professional communities, and driven to advocate for their profession; and who can positively impact the education profession and improve the learning of PreK-12 students.

Philosophy and Goals

Professional programs are designed to reflect the current knowledge base that supports each program content and effective practices, based on national standards and research that meet the needs of the state and the region. The program development process fosters the building and enhancement of collaborations with the professional community, including the faculty in liberal arts and sciences. Program implementation requires the necessary administrative support to enable candidates, college, and Unit faculty to accomplish outcomes and to enhance learning/scholarly opportunities for candidates, graduate assistants, faculty, and staff. Program delivery promotes the implementation of technology plans that lead to technological fluency for students in all programs. A general assumption is that the Education graduates are skilled practitioners who are prepared with essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions in their fields of specialization and commit themselves to serve the cause of social justice.

Knowledge Base and Candidate Proficiencies

The Professional Education Unit believes that students deserve teachers who are totally committed to the profes-sion and who display advocacy for children and their communities. We believe that these totally dedicated teach-ers link the resources of home, school, and community to build powerful classroom learning environments. The conceptual framework is much like a metaphor that expresses the major attributes—knowledge, skills, and dispo-sitions—that our graduates should exhibit.

15

These attributes represent the six outcomes described in the Conceptual Framework, and that the Unit ex-pects its graduates to demonstrate in their professional fields. They are:

Dedicated Professional

Instructional Leader

Continuous Assessor

Educational Advocate

Collaborative Bridge Builder

Reflective Decision-Maker.

I. Dedicated Professional

Indicators:

I.1 exhibits a solid base of content and professional knowledge and continues to build upon that base as a life-long learner

I.2 possesses a sound knowledge of curriculum as influenced by local, state, and national standards

I.3 exhibits professional dispositions (e.g. caring, ethical, passionate, and responsible)

I.4 communicates effectively in spoken, written, visual, and technology-assisted forms of expression

I.5 adheres to professional codes of ethics and strives toward professional leadership

The dedicated professional candidate is knowledgeable, ethical, committed, passionate, responsible, caring, and a life-long learner. This person possesses the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to practice at a high quality level; acts on a set of principles that result in positive interactions with others; makes long-term promises and keeps them; can be counted on to make a worthwhile contribution to his or her learning community; ac-cepts and uses new data, and continually seeks new knowledge and develops new skills and dispositions.

II. Instructional Leader

Indicators:

II.1 promotes active learning

II.2 communicates high expectations for all students

II.3 creates effective learning environments

II.4 manages student behavior appropriately

II.5 accommodates for a range of differences in culture, developmental levels, and learning styles

II.6 models innovation and creativity in teaching

II.7 uses a variety of instructional/educational strategies

II.8 develops activities which promote problem-solving and critical thinking

II.9 uses technology appropriately to promote learning

II.10 exhibits skills in long-range and short-range planning

II.11 uses a variety of questioning strategies

An instructional leader maintains an energetic process of getting others to understand, contribute to, and com-mit fully to meet agreed-upon outcomes. Instructional leaders can be students, teachers, parents, and other members within and outside of the educational environment. All members of the school community become leaders in some way.

16

III. Continuous Assessor

Indicators:

III.1 demonstrates understanding of the concepts, purposes, strategies, and best practices of assessment

III.2 uses curriculum standards as indicators of student learning to create or select appropriate assessments

III.3 uses various assessment strategies to accommodate all learners

III.4 creates and/or uses multiple assessment measures that are authentic to real world situations

III.5 uses technology to facilitate the collection and interpretation of data

III.6 collects, analyzes, and uses assessment data to improve instruction/learning

III.7 demonstrates understanding of how classroom assessment contributes to the process and purpose of ed-ucational research

III.8 monitors and reports student/school progress effectively and professionally

As continuous assessors, candidates are expected to effectively use formal and informal methods within the classroom and school to measure student learning. These assessment strategies may take the form of very ob-jective instruments or more authentic, real life tasks. Candidates also are expected to aggregate, analyze, and use results of performance data to inform their instruction.

IV. Educational Advocate

Indicators:

IV.1 embraces the belief that all students have the right and the ability to learn

IV.2 exhibits enthusiasm for the subject matter he/she teaches

IV.3 participates in organizations that promote the professions of education

IV.4 is committed to equal access to quality public education for all students

IV.5 encourages programs that work to ensure safe school, home, and community environments

IV.6 supports initiatives to make schools technologically rich environments for learning

IV.7 values the increasingly diverse nature of current and emerging school populations

Graduates of all Professional Education Unit programs are expected to be actively engaged in activities that im-prove and enhance the lives of all those in the educational community. Throughout the undergraduate and graduate programs, candidates are encouraged to become actively involved in change that will increase every-one's right to learn, lead to enhanced subject matter development, add to the development of all educational professions, strengthen public education, enrich their communities, assure the benefits of education to all, and seek ways in which technology can enhance learning through constructivist teaching.

V. Collaborative Bridge Builder

Indicators:

V.1 promotes cooperative learning opportunities

V.2 links subject matter within and across disciplines and grade/school levels

V.3 builds effective school/home/community partnerships

V.4 creates powerful learning communities within and beyond the classroom and the school

V.5 treats all students and members of the educational community equitably and respectfully

To be successful, teachers must work collaboratively with others within the school and throughout the larger community. For the education of the child to be effective, a team of school teachers, support staff, and adminis-trators along with parents and members of the community need to be involved.

17

VI. Reflective Decision-Maker

Indicators:

VI.1 views classroom instruction as a continuous set of decision-making opportunities

VI.2 exhibits ability to identify and analyze classroom/school problems

VI.3 monitors effectiveness of one’s own practices/decisions

VI.4 strives for continuous self-improvement as measured by learner success data

VI.5 encourages students to engage in thoughtful, productive self-criticism

VI.6 analyzes results of research-based best practices for planning curriculum, instruction, and assessment

All educators are involved in making decisions as part of the educational community in which they operate. In order to ensure that these decisions are not thoughtless and reactive, educators need to spend quality time re-flecting on those decisions and their effect on the learner and other members of the community. Educators who are reflective decision-makers will see their world and their work through multiple lenses; they will value self-reflection and strive to support reflection among their colleagues.

Conceptual Framework Revision and Changes

The Conceptual Framework at Frostburg State University has provided the underlying philosophy and goals for all programs in the Unit since its inception in 2000. Developed through surveys and consensus work, the Con-ceptual Framework became part of program handbooks, syllabi, and Unit assessments such as student intern eval-uation forms. In addition, it became the structural organization of the candidates’ required initial certification portfolios. Candidates are introduced to the Conceptual Framework (including the expected outcomes of the Con-ceptual Framework) at the beginning of their program coursework and build upon that knowledge throughout the program. As the Conceptual Framework became more the driving force of the Unit, several issues arose:

With the demands of No Child Left Behind, more assessment became included in teacher responsibilities. Therefore, additional modifications were needed under the area of the Continuous Assessor section of our Con-ceptual Framework to ensure candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions. A Unit-wide committee was formed and worked to propose a new set of indicators. The Educational Professions Department and the Health and Physi-cal Education and Recreation Department subsequently approved the changes and intern forms will reflect the changes in spring2007.

The current conceptual framework was modeled on the initial teacher education programs, and does not ade-quately reflect the graduate programs.

To update and revise the Conceptual Framework and create more applicable indicators for advanced pro-grams, the Conceptual Framework committee was formed with representation from undergraduate and graduate program stakeholders. The revision work began in the spring 2006 semester. The revision process covers the re-view of the mission, vision, purposes, and components of the conceptual framework. The committee has solicited feedback from all faculty in the Unit as well as stakeholders in the public schools, examined models from other in-stitutions, compiled the input gathered, and analyzed the results. The committee is ready to circulate drafts of new Vision and Mission Statements to the Unit members for their review and study. The goal is to keep the conceptual framework as an evolving structure that reflects the development of programs in the Unit. At the time of the writing of this report, the conceptual framework revision is a work in progress.

18

Assessment of Candidate Performance

All programs within the Unit have identified learning goals that relate to professional standards, state con-tent standards, and student learning outcomes. Programs utilize a variety of assessments to measure outcomes: standardized tests, comprehensive exams, internship evaluations, entrance and exit interviews, creation of inte-grated and concept units, service learning projects, and developmental and showcase portfolios. The Unit has a comprehensive system to assess candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The sequence of the Unit’s system for all candidates includes admission to the University, and decision points that are program-specific and deter-mine the movement of candidates through the program. The assessment system also describes the process for da-ta collection, tabulation, and analysis; program changes/improvement; evaluation of Unit operation and checking for evidence of fairness, accuracy, consistency, and non-bias.

The Unit conducts follow-up studies and focus groups to evaluate the preparation of its graduates. The fol-low-up surveys and focus groups enable the Unit to seek suggestions and recommendations to improve programs, to demonstrate how well practices follow the conceptual framework and Unit outcomes, and to share aggregated results with leadership teams and advisory councils.

19

CF

Conceptual Framework (CF)

Frostburg State University Education Unit

Ongoing review of the Unit’s Conceptual Framework

To date, two minor changes in the framework

a. Deletion of several non-relevant/non-measurable indicators

b. Revision of indicators for Continuous Assessor

Ongoing review process has led us to understand that there needs to be consideration of revision of

content and structure of the CF.

a. Attributes and/or indicators are not appropriate for all programs

b. Attributes and/or indicators may no longer be relevant to the unit

c. Number of attributes/indicators is very lengthy

Committee comprised of members of the Assessment Committee and the program coordinators has

begun the work of reviewing and making recommendations for revisions.

a. Reviewed CF to determine which attributes/indicators do/do not work for our programs.

b. Reviewed conceptual frameworks of other institutions

c. Considered suggestions for changes to the CF

Discussions in the committee addressed appropriateness of the current CF:

a. Questions: Do attributes still indicate beliefs about what candidates should know and be

able to do; are there too many attributes and can the number be reduced; can general descriptions

of the attributes be written so they would apply to all programs; can general indicators be eliminat-

ed allowing each program to determine its own indicators

b. Revision of the knowledge base of the revised CF

Plan for committee

a. Continue discussion: determining relevant attributes and characteristics of candidates and

programs, changing/combining attributes to 3 or 4, eliminating general indicators that are the same

for every program

b. Prepare a draft of changes to be presented to faculty and school partners for discussion

c. Revise/develop new knowledge base

P-20 Executive Council May 13, 2014