CSU Long Beach College of Education Accreditation
C.1. How does the unit's conceptual framework address the following structural elements?
C.2. What changes have been made to the conceptual framework since the previous visit?
C.3. How was the conceptual framework developed and who was involved in its development?
The theme of the College of Education and Affiliated Programs is Teaching for Life-Long Learning, Professional Growth, and Social Responsibility. The Conceptual Framework identifies the philosophy, knowledge base, purposes, professional commitments, and dispositions that drive program development, teaching, and scholarship in the unit. The six key ideas, enumerated in our Mission Statement, undergird our vision and define the essentials of the knowledge base upon which we build our programs and practice. Our mission is to foster a learning and teaching community committed to student success and academic quality. Our community:
Teaching for Life-Long Learning, Professional Growth, and Social Responsibility asserts our vision as a community. It also underscores our key functions as an integral part of California State University, Long Beach, and its mission as a metropolitan comprehensive institution serving a rich and diverse community. As a learning community, we honor the individual and value individualistic ideals of learning, effort, responsibility, growth and achievement. But no less important is the social group that transcends the individual. Without the social group, the individual is not fully realized. Social responsibility and individual learning and growth drive our practice. Our vision as educators thus encompasses the concerns of both the individual and the larger society, and fits with the campus vision for undergraduate and graduate education.
All programs have a spiraling set of courses and field experiences that prepare candidates to demonstrate effective practices in their respective areas. Performance expectations are aligned with state standards for credential programs, national and professional standards, CSU system and campus expectations, and the values and principles articulated in the Conceptual Framework.
The Conceptual Framework has its origin in the strategic planning process initiated by Dean John Sikula in 1994-95 with the formation of the first Strategic Planning Committee (SPC). Among its other charges, the committee conducted an accounting of the college’s strengths, areas of need, and core values. From this accounting emerged 7 Strategic Priorities, which then became the basis for the college’s first formal mission statement. The Strategic Priorities and the Mission Statement were finalized in the 1996-97 academic year under Dean Jean Houck. The Strategic Priorities and Mission Statement served their purposes well and provided a framework for program development. In 1999, in anticipation of seeking NCATE initial accreditation, the college SPC set out to update the conceptual underpinnings of programs unit-wide. A process was initiated that culminated in coordinated and integrated conceptual frameworks and knowledge bases at the unit (College of Education and Affiliated Programs) and program levels.
In 1999-2000, refinements were made in the mission and strategic priorities to incorporate faculty views regarding high quality teaching. As the various governance and faculty groups reviewed the mission and priorities, it became clear that a more detailed, comprehensive strategic planning process was necessary to establish action, timelines and clear lines of responsibility in the support of the various strategic priority areas. The Strategic Planning Document was developed in fall, 2000 under the leadership of Associate Dean Claude Goldenberg and the Strategic Planning Committee. Review of this document continued throughout the year at leadership and faculty meetings and was ratified by all faculty at the Spring 2001 retreat.
The most recent review of the Theme, Mission Statement, and Conceptual Framework began in spring 2006 with the administration of a survey to all faculty and staff regarding satisfaction with the three documents and whether any changes were warranted. Eighty-eight percent of those surveyed stated the Theme and Mission Statement should remain the same, with a small number of suggested minor changes. Nearly 75% of those surveyed also found the Conceptual Framework as written to continue to reflect core beliefs, with 22 % suggesting minor changes.
Two faculty members of the Strategic Planning Committee worked closely with Associate Dean Marquita Grenot-Scheyer to make minor revisions to the Conceptual Framework. The revised document largely reflects the original, which serves our learning community well, but it incorporates these additional areas: Student Success (a university priority); Universal Design for Learning (UDL); Standards-based Education; and No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The revised Conceptual Framework was vetted by Strategic Planning and the larger faculty community during spring 2007. For a summary of the development and review and revision process refer to the document Evolution of the Conceptual Framework.
Faculty, staff, and administrators have engaged in various activities to ensure that candidates and the professional community understand the unit’s Conceptual Framework. There is active community participation on the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC), which developed the Conceptual Framework. Course syllabi carry the unit theme and mission statements and faculty routinely review these statements at the beginning of each semester and conduct in-class activities to ensure candidate understanding. Most importantly, class activities, course assignments, and field experiences reflect the six key ideas of the Conceptual Framework, provide overall coherence to our programs, and ensure that candidates are well prepared when they complete their professional preparation and development.
The Unit Assessment System (UAS) has been developed and is overseen by the College of Education Assessment Committee to monitor and continuously improve unit operations and candidate success around the Conceptual Framework and professional standards from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC), NCATE, and an array of other associations and accrediting bodies. Each program has mapped its student (candidate) learning outcomes and the signature assignments assessing these outcomes to the six key ideas of the Conceptual Framework and to NCATE Standard 1 Elements (Program Assessment Plans). Program faculty collect candidate performance data through signature assignments, which are used to assess candidate learning around multiple learning outcomes unique to each program of study. These data are reported to the College of Education Assessment Office, which analyzes the data at the program level and aggregates it around standards articulated in the Conceptual Framework and in NCATE Standard 1 at the college level. Program faculty come together at least once a year to review and develop plans to act on data around specific learning outcomes. At the unit level the UAS requires the Assessment Committee to review aggregated data each year, to follow up by asking department chairs to consult with programs on specific issues or questions, and to work with the college Faculty Council and administration to explore specific interventions as needed. All programs, as well as the Assessment Office, prepare an annual report that reviews data and the action steps identified as part of the data review process. In addition to its support of program improvement efforts, the UAS provides evidence for accountability reports for a variety of purposes, including WASC-driven campus accountability, state credentialing agency accreditation (CTC), and national professional accreditation (NCATE).
No changes have been made to the Conceptual Framework since the 2007 site visit.
N/A
