NATIONAL RECOGNITION REPORT Advanced Preparation of Early Childhood Professionals

Transcription

1 NATIONAL RECOGNITION REPORT Advanced Preparation of Early Childhood Professionals NCATE recognition of this program is dependent on the review of the program by representatives of the National Association for the Education for Young Children (NAEYC). COVER PAGE Name of Institution University of Memphis, TN Date of Review MM DD YYYY 02 / 01 / 2008 i This report is in response to a(n): Initial Review Revised Report Response to Conditions Report Program Covered by this Review Master of Science (M.S.) Early Childhood Education Program Type Advanced Teaching i Award or Degree Level(s) Master's Specialist Doctorate Endorsement, Certificate, or License PART A - RECOGNITION DECISION SPA Decision on NCATE Recognition of the Program(s): Nationally recognized i Nationally recognized with conditions Further development required OR Nationally recognized with probation [See Part G] Not nationally recognized If decision is "nationally recognized with conditions," list all conditions to recognition here.

2 Stronger alignment among the standards/epts, assessments, rubrics and data charts are needed. Information in various pieces of the report/attachments need to be congruent. For example, the report indicates that Standard 4 is addressed only by Assessment 2 in Section III, but it indicates that Standard 4 is addressed Assessments 3 and 4 in the Section IV narrative. Two semesters of data are needed for the assessments. Test Results (from information supplied in Assessment #1, if applicable) (2) The program meets or exceeds an 80% pass rate on state licensure exams: Yes i No Not applicable Not able to determine The report states that there is no state required exam associated with this program. Summary of Strengths: A thoughtful process for reviewing data and making decisions about how to use data for purposes of program improvment is in place. It is clear from the report that the program is intent on creating stronger links to the NAEYC standards. PART B - STATUS OF MEETING SPA STANDARDS CORE STANDARDS Standard 1. Promoting Child Development and Learning. Candidates use their understanding of young children's characteristics and needs, and of multiple interacting influences on children's development and learning, to create environments that are healthy, respectful, supportive, and challenging for all children. Met Met with Conditions Not Met i The chart in Section III suggests that Assessments #1, 2, and 5 align with Standard 1; this is not fully consistent with the attachments associated with the individual assessments. According to the attachments, the assessments noted below are identified as linking to this standard. Assessment #1 (Content Exam): The exam appears to be aligned to most elements of standard 1 (a-c). The report indicates how the exam connects to each of these substandards. The rubric seems to link to the exam well. The data table does not align with standard 1 clearly. The data suggest that candidates score at the level of "expectations met with distinction", although given the lack of alignment to the

3 elements of standard 1, interpretation of this data is difficult. Assessment #3 (Integrated Thematic Unit): This assessment involves the development of a unit of activities that will address the the needs of an actual group of children. This assessment seems to align with components of standard 1 (a, b, c), however the rubric is not clearly aligned to these substandards. This is a newly developed assessment, thus no data are yet available. Assessment #4 (Center Implementation in Classroom): This assessment is noted as linking to most of the standard 1 substandards (a, b, c). Very little information about the specific requirements of this assignment are noted thus it is difficult to determine the potential linkages to the standards. While there is a detailed rubric associated with this assignment, clear links to NAEYC standards cannot be determined. This assessment has not yet been utilized, thus, there are no data available. Assessment #5 (Research Paper): The nature of this assignment seems to link with one element of standard 1 (1.b). The rubric seems to connect to components of the assignment, however, the individual criteria are not clearly linked to individual NAEYC standards and substandards. The data table indicates a single score associated with standard 1. One semester of data suggest that candidates are performing at acceptable levels. Standard 2. Building Family and Community Relationships. Candidates know about, understand, and value the importance and complex characteristics of children's families and communities. They use this understanding to create respectful, reciprocal relationships that support and empower families, and to involve all families in their children's development and learning. Met Met with Conditions Not Met i Assessment #2 (Case Study): This assessment seems to link clearly to the intent of standard 2. The rubric seems connected to the pieces of the assignment, but needs clearer alignment with the NAEYC standards/substandards it is designed to measure. Given that this assessment will be utilized for the first time during the fall of 2007, no data yet exist. Assessment #4 (Center Implementation in Classroom): This assessment is noted in the assessment narrative as linking to most of the standard 2 substandards (a, b, c). Very little information about the specific requirements of this assignment are noted, thus it is difficult to determine the potential linkages to this standard. While there is a detailed rubric associated with this assignment, clear links between NAEYC standards cannot be determined. This assessment has not yet been utilized, thus, there are no data available. Standard 3. Observing, Documenting, and Assessing to Support Young Children and Families. Candidates know about and understand the goals, benefits, and uses of assessment. They know about and use systematic observations, documentation, and other effective assessment strategies in a responsible way, in partnership with families and other professionals, to positively influence children's development and learning. Met Met with Conditions Not Met i

4 Assessment #2 (Case Study): This assessment seems to link to the intent of standard 3, although the assessment narrative does not note this assessment as linked to standard 3. Given that this assessment will be utilized for the first time during the fall of 2007, no data yet exist. Assessment #3 (Integrated Thematic Unit): Assessment is included in the development of lesson plans for the unit giving evidence of using the assessment process in teaching. Assessment is included in the rubric. However, this is a new assessment so no data are currently available. Assessment #4 (Center Implementation in Classroom): This assessment is noted as linking to the standard 3 substandards, however, given limited information about the specific requirements of this assignment, it is difficult to determine the potential linkages to the standards. While there is a detailed rubric associated with this assignment, clear links between NAEYC standards cannot be determined. This assessment has not yet been utilized, thus, there are no data available. Assessment #6 (Master's Project): This action research project has the potential for assessing this standard. The scoring guide includes assessment. However, the data table does not include assessment. Standard 4. Teaching and Learning. Candidates integrate their understanding of and relationships with children and families; their understanding of developmentally effective approaches to teaching and learning; and their knowledge of academic disciplines to design, implement, and evaluate experiences that promote positive development and learning for all children. Met Met with Conditions Not Met i Assessment #1 (Content Exam): This assessment provides evidence of the candidate's knowledge of teaching and learning. One semester of data indicate that all candidates met these expectations with distinction. Assessment #3 (Integrated Thematic Unit): This assessment involves the development of a unit of activities that will address the the needs of an actual group of children. This assessment seems to align with components of standard 4 (b, c, d), however the rubric is not clearly aligned to these substandards. This is a newly developed assessment, thus no data are yet available. Assessment #4 (Center Implementation in Classroom): This assessment is noted as linking to each of the standard 4 substandards. Very little information about the specific requirements of this assignment are noted thus it is difficult to determine the potential linkages to the standards. While there is a detailed rubric associated with this assignment, clear links between NAEYC standards cannot be determined. This assessment has not yet been utilized, thus, there are no data available. Standard 5. Growing as a Professional. Candidates identify and conduct themselves as members of the early childhood profession. They know and use ethical guidelines and other professional standards related to early childhood practice. They are continuous, collaborative learners who demonstrate knowledgeable, reflective, and critical perspectives on their work, making informed decisions that integrate knowledge from a variety of sources. They are informed advocates for sound educational practices and policies. Met Met with Conditions Not Met i

5 Assessment #4 (Center Implementation in Classroom): This assessment is noted as linking to elements of standard 5, although the limited information provided does not indicate clearly the potential linkages to this standard. Assessment #5 (Research Paper): The nature of this assignment seems to link with most of the components of standard 5 clearly (a,c,d). The rubric seems to connect to components of the assignment, however, the rubric is holistic in nature, thus it is difficult to determine candidate performance relative to individual standards and substandards. The data table indicates a single score associated with standard 5; one semester of data suggest that candidates are performing at acceptable levels. Assessment #6 (Master's Project/Thesis): The report suggests that this assessment links to standard 5. Linkages between the rubric and standard 5 are not clear, however. Furthermore, the data table does not provide data to support the conclusions about candidate competence relative to this standard. The data table only addresses competence relative to specific Essential Professional Tools. Assessment #7 (Dispositions Assessment): The assessment seems to clearly connect to the intent of standard 5, and the rubric is partially aligned to the substandards. No data currently exist. ESSENTIAL PROFESSIONAL TOOLS FOR ALL CANDIDATES IN ADVANCED PROGRAMS Cultural Competence. Advanced program candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in understanding and responding to diversity of culture, language, and ethnicity. i Assessment #2 (Case Study): Given that this assignment requires demonstration of understanding related to the diverse influences on children's development, it seems the assessment aligns well with this EPT. This assignment, however, focuses on only one child. The rubric seems connected to the pieces of the assignment, but needs clearer alignment with the NAEYC standards/substandards and EPTs it is designed to measure. Assessment #3 (Integrated Thematic Unit): This assessment involves the development of a unit of activities that will address the the needs of an actual group of children. It is expected that candidates plan for a diverse group of learners, thus this assessment seems to align with this EPT. The rubric is not clearly aligned to this EPT, however. Assessment #4 (Center Implementation): Given the assignment seems to require development of a center suitable for a specific group of diverse learners, it seems there is the potential for a link to this EPT. Very little information about the specific requirements of this assignment is noted, however. While there is a detailed rubric associated with this assignment, clear links to individual EPTs cannot be consistently determined. It appears there is one criterion on the rubric which could relate to this EPT. Assessment #5 (Research Paper): Given that the assessment requires demonstration of understanding pertaining to the connections between cultural and linguistic diversity and appropriate practices, there seems to be a clear link to this EPT. The rubric seems to connect to components of the assignment, however, the individual criteria are not clearly linked to individual NAEYC standards and EPTs. The data table indicates a single score associated with this EPT, although it is difficult to determine, based on the rubric, how this score was obtained. Data suggest that candidates are performing at acceptable levels,

6 although the lack of alignment between the rubric and the EPTs calls into question the credibility of the data. Assessment #7 (Dispositions Assessment): While some items on the assessment seem to connect with this EPT, the rubric groups criteria related to multiple EPTs, thus it is difficult to determine candidates' dispositions related to each of the relevant EPTs. No data currently exist, as this assessment is being implemented for the first time during the fall of Knowledge and Application of Ethical Principles. Advanced program candidates demonstrate indepth knowledge and thoughtful application of NAEYC s Code of Ethical Conduct and other guidelines relevant to their professional role. i Assessment #2 (Case Study): Given that this assignment requires demonstration of understanding ethical practices related to assessment and planning, the assessment seems sufficiently aligned with this EPT. The rubric seems connected to the pieces of the assignment, but needs clearer alignment with the NAEYC standards/substandards and EPTs it is designed to measure. Given that this assessment will be utilized for the first time during the fall of 2007, no data yet exist. Assessment #4 (Center Implementation): This assessment is noted in the report as linking to this EPT, yet a clear connection is not evident. Very little information about the specific requirements of this assignment is noted, thus, the relevance of the assessment in relation to this EPT is difficult to determine. While there is a detailed rubric associated with this assignment, clear links to individual EPTs cannot be consistently determined. This assessment has not yet been utilized, thus, there are no data available. Assessment #7 (Dispositions Assessment): While some items on the assessment seem to connect with this EPT, the rubric groups criteria related to multiple EPTs, thus it is difficult to determine candidates' dispositions related to each of the relevant EPTs. No data currently exist, as this assessment is being implemented for the first time during the fall of Communication Skills. Advanced program candidates possess a high level of oral, written, and technological communication skills, with specialization for the specific professional role(s) emphasized in the program. i Assessment #4 (Center Implementation): Given the assignment seems to require an oral presentation, it seems there is the potential for a link to this EPT. Very little information about the specific requirements of this assignment is noted, however. While there is a detailed rubric associated with this assignment, clear links to individual EPTs cannot be easily determined. It appears there are several criteria on the rubric which could relate to this EPT. This assessment has not yet been utilized, thus, there are no data available.

7 Assessment #5 (Research Paper): This assessment seems to provide clear evidence linked to this EPT. The rubric seems to connect to components of the assignment, however, clearer links to individual NAEYC standards and EPTs are needed. The data table indicates a single score associated with this EPT. Data suggest that candidates are performing at acceptable levels. Assessment #6 (Master's Project/Thesis): Given that this project requires the preparation of an extensive paper, as well as a poster, the assessment seems an appropriate indicator of candidate competence in terms of communication (particularly written communication). The rubric links to the project requirements, however, clearer alignment to the NAEYC standards and EPTs is needed. The data table indicates scores for one semester, and two criteria from the rubric were noted as providing evidence of competence in terms of this EPT. Data show that candidates are performing in an acceptable manner. Mastery of Relevant Theory and Research. Advanced program candidates demonstrate in-depth, critical knowledge of the theory and research relevant to the professional role(s) and focus area(s) emphasized in the program. i Assessment #4 (Center Implementation): The program report suggests that this assessment is linked to this EPT, however, clear evidence of this link is lacking. Very little information about the specific requirements of this assignment is noted. While there is a detailed rubric associated with this assignment, clear links to individual EPTs cannot be determined. This assessment has not yet been utilized, thus, there are no data available. Assessment #5 (Research Paper): Given that the assessment requires demonstration of in-depth, critical knowledge of theory and research, there seems to be a clear link to this EPT. The rubric seems to connect to components of the assignment, however, the individual criteria are not clearly linked to individual NAEYC standards and EPTs. The data table indicates a single score associated with this EPT. Data suggest that candidates are performing at acceptable levels. Assessment #6 (Master's Project/Thesis): Given that this project requires the preparation of a literature review of theory and research, the assessment seems an appropriate indicator of candidate competence in terms of this EPT. The rubric links generally to the project requirements, however, clearer alignment to the NAEYC standards and EPTs is needed. The data table indicates scores for one semester, and two criteria from the rubric were noted as providing evidence of competence in terms of this EPT. Data show that candidates are performing in an acceptable manner. Assessment #8 ( Research and Presentation on Theorists): This assessment seems to connect clearly to this EPT. The rubric has been revised to more clearly reflect relevant NAEYC Professional Tools. Two items on the revised rubric relate to this Professional Tool. The new rubric will be utilized beginning in the Fall of The available data reflect an earlier rubric that did not clearly link with the NAEYC EPTs. According to the data provided, candidates met the criteria at the level of 1 or 2. Skills in Identifying and Using Professional Resources. Advanced program candidates demonstrate a high level of skill in identifying and using the human, material, and technological resources needed to perform their professional roles and to keep abreast of the field s changing knowledge base. i

8 Assessment #2 (Case Study): Given that this assignment requires use of human and other resources to gain information about a child, as well as to plan for this child's needs, it seems the assessment aligns with this EPT. The rubric seems connected to the pieces of the assignment, but needs clearer alignment with the NAEYC standards/substandards and EPTs it is designed to measure. Given that this assessment will be utilized for the first time during the fall of 2007, no data yet exist. Assessment #4 (Center Implementation): It seems there is the potential for a link to this EPT. Very little information about the specific requirements of this assignment is noted, however. While there is a detailed rubric associated with this assignment, clear links to individual EPTs cannot be determined. This assessment has not yet been utilized, thus, there are no data available. Assessment #5 (Research Paper): Given that the assessment requires demonstration of understanding pertaining to the connections between cultural and linguistic diversity and appropriate practices, there seems to be a clear link to this EPT. The rubric seems to connect to components of the assignment, however, the individual criteria are not clearly linked to individual NAEYC standards and EPTs. The data table indicates a single score associated with this EPT. Data suggest that candidates are performing at acceptable levels. Assessment #6 (Master's Project/Thesis): Given that this project requires the use of a variety of professional resources to prepare the paper and to participate in the Research Expo, the assessment seems an appropriate indicator of candidate competence in terms of this EPT. The rubric links to the project requirements, however, clearer alignment to the NAEYC standards and EPTs is needed. The data table indicates scores for one semester, and one criterion from the rubric was noted as providing evidence of competence in terms of this EPT. Data show that candidates are performing in an acceptable manner. Assessment #8 ( Research and Presentation on Theorists): This assessment seems to connect clearly to this EPT. The rubric has been revised to more clearly reflect relevant NAEYC Professional Tools. Four items on the revised rubric relate to this Professional Tool. The new rubric will be utilized beginning in the Fall of The available data reflect an earlier rubric that did not clearly link with the NAEYC EPTs. The available data provide no information related to this EPT. Inquiry Skills and Knowledge of Research Methods. Using systematic and professionally accepted approaches, advanced program candidates demonstrate inquiry skills, showing their ability to investigate questions relevant to their practice and professional goals. i Assessment #4 (Center Implementation): It seems there is the potential for a link to this EPT. Very little information about the specific requirements of this assignment is noted, however. While there is a detailed rubric associated with this assignment, clear links to individual EPTs cannot be determined. Thus, at this time, this assessment seems to be a weak measure of this EPT. No data are currently available. Assessment #5 (Research Paper): Given that the assessment requires the ability to investigate questions related to practice, there seems to be a clear link to this EPT. The rubric seems to connect to components of the assignment, however, the individual criteria are not clearly linked to individual NAEYC standards and EPTs. The data table indicates a single score associated with this EPT. Data suggest that candidates

9 are performing at acceptable levels. Assessment #6 (Master's Project/Thesis): Given that this project requires desing and implementation of an action research project, the assessment seems an appropriate indicator of candidate competence in terms of this EPT. The rubric links to the project requirements, however, clearer alignment to the NAEYC standards and EPTs is needed. The data table indicates scores for one semester, and three criteria from the rubric were noted as providing evidence of competence in terms of this EPT. Data show that candidates are performing in an acceptable manner. Assessment #8 ( Research and Presentation on Theorists): This assessment seems to connect clearly to this EPT. The rubric has been revised to more clearly reflect relevant NAEYC Professional Tools. Three items on the revised rubric relate to this Professional Tool. The new rubric will be utilized beginning in the Fall of The available data reflect an earlier rubric that did not clearly link with the NAEYC EPTs. The available data provide no information related to this EPT. Skills in Collaborating, Teaching, and Mentoring. Advanced program candidates demonstrate the flexible, varied skills needed to work collaboratively and effectively with other adults in professional roles. i Assessment #3 (Integrated Thematic Unit): This assessment involves the development of a unit of activities that will address the the needs of an actual group of children. It is suggested in the program report that this assessment aligns with this EPT. The rubric is not clearly aligned to this EPT, however. This is a newly developed assessment, thus no data are yet available. Assessment #4 (Center Implementation): Very little information about the specific requirements of this assignment is noted, thus, the links between the assessment and this EPT are not clear. There are no data available at this time. Advocacy Skills. Advanced program candidates demonstrate competence in articulating and advocating for sound professional practices and public policies for the positive development and learning of all young children. i Assessment #2 (Case Study): Given that this assignment provied opportunities for candidates to articulate and advocate for the needs of a target child, it seems the assessment aligns to some extent with this EPT. The rubric seems connected to the pieces of the assignment, but needs clearer alignment with the NAEYC standards/substandards and EPTs it is designed to measure. Given that this assessment will be utilized for the first time during the fall of 2007, no data yet exist. Assessment #4 (Center Implementation): Very little information about the specific requirements of this assignment is noted, thus, determining linkages between the assessment and this EPT are uncertain. This assessment has not yet been utilized, thus, there are no data available.

10 Assessment #7 (Dispositions Assessment): While some items on the assessment seem to connect with this EPT, the rubric groups criteria related to multiple EPTs, thus it is difficult to determine candidates' dispositions related to each of the relevant EPTs. No data currently exist, as this assessment is being implemented for the first time during the fall of Leadership Skills. Advanced program candidates reflect on and use their abilities and opportunities to think strategically, build consensus, create change, and influence better outcomes for children, families, and the profession. i Assessment #4 (Center Implementation): It seems there is the potential for a link to this EPT. Very little information about the specific requirements of this assignment is noted, however. While there is a detailed rubric associated with this assignment, clear links to this EPT are not evident. This assessment has not yet been utilized, thus, there are no data available. Assessment #6 (Master's Project/Thesis): Given that this project requires candidates to use their research to positively impact children in their own classrooms and the classrooms of others, the assessment seems an appropriate indicator of candidate competence in terms of this EPT. The rubric links to the project requirements, however, clearer alignment to the NAEYC standards and EPTs is needed. The data table indicates scores for one semester. Only one criterion from the rubric was noted as providing evidence of competence in terms of this EPT; additional criteria would be helpful. Data show that candidates are performing in an acceptable manner. ADDITIONAL SPECIALIZED COMPETENCIES Beyond the core standards and essential professional tools, programs may identify additional competencies essential to particular focus areas or specializations. Examples might be knowledge of the legislative process for candidates specializing in public policy and advocacy, or skills in personnel, and fiscal management for candidates in an early childhood administration program. Programs with such additional competencies should identify them in clear performance language and include criteria by which the program assesses these competencies. In their Program Report, programs should (if relevant) insert these additional competencies where noted, providing documentation of learning opportunities and candidate performance in the same way as requested for the core standards and essential professional tools. Met i Not Met The report spoke to no additional competencies associated with this program. PART C - EVALUATION OF PROGRAM REPORT EVIDENCE C.1. Candidates knowledge of content

11 With additional alignment between the standards and assessment rubrics, Assessment #1 (content exam) #2 (Case Study), #5 (research paper), #6 (Master's Project), and #8 (research and presentation on theory) could provide helpful evidence for meeting this standard. C.2. Candidates ability to understand and apply pedagogical and professional content knowledge, skills, and dispositions After data are collected, several assessments appear to address candidates' ability to understand and apply pedagogical and professional content knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Assessment #6 (Master's Project) will provide evidence of this competency, although the newly revised rubric has not yet been utilized. Assessment #3 (integrated thematic unit) and Assessment #4 (center implementation) also seem to provide evidence of these skills. Assessment #7 (dispositions checklist) is a well-designed instrument that should provided helpful data regarding candidate dispostions. C.3. Candidate effects on P-12 student learning Assessment #6 (action research project) seems to have the potential to provide evidence of effects on student learning. With further information regarding whether candidates implement this assignment, Assessment #4 (center implementation) also seems to hold potential. PART D - EVALUATION OF THE USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS Evidence that assessment results are evaluated and applied to the improvement of candidate performance and strengthening of the program (as discussed in Section V of the program report) Currently, limited data related to candidate performance are available. Several of the assessments are being used for the first time during the fall of The report suggests that the program and the courses have changed dramatically in recent years, and that many of the assessments are being revised as a result. Including data the institution had collected from the Spring of 2007 could have been helpful; it is possible that some of this data could have informed the process of change needed within the program. Such data could have provided reviewers a sense of the program's interpretation of available data in relation to the NAEYC standards and Essential Professional Tools. While there is little data reported to serve as the basis for making changes, the program seems to recognize the importance of creating assessments and rubrics that better align with the NAEYC standards and EPTs. This seems to be the focus of most of their efforts at this time. Once many of the new courses are taught and the assessments piloted, the strong review mechanisms that are in place within the institution should allow them to make informed decisions about the strengths and needs of the program and the assessments that have been developed. PART E - AREAS FOR CONSIDERATION Areas for consideration Candidate competence related to diversity is not clearly articulated; further development within the assessments is needed to demonstrate candidate sensitivity to diversity of various sorts. Clarification of the nature and extent of field experiences, as well as linkage of these experiences to gaining understanding and skills necessary for responding to diversity are necessary. PART F - ADDITIONAL COMMENTS F.1. Comments on Section I (Context) and other topics not covered in Parts B-E:

12 The program seems to have undergone significant change in recent years, thus limited data related to candidate performance are currently available. Demonstration of effective pedagogy seems to have potential with some of the assessments, however, it seems that further attention to skills associated with an advanced level professional is needed. While there appears to be the potential for evidence related to impact on student learning, this is an area which seems to need further development. It appears that there is stronger evidence of candidate competence relative to the Essential Professional Tools than there is relative to the core standards. Further attention to creating assessments associated with the core standards seems necessary. F.2. Concerns for possible follow-up by the Board of Examiners: None. PART G - DECISIONS i Please select final decision: Program is nationally recognized. The program is recognized through the semester and year of the institution's next NCATE accreditation decision in 5-7 years. To retain recognition, another program report must be submitted before that review. The program will be listed as nationally recognized through the semester of the next NCATE accreditation decision on websites and/or other publications of the SPA and NCATE. The institution may designate its program as nationally recognized by NCATE, through the semester of the next NCATE accreditation decision, in its published materials. National recognition is dependent upon NCATE accreditation. Program is nationally recognized with conditions. The program will be listed as nationally recognized on websites and/or other publications of the SPA and NCATE. The institution may designate its program as nationally recognized by NCATE, through the time period specified below, in its published materials. National recognition is dependent upon NCATE accreditation. The program does not currently satisfy SPA requirements for national recognition. See below for details. NATIONAL RECOGNITION WITH CONDITIONS The program is recognized through: MM DD YYYY 02 / 01 / 2010 Subsequent action by the institution:* To retain national recognition, a report addressing the conditions to recognition must be submitted on or before the date cited below. The program has up to two opportunities to address conditions within an 18 month period. The range of possible deadlines for submitting reports are 4/15/08, 9/15/08, 2/1/09, 4/15/09, or 9/15/09. Note that the opportunity to submit a second Response to Conditions report (if needed), is only possible if the first Response to Conditions report is submitted on or before the 2/1/09 submission date. *Note: for this semester only, programs who have been cited as Recognized with Conditions for a second

13 time have been given one more opportunity to submit another Response to Conditions report. The report may be submitted April 15, 2008; Sept. 15, 2008, or Feb. 1, Failure to submit a report by the date below will result in loss of national recognition. MM DD YYYY 09 / 15 / 2009 The following conditions must be addressed within 18 months (see above for specific date): Stronger alignment among the standards/epts, assessments, rubrics and data charts are needed. Information in various pieces of the report/attachments need to be congruent. For example, the report indicates that Standard 4 is addressed only by Assessment 2 in Section III, but it indicates that Standard 4 is addressed Assessments 3 and 4 in the Section IV narrative. Two semesters of data are needed for the assessments. Please click "Next" This is the end of the report. Please click "Next" to proceed.