Education Accreditation 2018 Program Standards

Program Design

The preliminary teacher preparation program and its prerequisites include a purposeful, interrelated, developmentally-designed sequence of coursework and field experiences, as well as a planned process for comprehensive assessment of candidates, that effectively prepare candidates to teach all K-12 students and to understand the contemporary conditions of schooling, including attention to California public education.

In the words of Larry Cuban (2009), the Westmont program faculty members are committed to offering a sequence of experiences leading to a “pragmatic professionalism.” We share with other quality programs in the state of California a commitment to the highest standards of professionalism for elementary and secondary teachers, as delineated below. At the same time, we emphasize more than some teacher- education programs a pragmatic commitment to working with schools as they are.

Recognizing the need for constant reform of the system, we nonetheless want to set up our teachers not just to survive—but to thrive—in a far-from-perfect world. Our candidates come to us idealistic enough already about changing the world. We want to nurture that idealism, but we also want to temper their idealism by developing a realistic and comprehensive awareness of the ways in which schools operate today—locally, throughout California, the nation, and internationally.

Comparing our candidates with student teachers from other institutions, local cooperating teachers have expressed appreciation for the “teachability” of our candidates. Westmont candidates have been perceived as less apt to “judge” their mentors’ practice, or to imagine that they can change the system without first understanding it.

The Westmont Department of Education and its component programs are committed to the following statement of mission, developed in 2009 [An updated 2017 version of the following document is available here. The actual Mission Statement remains the same as previously, but the statement of beliefs expanding on the Mission Statement has been revised.]

Westmont’s Department of Education provides a supportive collegial community in which to acquire a rigorous, practical, and professional preparation for K-12 teaching. Building on teacher-candidates’ liberal arts education, our program is designed to develop exemplary instructional skills, habits of reflection, and moral and cultural sensitivities that promote lifelong learning of diverse students

The following beliefs of the Westmont Education faculty serve to flesh out and extend the statement of mission and statement concerning the centrality of a liberal education, above.

1. Teaching is an extraordinarily complex and demanding profession, and necessitates a high level of personal commitment and engagement accordingly. As a program we do not apologize for insisting on a high level of commitment and focus from our candidates throughout their professional preparation. In recognition of the complexity of teaching, we emphasize the need for constant attentiveness, imagination, openness to new approaches, and a problem-solving disposition in a role for which often there are no universal prescriptions or black- and-white rules (Clifford & Guthrie, 1988; Howey & Zimpher, 1999; Ayers, 2001; Labaree, 2004; Darling-Hammond & Bratz-Snowden, 2005).
2. Teaching is a collaborative and communal enterprise. Throughout the program, we emphasize that learning and teaching are done in community. This applies both to the process of teacher education, and to the teaching and learning that our candidates will facilitate in their own classrooms (Zemelman, 1998). Candidates are expected to learn from one another, to assist one another through peer critique and peer coaching, both giving and receiving constructive criticism in a gracious and professional manner. In emphasizing the role of peers in growing professionally, we strive to develop habits of collaboration that candidates will display throughout their working lives (Palmer, 1998; NCTAF, 2003).
3. Teaching is a deeply personal and human enterprise. Although there is an emerging knowledge base about teaching and learning, ultimately it is not simply propositional knowledge or the implementation of discrete skill-sets that lead to instructional effectiveness (Schon, 1983; Gibboney, 1998). The teacher as a whole person is a major factor in his or her impact for good and ill. The teacher’s personal character and professional dispositions are thus critical elements to be considered in preparing for teaching (Palmer, 1998). Teaching is in part an act of effective, informed, and holistic human caring (Noddings, 1992). Narrative accounts of teaching that provide compelling personal models for candidates— including not only traditional published narratives (e.g., Ashton-Warner, 1963; Kidder, 1989; Gruwell, 2007) but also our own narratives and those of our graduates, are instrumental in helping to inform candidates as to the nature of teaching and to inspire them to bring their entire person and individual personality to the task of teaching (Schubert and Ayers, 1992; Costigan and Crocco, 2004).
4. Teaching is inherently a moral enterprise. As Hansen (in Richardson, 2001) has expressed it, “moral matters do not have to be imported into the classroom as if teaching were itself devoid of moral significance…Rather the activity of teaching is itself saturated with moral significance…Teaching comprises infinitely varied acts that are bound up with familiar and desirable qualities of human relation: being patient with others, attentive to them, respectful of them, open-minded to their views, and so forth.” In keeping with larger institutional ideals, above, we challenge our candidates to recognize and confront issues of respect, justice, equity, and to be instruments of redemption for individuals and their families, schools, and larger societal systems (Wolterstorff, 2002).
5. Teaching is learned in large part by doing—along with appropriate reflection on the same. Wherever possible in our program, we emphasize preparation for teaching by actual teaching. In addition to traditional field experience and applications, candidates are given relatively extensive opportunities in their own Westmont classes to practice their instructional skills through teaching professional knowledge and skills to one another. Candidates are continually challenged to reflect on their practice, to set professional goals, and to demonstrate continuous improvement (Schon, 1987; Darling-Hammond, Griffin, & Wise, 1992; Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowden, 2005).
6. In preparing candidates for effective teaching, we want to be mindful always that content and pedagogical-content-knowledge are critical—and all too often neglected—components in becoming a professional educator (Borrowman, 1956; Sedlak,1987; Mullen, 2002; Labaree, 2004; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Kirby et al., 2006). We want our candidates and graduates to appropriate commercial curriculum materials critically and to be active shapers of curriculum rather than passive agents of what others have constructed.
7. Even as we introduce candidates to scholarly perspectives on teaching and the larger social ecology of educational systems, preparation for teaching must be aligned as much as possible with the real world(Clifford & Guthrie, 1988; Shulman & Mesa-Bains, 1993). Throughout our program, we remind candidates of the realities of contemporary California and contemporary Santa Barbara. We recognize that much of effective teaching is context-specific (Richardson & Roosevelt, 2004). We emphasize the need for teachers to work within and in partnership with larger school cultures, including formal and covert structures of governance. Relative to many programs, we spend a disproportionate amount of time as faculty members in local schools, and constantly refer in our teaching to the challenges of implementation in the particular context of our state and local schools (Wisniewski & Ducharme, 1989). Relative to many programs, we emphasize practical strategies, procedures, and ideas for immediate application (e.g., Wong and Wong, 2004).
8. Related to the above, we believe strongly that effective classroom management is a major component in effective teaching, especially at the beginning of a teacher’s career. We introduce approaches to classroom management early in candidate’s professional preparation and build on this foundation throughout candidates’ program (Darling-Hammond & Bratz-Snowden, 2005; Charles, 2005).
9. We want our candidates and graduates consistently to be characterized as valuing and responding positively to diversity and exceptionality. Particularly in a city and county where over half of the public school enrollment is Latino, where a majority of our candidates are not Latino, and where a significant share of the school population are English Language Learners, we are relentless in insisting on the need to make instruction routinely accessible and meaningful for students for whom English is not the first or primary language (California Department of Education, 1999; Cary, 2000). Continually we remind candidates to be attentive to the multiple and subtle ways in which their lenses on the world may or may not conform to the lenses of their students, families, or fellow educators (Delpit, 1995; Valdes, 1996; Payne, 2005).
10. Even as we develop in candidates critical lenses on schools and teachers, and a commitment to on-going reform, we also want to value practitioner wisdom and emphasize the importance for candidates of a teachable spirit (Jackson, 1990; Kagan, 1993). While we believe our graduates are equipped to participate in bringing society’s ideals more and more to fruition in the nation’s schools, we encourage our candidates and beginning teachers initially to appreciate and understand how veteran teachers might approach an issue, rather than encouraging an attitude of judging or superiority.
11. As part of candidates’ preparation for a pluralistic society, and in recognition of the inherent complexity of teaching (see references, above) we want to value in our own program an openness to diverse professional orientations and emphases. We do not want there to be a single ideological litmus test that all professors (or candidates) must conform to in order to teach in, or contribute to, the program.
12. In a world where there is an increasing demand for professional decisions to be based on clear data, we are committed to equipping candidates for the regular and responsible use of assessment to inform instruction (Shepard, 2001; Kirby, 2006).
13. Finally, and less explicit in the current professional literature but important to articulate nonetheless, is the following. We want to sustain as one of our continuing hallmarks our emphasis on the critical role of individualized personal coaching and mentoring in candidates’ overall preparation. Thus again, our commitment that supervision be carried out by full-time faculty, and a corresponding commitment to work one-on-one with candidates wherever needed to call out their personal and professional best.

Sequencing of courses and field experiences:

Westmont’s Multiple and Single Subject program runs on a cohort model basis, with a spring admissions process for a single point of entry the following September. The program’s coursework and field experience may be divided into three basic sets of requirements: (a) Pre-requisite courses (occasionally taken as co-requisites); (b) Fall Semester; and (c) Spring Semester or Extended Spring Semester.

While the majority of IHEs in California with year-long programs have shifted in the last generation to a more even distribution of coursework and fieldwork in both fall and spring semesters, we at Westmont have very deliberately perpetuated an emphasis in the fall semester on campus-based coursework and a spring semester devoted much more exclusively to the field. We discuss this matter with host teachers, principals, and our Teacher Advisory Board on a fairly regular basis, and continue to be told that Westmont’s sequencing and relative distribution of coursework and fieldwork seems to work more effectively for the good of students, host teachers, and candidates, than the alternative patterns these educators have experienced with other programs.

Multiple Subject Program

(a) Pre-requisite courses
These pre-requisites may be taken in any order. While logically one might think it best to have everyone in ED 100 prior to enrolling in other pre-requisites, in practice, this is neither feasible nor even desirable. Having a range of students in each course—students who have had different courses previously—encourages cross-fertilization of ideas in the processes of discussion and individual/group reflection.

(b) Fall Semester

(c) Spring Semester.

Single Subject Program

(a) Pre-requisite courses

(b) Fall Semester

(c) Spring Semester.

Planned process for assessment:

Assessment begins well before entry into the Westmont credential program, as faculty confront advisees and students in pre-requisite courses with the demands of teaching, and the demands of the Westmont credential program. Faculty try to advise less promising and/or less committed students to pursue other fields of study, and confront them with the recognition that they may not be accepted into the Westmont program.

As part of the Admissions process, candidates fulfill state testing requirements for basic skills and content-area knowledge. [Admissions Form]

Prior to Admission, candidates have already received feedback from host teachers on their Pre-Professional Field Experience form.

During the Fall semester, candidates receive feedback from host teachers on their Early Field [30-hour] Experience form. They also complete the Subject-specific Pedagogy and Designing Instruction components of the [California CTC] Teaching Performance Assessment [TPA]. Program faculty collectively discuss candidates’ GPA and overall performance prior to officially accepting candidates into the spring semester. In selected cases, a letter with conditions is written to the candidate informing them of concerns as they transition into full-time classroom experience.

During the spring semester, candidates receive at least weekly feedback from their assigned supervisor(s). They receive regular informal feedback from their cooperating teachers, often as part of the post-observation conferencing between candidates and their supervisors.

Cooperating teachers offer officially recorded written feedback to candidates at the mid- point and end of full-time student teaching. During the spring semester, candidates also complete the Assessing Learning and Culminating Teaching Experience components of the TPA. A final check is made by the Credential Analyst in consultation with the Department Chair prior to recommending the candidate for a preliminary credential.

Finally, an employer survey is sent to employers of first-year graduates to see how well program completers have lived up the ideals of the program after being employed.

The sequenced design of the program is based on a clearly stated rationale that has a sound theoretical and scholarly foundation anchored to the knowledge base of teacher education and informed by adult learning theory and research.

We have spoken to much of the rationale, above, including the Mission Statement and the series of statements that extend and amplify the Mission Statement. Abbreviated scholarly references are included in the series of amplifying statements.

A more complete listing of scholarship in the field of education that has informed our program policies and practices—scholarship that undergirds all of what we do and choose not to do at Westmont, is identified in the following document [Research Base].

With respect to Adult Learning Theory, Westmont’s faculty honor all of Malcolm Knowles’s six principles (Knowles et al, 2011). We recognize that our candidates, even as young adults:

• Are internally motivated and self-directed
• Bring life experiences and knowledge to learning experiences
• Are goal oriented
• Are relevancy oriented
• Are practical
• Like to be respected

We honor candidates’ internal motivation and self-direction by giving them a high degree of responsibility for their own learning, including a great deal of Peer Teaching Experience in their on-campus coursework. This type of work, whether individual or collaborative in nature, also builds on the Goal Orientation, Relevancy Orientation, and Practical Orientation of adult learners. We honor life experience and the prior knowledge candidates bring to our program in a variety of ways, including frequent autobiographical exercises, or autobiographical component of written assignments, in which candidates make conscious and explicit connections between their life experience and the complexities of the teaching/learning process.

By design, the program provides extensive opportunities for candidates

(a) to learn to teach the content of the state adopted K-12 academic content standards to all students; to use state-adopted instructional materials, to assess student progress, and to apply these understandings in teaching K-12 students;

As shown in course syllabi, and as developed further below (especially under Standards 7A and 7B; Standards 8A and 8B), all relevant coursework emphasizes knowledge of the state adopted academic content standards, including Common Core principles and standards. Candidates consistently reference these academic content standards in the sample lessons they teach to peers, in other written lesson plans during coursework, and in the long-form written lesson plans they submit to cooperating teachers and college supervisors during full-time student teaching.

Wherever possible, we expose candidates to current state-adopted instructional materials in methods courses, and encourage them to make appropriate use of these materials— among other resources—in planning instruction consistent with the state academic standards. Candidates also become familiar with state-adopted materials in conjunction with assigned fieldwork. As demonstrated below, candidates have multiple opportunities to learn to assess student program and to apply extensively their familiarity with the academic content standards while working in public school classrooms.

(b) to know and understand the foundations of education and the functions of schools in society; and

Understanding the philosophical, social, intellectual, moral, and legal foundations of education, including the multiple functions of schools in American and California society, is an embedded and at times less tangible theme throughout the Westmont credential program. At the same time, these foundations are addressed explicitly, systematically, and most visibly in ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching. The chief textbook used as part of this course, Ryan & Cooper’s, Those Who Can, Teach includes chapters specifically focused on these topics. [Table of Contents]

(c) to develop pedagogical competence utilizing a variety of strategies as defined by the Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) (provided in the appendix).

All coursework in the Westmont Multiple and Single Subject programs makes explicit references to the TPEs in course syllabi. Throughout coursework and associated field experiences, candidates develop a wide repertoire of effective teaching strategies linked to the CTC’s Teaching Performance Expectations. Please see the attached chart, showing how attention to different TPEs is distributed throughout component elements of the Westmont Credential Programs. [As of 9/1/17, this chart obviously no longer applies to the new CTC TPEs. That new chart is available elsewhere in the program's accreditation documentation.]

A fair, valid, and reliable assessment of the candidate’s status with respect to the TPEs is embedded in the program design.

The TPEs are the direct basis of multiple assessment strategies woven into the Credential Program. Most directly, the TPEs form the basis for the mid-term and summative written evaluations of student teachers by their cooperating teachers. The TPEs are also the basis for surveys of alumni and the survey of employers of first-year graduates, as shown in our most recent Biennial Report.

The California Teaching Performance Assessment, of course, is also designed to demonstrate candidates’ acquisition of knowledge, skills, and dispositions relevant to the TPEs. As delineated elsewhere in this document, two major components of the TPA are embedded in Fall Semester coursework, and the two remaining components in the Spring Semester—as part of full-time Student Teaching and the associated seminars, ED 195/196.

Standard 1 Appendices

• 1.0 Updated Statement of Guiding Assumptions
• 1.1 Admissions Form
• 1.2 Field Experience Evaluation Form—Pre-Student Teaching
• 1.3 Field Experience Evaluation Form—Pre-Student Teaching
• 1.4 Sample Letter of Conditional Admission to Student Teaching
• 1.5 Survey of First-year Program Completers
• 1.6 Research Base—2014
• 1.7 Ryan & Cooper, Those Who Can—Table of Contents
• 1.8 Teacher Education Program and the TPEs
• 1.9 Student Teacher Evaluation Form
• 1.10 Most Recent Biennial Report

Program Design

Communication and collaboration are core values of the Westmont Department of Education. As part of a small department—and as part of a relatively small college— we know that we cannot prepare candidates effectively for the demands of teaching without strong and effective formal and informal partnerships.

One feature of our program that enhances communication and collaboration with local school sites and individual administrators and teachers: the fact that all three full-time faculty members supervise student teachers, and in fact the great majority of the supervision is carried out directly by full-time faculty.

Only when we have an enrollment bulge, a sabbatical, or other unusual set of circumstances, do we employ part-time supervisors. As a result, full-time faculty are in regular, direct, and most-often face-to-face contact with principals and teachers— not attempting to communicate with the field through an additional layer of supervisors who are not full-time faculty.

Local school administrators—and their office staff—know the Westmont faculty by face and by name, and are in a position to offer regular feedback on individuals’ level of preparation or other ad hoc feedback on the Westmont program.

The chief formal structure for eliciting feedback from local schools and facilitating communication and collaboration among all parties is the Westmont Teacher/ Principal Advisory Board. In addition to all full-time faculty attending, Westmont subject-area faculty and administrators are represented. Part-time faculty attend whenever their schedule allows. Teachers and administrators from the Santa Barbara School Districts, Goleta Union, and Carpinteria public schools serve on the Board; as well as private school teachers and administrators. Each year a Multiple Subject and Single Subject candidate is chosen to attend and represent the perspective and experience of candidates.

Teachers and principals regularly serve as guest speakers in Westmont Department of Education classes; and at times, all-student and all-department gatherings. Westmont faculty, in turn, regularly attend school-sponsored events, such as the Annual Superintendent’s State of the School District address, the County Office of Education’s many events associated with Partners in Education, Back-to-School Nights, special science and social studies programs—among other events in the public schools.

Numerous local teachers and principals have served as e-mentors for candidates. In all, 112 local teachers and principals have served the Westmont Department of Education officially in some partnering role, just in the past year, 2013-14. Some of these 112 educators partner with Westmont’s credential programs in multiple capacities, e.g., hosting a full-time student teacher and serving on the Teacher- Principal Advisory Board during the same academic year.

All full-time faculty devote considerable time and energy to maintaining contact with program alumni, encouraging and in some cases direct problem-solving. In all cases, the program uses informal alumni feedback (along with formal alumni feedback described elsewhere in this document) in deciding whether to continue particular assignments and where to modify classes or other program experiences.

Westmont’s Department of Education is an enthusiastic supporter of the County Office of Education’s Partners in Education program, as explained further below. Faculty serve on local boards, including the Santa Barbara County Education Office (SBCEO) Partners in Education Board, the SBCEO Regional Occupational Program Education Advisory Committee, the annual Santa Barbara Global Leadership Connections Conference, and the United Way Learning Center Advisory Board among other recent posts.

Sponsors of the preliminary teacher preparation program establish collaborative partnerships that contribute substantively to the quality and effectiveness of the design and implementation of candidate preparation.

Formal and informal partnerships, and the regular communication among the parties supporting candidate preparation contribute substantively to the quality of the candidates’ experience in the Westmont program and their long-term effectiveness in the field of education. Minutes from formal discussions of the Teacher/Principal Advisory Board demonstrate that teachers and principals have contributed perspective on a variety of issues, as shown under the next item. [Sample Minutes from Fall 2013-14]

Perhaps the Design and Implementation issue where outside groups have had the most effect on the Westmont Multiple and Single Subject program is our decision to stick with a more traditional—and now much the less common model in California teacher education—of having the first semester devoted primarily to methods classes and the second semester devoted much more fully to student teaching. Teachers and principals regularly state the value of candidates experiencing the full school-day over a long period of the school year, rather than being in multiple places and experiencing the full school day for only a relatively shorter period, as in some other nearby IHEs involved with teacher education. See other examples of Design and Implementation issues below.

Partnerships address significant aspects of preliminary preparation, and include collaboration between (a) subject matter preparation providers and pedagogical preparation providers; and (b) these pedagogical preparation providers and at least one local education agency that sponsors an induction program for beginning teachers where program completers are likely to be hired.

(a) Collaboration between subject matter preparation providers and pedagogical preparation providers;

Westmont’s Department of Education and faculty in the departments providing subject matter preparation work very closely together. A Westmont faculty member from the content areas sits on the Admissions Committee for the Credential Program; and likewise on the Teacher/Principal Advisory Board. We interact frequently with respect to advising; clarifying and revising the Academic Catalog and departmental web-pages; selection of faculty for Elementary Subject Matter sequence coursework (Liberal Studies Major) and selected courses taken as pre-requisites by both Multiple and Single Subject candidates, but taught outside of the Department of Education (i.e., KNS 156: Health Education; ENG 106: Language Acquisition).

Over the last three years we have worked particularly closely with the Department of Music and the Department of Modern languages in the process of being approved by the CTC to offer Single Subject credentials in these areas. We have worked with selected faculty in the History department in providing models of academic units for students preparing for secondary teaching.

We have tried different configurations for systematizing communication between the Department of Education and academic departments most apt to have students interested in exploring secondary or single subject education.

Currently, rather than a formal committee, each pertinent academic department has a designated Teaching Credential Liaison—the contact person in that department of first resort for students exploring getting a credential. The Department of Education annually and systematically sends out a series of items pertinent to advising, the CSET examinations, and professional and content preparation.

(b) Collaboration between pedagogical preparation providers and at least one local education agency that sponsors an induction program for beginning teachers where program completers are likely to be hired.

Westmont maintains a consistent relationship with the local provider for beginning teacher induction. Leadership at the local level for teacher induction has been characterized for nearly ten years by frequent turnover, but we have consistently maintained a relationship. At minimum, we have (a) invited successive administrators for Teacher Induction to join our Teacher/Principal Advisory board, and the current Induction administrator is an active member; and (b) we have hosted successive administrators annually for a formal presentation to all of our Multiple and Single Subject candidates. A full-time faculty member has served recently as a mentor through the local Teacher Induction program.

In each partnership, collaboration includes purposeful, substantive dialogue in which the partners. These partnerships would include developing program policies and reviewing program practices pertaining to the recruitment, selection and advisement of candidates; development of curriculum; selection of field sites; design of field experiences; selection and preparation of cooperating teachers; and assessment and verification of teaching competence.

Participants cooperatively establish and review the terms and agreements of partnerships, including (a) partners’ well-defined roles, responsibilities, and relationships; and (b) contributions of sufficient resources to support the costs of effective cooperation.

Partnership agreements with local school districts define the terms of our relationship, particularly with attention to the placement of student teachers and other professional or pre-professional field experiences. These partnership agreements are signed and updated on an annual basis. Financial resources primarily take the form of stipends for cooperating teachers. While the latter stipend is not as generous as we might hope, we have raised it by over 50% in the last 6 years, and are committed to incremental annual increases.

The program-based fieldwork component offers opportunities for purposeful involvement in collaborative partnership(s) for the design and delivery of programs by parent and community organizations, county offices of education, educational research centers, business representatives, and teachers’ bargaining agents.

Westmont’s department of education seeks input wherever possible, from as many constituencies as we can. While the following do not all explicitly steer the design of our fieldwork components, these examples do suggest the nature and range of the Department’s contacts in the community and desire to maintain communication (including accepting feedback on our fieldwork) with multiple relevant constituencies.

Standard 2 Appendices

• 2.1 Sample Minutes from Fall 2013-14
• 2.2 KNS 156: Health Education
• 2.3 ENG 106: Language Acquisition
• 2.4 Letter to Advisors
• 2.5 Job Placement 2013-2014
• 2.6 Minutes from 2013-14 with complete info from discussion
• 2.7 Checklist for Cooperating Teachers
• 2.8 Sample Signed Partnership Form

Foundational Educational Ideas and Research

Through planned prerequisites and/or professional preparation, candidates learn major concepts, principles, theories and research related to:

(a) child and adolescent development (cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical);

(b) human learning; and

(c) social, cultural, philosophical, and historical foundations of education.

The program provides opportunities for candidates to examine how selected concepts and principles are represented in contemporary educational policies and practices in California schools.

The Westmont program provides Multiple and Single Subject candidates with appropriate foundations in relevant educational ideas and educational research. Program coursework and relevant pre-requisites offer candidates opportunities to demonstrate their learning, in particular, in the areas of (a) child and adolescent development; (b) human learning; and (c) the cultural/historical foundations of education.

(a) Child and Adolescent Development

Both Multiple and Single Subject candidates study the developmental characteristics of children and adolescents in an early component of ED 110/111: Educational Psychology --Reading Modules 3, 4, and 5 of the main course text (Syllabus p. 6).

Candidates consider Cognitive, Physical, Social, Emotional, and Moral development and demonstrate their learning through in-class exercises and by generating implications for effective teaching practices. Among other assignments, they complete a comprehensive Management Plan, prepare and implement in-class presentations to peers, and engage in many reflective writing exercises.

Candidates discuss the developmental stages of learners in the context of each of their content-area methodology classes. Multiple Subject candidates consider the developmental characteristics of learners and (for example) the need for concrete manipulatives in planning their mathematics instruction (ED 150) [p. 6]; or the need for tangible objects and artifacts in their science/social studies instruction (ED 120). The ability to apply knowledge of the developmental stages of learning is also a component in two Case Studies of Learners (ED 170 [p. 4] and ED 171) [p. 5--further details under Standard 7A/7B.

Further, Multiple Subject candidates take PSY 115: Child Development as a pre- requisite to the program. Although attention is given to development over the human lifespan, the course focuses on development from birth through adolescence. Social, psychological, cognitive and biological processes are considered. In addition to knowledge of developmental stages themselves, candidates explore the relationship of developmental theory to effective teaching; and explicitly consider a range of Best Practices, supported by theory, for their current and future work with children and adolescents

Single Subject candidates’ knowledge of the developmental characteristics of adolescents, including cognitive, social, and emotional patterns is built throughout the Single Subject program. In particular:

• ED 101: Explorations in Teaching exposes Single Subject candidates to the characteristics of adolescents through Ch. 3 of the chief course text. Guest speakers (typically practitioners) and candidates’ own presentations further develop candidates’ knowledge of secondary learners. Candidates also complete a forty-hour field placement in a secondary classroom.
• ED 171: Content Area Literacy includes attention to the nature of adolescents through the assigned Case Studies. Details of assign assignment under Standard 7A/7B.
• ED 151: Curriculum & Instruction: Secondary includes visits to schools and guest speakers who address the nature and needs of adolescent learners, as well as instructional and relational strategies that are particularly effective at this level.

(b) Human Learning

Attention to factors influencing human learning is given in all program coursework. In virtually every course, candidates discuss, for example, the need to teach through different modalities and the related notion of Multiple Intelligences.

Candidates receive their most systematic and comprehensive introduction to pertinent concepts of human learning in ED 110/111: Educational Psychology. As the syllabus for this course demonstrates, along with the Table of Contents for the chief textbook, candidates explore a wide range of theories and concepts relevant to different forms of learning Candidates are exposed or re-exposed, for example, to B. F. Skinner and behaviorist learning theories (Bohlin, Module 9); Bandura’s notion of social learning (Module 10), information processing (Module 11) and the implications of Piaget and others for constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. Candidates explore how gender, class, and culture impact the learning process. Theories of moral learning and motivation receive particular attention. Students engage in a research project to explore in-depth a topic related to motivation and learning. [Modules listed on pp. 6-7 of syll.]

(c) Social, Cultural, Philosophical, and Historical foundations

Major concepts and principles regarding the historical and contemporary purposes, roles, and functions of education in American and California society are explored throughout the program, but are taught most systematically in ED 100/ED 101: Explorations in Teaching.

In these courses, a number of assigned chapters from Ryan & Cooper, ThoseWhoCanTeach, Those Who Can, Teach are particularly pertinent:

Lecture, discussion, written work, and examinations build on this assigned reading. Candidates consider the civic/political, economic, and ideological functions of schools, at present and in selected case studies from the past. Candidates explore the school’s role as an instrument of social policy, complete a paper on social justice, and enact a role- playing exercise.

Candidates apply their knowledge of social, cultural, and historical foundations in their methods classes, as they consider the degree to which curriculum materials reflect historical and/or contemporary biases, and as they consider the curriculum adoption process itself as a reflection of contemporary political realities.

The program provides opportunities for candidates to examine how selected concepts and principles are represented in contemporary educational policies and practices in California schools.

In keeping with the Standard’s reference to “selected concepts and principles” the following are but a small number of examples of how candidates are assisted to explore the relationship between foundational concepts in theory and the outworking of those concepts in contemporary California school practice and/or policy:

Standard 3 Appendices

• • Chapter 2: What is a school, and what is it for?
  • Chapter 8: What are the ethical and legal issues facing teachers?
  • Chapter 9: What are the philosophical foundations of American education?
  • Chapter 10: What is the history of America’s struggle for educational opportunity
  • Chapter 11: How are schools governed, influenced, and financed?
  1. (1) Candidates analyze teaching/learning contexts in their field placements and in student teaching, as they discuss how the socio-economic status of the neighborhood, for instance, influences levels of, and the varying kinds of, prior knowledge their students bring to the tasks of formal learning in school. Likewise, how our system of school finance affects opportunities and resources in different local school districts. Among other ways of developing this perspective: candidates complete a web exploration of their school-site prior to beginning of the placement.
  2. (2) Candidates evaluate instructional materials in methods courses with respect to developmental appropriateness. During student teaching, candidates work with college supervisors and their cooperating teachers to ensure that materials used, and the ways in which materials are used, are appropriate for the particular social, ethnic, and economic context of particular classrooms and, at times, particular individuals within classes. The Westmont program has been very quick to transition to Common Core standards and resources, at a pace equal to or exceeding the local school districts.
  3. (3) Candidates select teaching strategies to ensure maximum learning for all students. Here again, this occurs most intensively during student teaching, as candidates work with college supervisors during weekly meetings/post-observation sessions; and in their weekly seminars, to consider how a range of culturally-sensitive teaching strategies can be used most effectively for a particular context. As our candidates student teach in the Santa Barbara/Goleta/Carpinteria area, where a high number of the students are English Learners, particular emphasis is placed on ensuring that candidates practice appropriate ELD and SDAIE strategies, both in literacy instruction and in the content areas.
  4. (4) Candidates reflect on pedagogical practices in relation to the purposes, functions, and inequalities of schools. Reflection on pedagogical practices (particularly as these relate to the social purposes of schools and unequal social/power/ educational structures) occurs throughout the program, but most intensively and insistently during student teaching and associated seminar discussions. Candidates write weekly reflections where they are explicitly asked to connect theoretical information from prior coursework to the needs of learners in their classrooms.

  • 3.1 ED 110/111: Educational Psychology

  • 3.2 ED 150: Mathematics—Elementary

  • 3.3 ED 120: Social Studies and Science—Elementary

  • 3.4 ED 170: Reading/Language Arts—Elementary

  • 3.5 ED 171: Content-Area Literacy

  • 3.6 PSY 115: Child & Adolescent Development

  • 3.7 ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching

  • 3.8 ED 171: Content-Area Literacy

  • 3.9 ED 151: Curriculum & Instruction: Secondary

  • 3.10 ED 110/111: Educational Psychology

  • 3.11 Table of Contents for Bohlin, EdPsych Modules

  • 3.12 ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching

  • 3.13 Table of Contents for Ryan & Cooper, Those Who Can, Teach

Relationships Between Theory and Practice

As a credential program which emphasizes a “Pragmatic Professionalism” (Larry Cuban, 2009), one of Westmont’s hallmarks is a close relationship between theory and practice.

Teaching candidates at Westmont are grounded in essential educational theory and are expected continually to apply principles of effective teaching and learning throughout their program. Course instructors are in regular contact with the world of practice, and seek constantly to connect educational research to the day-to-day realities of the classroom. Wherever possible in the program, theory and practice are thoroughly integrated.

When teaching theory, program faculty are insistent on exploring the implications and ramifications of the theory for professional practice. Even in methods classes taught on campus, we seek to model as much as possible what we are discussing (e.g., beginning a discussion of assessment strategies with some sort of baseline assessment exercise, inventorying candidates’ knowledge and experience of assessment itself).

Methods classes are never purely theoretical, as most classes require of candidates one or more “performance” assignments closely tied to the demands of instruction in the field. For example, in all methods classes in the program, candidates individually or in small groups implement a written lesson plan with the rest of the class. This is followed by mutual assessment and reflection on the teaching and learning process just modeled. In ED 150: Elementary Mathematics, for instance, candidates participate in Lesson Study Teams, reviewing videotaped lessons as a small group. In other cases, the follow-up reflection is done as a complete cohort, and/or individually [Syllabus, p.4]

At the same time, in setting up, observing, and coaching field experience, faculty are attentive to placing candidates where they will see effective, current, and research- supported pedagogy being modeled on a regular basis; and where field-based personnel have the requisite theoretical background to link practice with theory.

An especially close relationship between theory and practice is made possible by a distinctive feature of the program which, by its very nature, promotes programmatic coherence, continuity and connectedness. That is, the instructors who teach coursework, set up initial clinical experiences during methods and foundations courses, and introduce candidates to pertinent educational theories are in fact also the primary field supervisors during the semester of full-time student teaching.

Accordingly, when the standard speaks of “course instructors and field supervisors working collaboratively,” the collaboration is in some sense inevitable, given that we are essentially the same people. Because we know what candidates are exposed to during foundational work and methods classes, we are in a position to continue discussion of core theoretical/pedagogical issues throughout candidates’ field work, and in a position to ensure that candidates continually demonstrate orally, in writing, and (most important of all) in practice their ability to link theory and practice.

Candidates frequently, in weekly post-observation conferencing, refer back to concepts and principles taught during the fall semester and in earlier coursework. And where candidates do not do this on their own initiative, we as supervisors of the student teachers are in a position, as we evaluate incoming written reflections, sample written lesson and unit plans carried out during student teaching; and as we observe our candidates teaching, to help them make these connections.

This habit of connection works both ways. It is not simply that candidates in the spring make connections with what they have studied the preceding fall. But the fact that we as full-time faculty spend the majority of our spring semesters in the field, changes the way we teach courses back on campus in the first place. Constantly, we illustrate the concepts and principles under consideration with fresh, contemporary examples and case studies drawn from the local context. This is part of the reason that principals and cooperating teachers working with our candidates have commented on our candidates’ ability to “hit the ground running.” To be able, that is, to apply a broad range of theory in real classrooms, early on, and throughout their student teaching experiences.

The teacher preparation program provides extensive opportunities for candidates to analyze, implement and reflect on the relationships between foundational issues, theories, and professional practice related to teaching and learning.

A complete response to this component of the Standard could go on for many pages, but we will offer three suggestive examples for now from one specific course, as representative of program-wide opportunities to reflect on relationship between foundational issues and professional practice. The program will be pleased to offer parallel examples from other courses upon request.

(a) In ED 120, the chief textbook for the social studies component of the course, the specific instructional strategies described are all grounded in a set of specific theoretical foundations, including: (a) Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory; (b) Jerome Bruner’s notion of the spiral curriculum; and (c) the notion of cooperative learning as articulated by Elizabeth Cohen and others. When candidates explore specific instructional strategies, they are asked to go back and explain how each strategy (e.g., “Skill Builders”) is in fact an expression of these foundational theories.

(b) Again, in the ED 120 course, candidates prepare a comprehensive instructional unit where, in addition to specific lesson plans and specific activities appropriate for the topic and developmental stage, candidates are asked to show how the unit as a whole and specific activities reflect their underlying values and definitions of social studies, as developed in an historical study of five different philosophical traditions in the field.

(c) In the same course, candidates read Stephen Cary, Working with Second Language Learners: Answers to Teachers’ Top Ten Questions (Heinemann, 2007). This text, which grows out of the author’s experience in California schools, offers ten case studies of teachers confronted with instructional problems, and the processes of analysis, resource-gathering, experimentation, and assessment that the teacher himself or herself went through to respond to the original instructional challenge. The candidate is thus exposed not only to important information about instructional problems, but is also exposed to a model process of reflection and responding to said challenges.

During full-time student teaching in the spring semester, candidates meet each week one- on-one with college supervisor (sometimes with cooperating teacher present, as well). Candidate and supervisor reflect together on what was effective and what was less effective, referring as the context allows to factors such as state academic contents and frameworks, the developmental level of classes or individuals, the role of prior knowledge, and the needs and questions of particular students.

In coursework, classroom observations, and supervised fieldwork candidates examine research-based theories and their relationships to the following.

The response below is intended to be suggestive, rather than exhaustive. The examples provided are representative of research-based theories and their implications that transcend specific courses or specific stages of the candidates’ progress through the program. We would be pleased to provide additional examples from specific courses upon request.

(a) principles of human learning and development;

(1) In keeping with constructivist thinking (Piaget, Bruner, and any number of published interpreters of this tradition), candidates are exposed program-wide to the role of prior knowledge in the learning process, and the need for teachers to consider this knowledge in planning; to activate and assess the precise nature of students’ prior knowledge, and explicitly to link new learning with said prior knowledge or partial knowledge. This is introduced in ED 110/111: Educational Psychology, applied in numerous specific contexts during methods courses, and is a frequent topic of conversation between candidates and supervisors during student teaching.

(2) Candidates are constantly reminded of the need for developmentally-appropriate pedagogical strategies (Piaget, Vygotsky, and others), particularly in the early grades where candidates must work the hardest to divorce themselves from the pedagogy they may have seen modeled in some of their college-level content fields; the need for candidates (again, particularly at the early levels) to use visuals, auditory stimuli, concrete manipulatives, and to teach through kinesthetic activity; to break complex concepts into small, logically-sequenced parts that young minds can learn. Again, this is introduced in ED 110/111: Educational Psychology, applied in numerous specific contexts during methods [Syllabus p. 6] courses, and is a frequent topic of conversation between candidates and supervisors during student teaching.

(b) pedagogical strategies and options;

Candidates continually discuss the need for—and strategies for—accommodating English Learners, both in literacy instruction and in the content areas, at all levels, K-12 (Working with English Language Learners). Given the make-up of our local student body (proportionately more Latino than the corresponding figures for California as a whole), this has become more and more a theme in our coursework and in our day-to-day interaction with candidates in the field. This is introduced in ENG 106: Language Acquisition and ED 105: Cultural Diversity, applied in numerous specific contexts during methods courses, and is a frequent topic of conversation between candidates and supervisors during student teaching.
Supervisors and candidates regularly discuss the need to explicitly teach (at times, pre- teaching) core academic vocabulary (Marzano et al.).

Candidates are reminded of the importance of modeling and guided practice (Madeleine Hunter and others, with links to social learning theory [Bandura and others]). This is introduced in ED 110/111: Educational Psychology, applied in numerous specific contexts during methods courses, and is a frequent topic of conversation between candidates and supervisors during student teaching.

(c) curriculum, instruction, and assessment;

In ED 110/111: Educational Psychology, candidates are taught all stages of on-going assessment and explore the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to assessment. In the same course, candidates conduct a test item analysis to determine what objectives need to be re-taught [syllabus, p. 8].

In ED 150: Elementary Mathematics, candidates review classroom instructional materials in relation to the Common Core standards. Candidates discuss four reasons to assess, and instructor emphasizes the role of assessment in informing subsequent instruction. [syllabus p. 6]

In ED 170: Elementary Reading/Language Arts, candidates examine problems extracted from Smarter Balance assessments, and the implications of the same for instruction.

and (d) student accomplishments, attitudes, and conduct.

Candidates continually work on developing and applying to a range of contexts, a variety of appropriate classroom management strategies (Canter, Jones, Dreikurs, Albert, Coloroso, Kohn, et al.). This set of knowledge and skills is introduced in ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching, applied in numerous specific contexts during methods courses, and is a frequent topic of conversation between candidates and supervisors during student teaching.

The comprehensive Management Plan that candidates prepare as part of ED 110/111: Educational Psychology, is grounded in research, including research on motivation. (Example of Management Plan)

Working collaboratively, course instructors, program field supervisors, and district support personnel explain and illustrate a variety of models of teaching and the application of these models contextually….

As faculty, we assume candidates are already familiar with many elements of Direct Instruction, but we give this notion a label, and explore the strengths and weaknesses of a Madeleine Hunter-style lesson model.

Throughout methods courses—and in fact all of the courses taught in the program—we emphasize the need for variety of strategies and variety of models (even as we acknowledge likewise the need for certain routines and predictability in the classroom).

In all courses, candidates participate in paired and small-group assignments.
Particularly in the science component of ED 120: Elementary Social Studies and Science, candidates see modeled (and model for one another) an “Exploration First” instructional model (p. 18) that is more Constructivist, more Inductive, leaving room for direct experience and exploration before providing “answers.” (See also, Table of Contents for Koch, Science Stories). In the same course, candidates see multiple examples of instruction set up in the form of Rotating Stations.

The line between Teaching MODELS and simply different Instructional STRATEGIES is indistinct, and whether all of the strategies that candidates are exposed to could be considered teaching MODELS is a debatable proposition. Nonetheless, there is no question that candidates are exposed to a great variety of pedagogical options. The greater part of the Social Studies component of ED 120 is set up to model and explore the strengths and weaknesses of different instructional strategies (Table of Contents for Social Studies Alive!).

In ED 170: Elementary Reading/Language Arts, candidates begin by observing a lesson modeled by the instructor. They then plan and demonstrated explicit instruction in phonological awareness, phonics, spelling, syllabication, and vocabulary. They also plan and implement demonstration lessons which promote reading comprehension and writing (persuasive, explanatory, narrative). Candidates embed SDAIE strategies for English Learners, identify strategies for struggling learners, and add depth and complexity strategies for gifted learners.
As indicated previously, especially in responding to this Program Standard, it is difficult to know how many examples is sufficient. We would be pleased to provide additional examples from a variety of courses upon specific request.

…. They instruct and coach candidates to use and reflect on their understanding of relevant theory and research in making instructional decisions and improving pedagogical practices and how these theories and practices inform school policies and practices.

Much that the Westmont faculty do in coursework and in supervising fieldwork might well fall under this category. But for present purposes, to limit ourselves to one example:

In ED 110/111 Educational Psychology, candidates use their understanding of relevant theory and research to conduct a collaborative research project and then present their findings. The presentation includes a summary of the research, a summary of their data, and how their research can assist educators in improving pedagogical practice. (Research Handout)

Standard 4 Appendices

• 4.1 ED 150: Elementary Mathematics

• 4.2 Handout from Social Studies Alive!

• 4.3 ED 110/111: Educational Psychology

• 4.4. Table of Contents for Cary, Working with English Language Learners

• 4.5 ENG 106: Language Acquisition

• 4.6 ED 105: Cultural Diversity

• 4.7 ED 170: Elementary Reading/Language Arts

• 4.8 ED 100/101: Exploration in Teaching

• 4.9 Classroom Management Plan

• 4.10 Example of Management Plan

• 4.11 ED 120: Elementary Social Studies and Science

• 4.12 Table of Contents for Koch, Science Stories

• 4.13 Table of Contents for Social Studies Alive!

• 4.14 Collaborative Research Project

• 4.15 Research Handout

Professional Perspectives Toward Student Learning and the Teaching Profession

The notion of professionalism—acknowledging the importance of the teaching field and its role in society; and maintaining high standards accordingly—is a core emphasis in the Westmont Multiple and Single Subject Credential Programs.

The faculty seek consistently to model the multiple dimensions of professionalism and at the same time, in every way possible, help our candidates to internalize high standards of teacher professionalism.

Professionalism is woven throughout the program, beginning with initial advising and continuing through every aspect of ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching. We are especially explicit about the need for professionalism when discussing expectations for each field-work assignment, and in preparation for the semester of full-time student teaching. [Guidelines for Education 100/101] Among the many ways we communicate the need for professionalism is the Multiple Subject & Single Subject Handbook, especially the pages on:

• Dispositions
• Introduction to Student Teaching
• Guidelines for Beginning Teachers
• Mission and Guiding Assumptions: Other Core Beliefs

As a reminder to candidates, multiple course syllabi include an explicit section on “Professionalism in Education Courses,” as shown below. While this is by no means intended to reveal all dimensions of teacher professionalism, it introduces the term and serves as a baseline from which to build throughout the program and pre-requisite coursework. The following is taken from ED 110: Educational Psychology, p. 3:

As a future educator, you need to begin to develop a professional attitude towards all aspects of teaching, including your teacher education courses. Your mindset, therefore, should be shifting from a “student” to a “professional.” Here are some examples of how you will want to demonstrate professionalism:

• Show up on time to each class just as you will when you have a job.
• Come well prepared each day just as you will when you teach.
• Whenever you deliver a lesson in class, wear appropriate attire just as you will when you work in a school. This includes not chewing gum.
• Look for ways to contribute just as you will when you are a part of a school staff.
• Use electronics appropriately just as you will as a teacher who models for his or her students (e.g., not using cell phones in class and only using laptops when needed for the course).
• Be a person of academic integrity just as you will expect of your future students. See Westmont’s Plagiarism Policy

The preparation program ensures that each candidate explores a variety of perspectives and begins to develop a professional perspective on teaching that includes an ethical commitment to teach every student effectively and to develop as a professional educator. Candidates study different perspectives on teaching and learning, and explore alternative concepts of education.

Candidates are exposed to a variety of pedagogical models starting with the variety of models and philosophical perspectives among the full-time—and part-time—faculty. We have consciously chosen to include as wide a range of beliefs, backgrounds, and styles among the faculty as we can, given the constraints of a small department. In hiring, we have consciously chosen difference over sameness. A number of graduates have commented informally in recent years about the complementarity of perspectives represented among the three full-time faculty—and have identified this as a major program strength.

Candidates are asked at multiple points in different courses to reflect on their own K-12 educational experience, including the range of pedagogical models they have been exposed to. This is done most explicitly and in most-developed written form in ED 100/101, in the Personal Educational History essay.

Personal Educational History Paper (10%, due February 24) At the beginning of the course, students will explore how their own identity and educational experiences have shaped their individual beliefs about teaching, learning and education. Students will identify 5 key experiences, interactions, memories or discoveries, positive or negative, about personal school experiences. Examples could include athletics, extra-curriculars, particular teachers, awards or achievement, or specific content areas. Students will describe the experiences and reflect on how each shaped his/her individual identity as a learner and how the student’s educational history will impact how he/she develops as a teacher in her own classroom? Papers should be 5 pages, 12 pt. font and double-spaced. Include citations. Upload the paper to LIVETEXT.

Likewise in ED 100/101 pre-candidates read two book-length teacher narratives [syllabus p. 4] concerning relatively contemporary California educators, Rafe Esquith (Multiple Subject) and Erin Gruwell (Single Subject). Candidates discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these teachers’ approaches, and use them as springboards to discussing their own styles, their own philosophical ideals, and the ideals and pedagogical styles of other teachers.

Pre-professionals in ED 100/101 are exposed to several formal philosophical schools of education, including more teacher-centered models (Perennialism, Essentialism) and more student-centered models (Romanticism, Progressivism) as articulated by Ryan and Cooper (Those Who Can, Teach, 13th ed.). Ryan and Cooper also discuss competing psychological foundations or emphases, and distinguish for students Behaviorist approaches from more Cognitive approaches. Those enrolled in ED 100/101 write their own philosophy of education at the end of the course, drawing on those delineated in the textbook and other models or pedagogical belief-systems they have been exposed to.

During ED 110/111, candidates explore some of the same conceptual terrain from ED 100/101 (described above) as they seek to understand different approaches to learning, classroom management, motivation, and assessment—as well as the philosophical underpinnings of each [syllabus p. 7].

Each year candidates are exposed to multiple guest speakers in courses and co-curricular programs that our candidates attend—extending the range of role models for candidates.

Pre-professionals and candidates both reflect on each of their field placements, including reflection on the relative strengths and weaknesses of different pedagogical approaches.

Candidates have regular and sustained opportunities to discuss different approaches to teaching during ED 195—MS Student Teaching Seminar and ED 196—SS Student Teaching Seminar, where individuals reflect both orally and in writing on the styles and underlying pedagogical beliefs of their host teachers.

During full-time student teaching candidates observe one another’s classrooms and normally also have opportunities to observe other teachers at their own school-site, ensuring an even wider range of potential models of different approaches to teaching. Single Subject candidates must document twenty observations of colleagues in and across disciplines.

The program provides opportunities for candidates to examine research on relationships between (a) the background characteristics of students and inequities in academic outcomes of schooling in the United States, and (b) teacher expectations and student achievement. The program educates candidates on laws pertaining to health, safety, protection, access and educational equity for all students.

The context in which candidates or pre-candidates explore most explicitly research on the relationship of background characteristics and inequity of academic outcomes is ED 105: Cultural Diversity. In the recent past students have read nearly the entire text of Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom, No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning. More recently, extracts of this same text have been shared in class to demonstrate inequities in academic outcomes. In any case, the course includes an examination of multiple factors that may affect academic outcomes, including residual conscious and unconscious racism, poverty, family expectations, teacher expectations, and different cultures’ relative emphasis on the acquisition of formal education. For more detail on the most recent specific readings and course topics, please see ED 105 Syllabus and IHE response to CTC Program Standard #9: Diversity.

With specific reference to (b) Teacher Expectations, candidates in ED 105 are exposed to the notion of self-fulfilling prophecies (by teachers and students), pioneering research on what was called the Pygmalion Effect, and the notion of “soft bigotry of low expectations,” as articulated by Lisa Delpit (Other People’s Children), Richard Rodriguez (Hunger of Memory and elsewhere), and others.

Two other program pre-requisites, KNS 156: Health for the Classroom Teacher and ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching, expose candidates to laws pertaining to health, safety, protection, access and educational equity.

KNS 156 includes an entire chapter on “Promoting Safety and preventing Violence,” in addition to other topics related to the holistic health and safety of K-12 students. Page & Page, Promoting health and emotional well-being in your classroom, 5th ed., Chapter 9.

In ED100/101, students read and discuss Ryan and Cooper, Ch. 8: What are the ethical and legal issues facing teachers? In addition to laws concerning teacher liability, copyright law, freedom of expression for both teachers and students, religious expression in the schools, candidates learn about the reporting of child abuse, due process, confidentiality, prevention of sexual harassment, and other legislation directly relevant to student health and safety.

During full-time student teaching, candidates are exposed to specific school and district guidelines concerning K-12 student health and safety, and related teacher’s responsibilities in these areas.

During interrelated coursework and fieldwork, candidates learn how social, emotional, cognitive, cultural, and pedagogical factors impact student learning outcomes, and how a teacher’s beliefs, expectations, and behaviors strongly affect learning on the part of student groups and individuals.

Various factors that impinge on K-12 student learning, including social emotional, cognitive, cultural, and pedagogical factors, are discussed in context throughout the program. Among other places where these factors are discussed explicitly are the following:

ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching: Among other particularly pertinent readings are: Ryan & Cooper, Chapters 3 and 4 (Who are today’s students in a diverse society? and What social problems affect today’s students?). Students also name and describe their own culture in a bulletin board assignment—helping them to recognize that what they may take for granted is in fact not universal.

ED 105: Cultural Diversity represents a sustained examination of the cultural factors that may affect K-12 student success in today’s school system. Among other readings, students read, discuss orally, and submit written reflections on Ruby Payne’s book-length A Framework for Understanding Poverty. Students come away with an understanding of the multi-dimensional nature of poverty, and how cognitive, cultural, social, and other factors may interact with the condition of poverty to increase—or decrease—students’ chances for success in K-12 schooling. In addition to traditional racial/ethnic groups, course considers factors relevant to the school experience of boys vs. girls, students with non-traditional sexual identities or whose parents have non-traditional self- identifications; students from religious minorities, and multi-racial students. Much of the course consists of culture-specific strategies for cultural understanding and culturally- responsive pedagogy.

ENG 106: Language Acquisition represents a sustained exploration of how linguistic (as well as sometimes-associated cultural and social) factors may affect students’ K-12 schooling experience. Students are taught appropriate interventions to promote the success of all learners.

During ED 110/111, candidates read about and discuss how social, emotional, cognitive, cultural, and pedagogical beliefs impact daily decisions in the classroom.

During full-time student teaching and the associated student teaching seminars, candidates engage in weekly reflection and meet weekly with college supervisors to discuss pertinent issues, including the need to tailor instruction to the needs of a wide range of students. The need for differentiated instruction is a major theme in conversations during ED 195—MS Student Teaching Seminar and ED 196—SS Student Teaching Seminar, and is included in the Department Lesson Plan Template.

Reviewers requested more information pertinent to the second of the two sentences in the Standards component immediately above:

“During interrelated coursework and fieldwork, candidates learn … how a teacher’s beliefs, expectations, and behaviors strongly affect learning on the part of student groups and individuals.” How do candidates demonstrate their learning on this standard?

We in the program believe that we have always had a strong emphasis on the way a teacher’s beliefs, expectations, and behaviors affect learning among student groups and individuals.

Cultivating in candidates an awareness of these connections cuts across all coursework, and is clearly an emphasis in the particular courses referenced above in the initial response. Among other places, candidates demonstrate their ability to make this connection on both major tests of ED 105: Cultural Diversity (tests involving multiple essays); and clearly in the essay candidates write in response to the Ruby Payne book, A Framework for Understanding Poverty (syllabus p. 5).

During full-time Student Teaching, virtually every written weekly reflection, virtually every post-observation conference between the college supervisor and candidate, and routine oral reflection during weekly seminar, demonstrate candidates’ ability to make these connections.

In the essays in the final portfolio that candidates complete at the end of Student Teaching—and the end of the Program—candidates routinely make these kinds of connections.

Much of our discussion of the Departmental Dispositions, and candidates’ written reflection on the same, is relevant to this concern.

At the same time, we acknowledge that it is hard for us, at present, to point to one particular, comprehensive and compelling piece of evidence that would persuade a hypothetically skeptical jury that candidates demonstrate these connections.

Accordingly, in the Spring 2016 version of the syllabi for ED 195—MS Student Teaching Seminar and ED 196—SS Student Teaching Seminar (p. 6 of syllabus for ED 195) we are going to explicitly ask candidates to demonstrate their awareness of these connections on one of their weekly written reflections.

Moreover, between now and the Accreditation Site visit, we are going to diligently collect an electronic file of candidate writing that demonstrates candidate awareness of these connections on a consistent and routine basis throughout their experience in the program.

The program provides opportunities for each candidate to promote student academic progress equitably and conscientiously, and fosters the intellectual, social, and personal development of all children and adolescents, while emphasizing the teacher’s unique role in advancing each student’s academic achievements and advocating for students. Through formal instruction, coaching, and supervision candidates assume the responsibility to maximize each learner’s achievements by building on students’ prior instruction and experience.

The motto of one of our chief partner districts, Santa Barbara Unified School District (SBUSD), is “Every child, Every chance, Every day,” and we join with SBUSD in communicating that message constantly to our candidates. Given the unrealistically idealistic tendencies of some of our students, we coach students on aspiring to achieve “small victories,” and not to assume that they can change the entire K-12 world overnight.

At the same time, we regularly remind candidates in every course the importance a teacher can make---and this is a perennial theme echoed and re-echoed in candidates’ public end-of-year reflections.

Among other strategies that we emphasize, we talk a great deal about cultivating personal relationships with students (James Comer, “No significant learning occurs without a significant relationship”) and constantly emphasize the need for differentiated instruction such that all students can be successful, academically and otherwise.

With respect to building on students’ prior instruction and experience, again—we emphasize the need to truly know students, their backgrounds, their families, and their learning styles and preferences. All candidates complete a student’s interest inventory as part of their Literacy Case Studies. Get-to-know-you Activities are shared and modeled in a variety of courses. We also model baseline assessment in most courses, and talk about the need to build on prior instruction.

The program provides opportunities for candidates to learn the importance of challenging students to set and meet high academic expectations for themselves. They learn to use multiple sources of information, including qualitative and quantitative data, to assess students’ existing knowledge and abilities, and to establish ambitious learning goals for students.

The Westmont program frequently reminds candidates to set high expectations for themselves, to set high expectations for K-12 students, and to encourage students to set high expectations for themselves. A major text in ED 110/111, Teach Like a Champion, addresses this set of items explicitly, as in Ch. 1 (“Setting high Academic Expectations”); Ch. 2 (“Planning that Ensures Academic Achievement”), and Ch. 6 (“Setting and Maintaining High Behavioral Expectations). See Table of Contents, Teach Like a Champion.

Our preparation of candidates to use multiple sources of information, including qualitative and quantitative data to assess students’ knowledge and abilities is discussed elsewhere in this document, under Standard 15. For present purposes, one example may suffice: In ED 170 and ED 171 candidates conduct case studies of gathering multiple sources of information, including both qualitative and quantitative data to assess students’’ knowledge and abilities. They analyze the data to identify strengths, needs, and appropriate instructional strategies to meet those needs.

In reference to the above, reviewers noted the following:

“The program provides opportunities for candidates to learn the importance of challenging students to set and meet high academic expectations for themselves. They learn to use multiple sources of information, including qualitative and quantitative data, to assess students’ existing knowledge and abilities, and to establish ambitious learning goals for students.” How do candidates demonstrate their learning about these standards?

The Program is not sure if the emphasis is on the (highly divergent) first or second sentences, with respect to candidates demonstrating their learning.

With respect to the 2nd sentence, the case studies mentioned above (but not previously linked in this particular context) explicitly, comprehensively, and unambiguously involve demonstrating the use of multiple sources of information, including qualitative and quantitative data, to assess students’ existing knowledge and abilities, and to establish ambitious learning goals for students.”

Candidates demonstrate further, in parallel fashion, the ability to use of multiple sources of information, including qualitative and quantitative data, to assess students’ existing knowledge and abilities, and to establish ambitious learning goals for students in completing the four tasks of the CalTPA.

If, on the other hand, the emphasis is on the first sentence, the program asks reviewers to note the following:

In ED 110/111: Educational Psychology, candidates demonstrate the ability to set high standards on two levels—in the role of teacher, and in the role of student, as follows. Candidates read and view video clips from Teach Like a Champion, Chapter 1, "Setting High Academic Expectations." Selected candidates teach the chapter and engage their colleagues in in-class exercises, in the role of students, to promote high academic expectations such as "No Opt Out," "Right is Right," "Stretch it," and "Format Matters.”

Effective the current academic year, candidates will not only demonstrate this explicitly during full-time Student Teaching, but they will write about their experience of having students set high expectations for themselves in one of their weekly written reflections.

Individually and collaboratively with colleagues, candidates examine and reflect on their teaching practices and professional behaviors in relation to principles of classroom equity and the professional responsibilities of teachers. Candidates collaborate with colleagues to design and deliver effective, coordinated instruction.

Reflection on teaching in relation to matters of equity is a particular theme of ED 105 and ED 100/101, but also enters into all discussions of fieldwork. During ED 195—MS Student Teaching Seminar and ED 196—SS Student Teaching Seminar, candidates are constantly pushed to think about reaching ALL learners, and to offer appropriately differentiated instruction accordingly.

Candidates in the Westmont program are constantly asked to collaborate with one another—and with others—in designing and implementing their instruction. The following chart represents a small sample of the assignments and activities that promote collaboration and/or collaborative reflection; and/or collaborative reflection that includes matters of classroom equity and the professional responsibilities of teachers.

Standard 5 Appendices:

• 5.1 ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching
• 5.2 Guidelines for Experience in ED 100/101
• 5.3 Multiple Subject Handbook
• 5.4 Single Subject Handbook
• 5.5 Ryan & Cooper, Those Who Can, Teach, 13th ed. Table of Contents
• 5.6 ED 110/111
• 5.7 ED 190/195: Student Teaching Seminar—Elementary
• 5.8 ED 191/196: Student Teaching Seminar—Secondary
• 5.9 ED 105: Cultural Diversity
• 5.10 KNS 156: Health for the Classroom Teacher
• 5.11 Table of Contents: Promoting Health and Emotional Wellness in Your Classroom
• 5.12 ENG 106: Language Acquisition
• 5.13 Department Lesson Plan Template
• 5.14 Teach Like a Champion Table of Contents
• 5.15 ED 170: Reading and Language Arts—Elementary
• 5.16 ED 171: Content-Area Literacy
• 5.17 2013-14 Book from ED 105: Cultural Diversity class

5R1 Dispositions
5R2 Spring 2017 ED 190/195: Multiple Subject Student Teaching & Seminar
5R3 Spring 2017 ED 191/196: Single Subject Student Teaching & Semina

Pedagogy and Reflective Practice

Reflection—oral, written, and internal—is woven into the fabric of everything candidates, professors, and program partners do in the Westmont Multiple and Single Subject Credential Program.

Professors model reflection, among other ways, by talking with candidates about how we change specific assignments, whole courses, or our teaching and supervisory practices from year to year—and why we have chosen to make those changes. (see Hughes dissertation).

Several courses, as delineated more specifically below, involve candidates teaching mini- lessons to their peers. All of these mini-lessons are followed up by individual oral and written reflection, and/or group reflection on how particular pedagogical choices affected the effectiveness of the teaching/learning process.

Almost all courses involve multiple formal and informal written assignments calling for extensive reflection on teaching and learning.

Candidates reflect throughout their full-time student teaching experience in the form of (a) weekly written journal assignments; (b) weekly one-on-one, post-observation reflective conferences with supervisors; (c) weekly group reflection on teaching and learning during ED 195 and ED 196: Student Teaching Seminar.

Candidates reflect orally at the time of mid-student teaching conferences with cooperating teachers and college supervisors; and again at the time of the final conference.

Virtually the entire Student Teaching E-Portfolio (see MS candidate sample from Spring 2016) takes the form of a written reflection, as candidates demonstrate through written essays and through their choice of artifacts how they have achieved the CTC competencies established for Multiple and Single Subject teachers; and how they have achieved each of the specific components and sub-components of this Program Standard. Representative candidates each year participate in one-on-one Program Completer Interviews, as part of the program’s collective self-reflection.Senior Exit Interview with Deborah Hill

All alumni are asked to reflect on the program in a survey, approximately one year from the date of program completion.

To maximize student learning, candidates learn to create and maintain well-managed classrooms that foster students’ physical, cognitive, emotional, and social well-being. They learn to develop safe, inclusive, positive learning environments that promote respect, value difference, and mediate conflicts according to state laws and local protocol.

We work hard at preparing our candidates to cultivate safe, inclusive, positive, and well- managed classrooms. As noted under our response to CTC Program Standard 10, Westmont’s MS and SS faculty and candidates together are expected to model, throughout the program, the nurturing of a safe community for learning. Courses are not simply vehicles for delivering information about an appropriate learning environment. Each course becomes in itself a model learning community where members are encouraged—and expected—to help one another develop emotionally and socially, as well as academically.

We also take great care in choosing cooperating teachers for full-time student teaching— and cooperating educators for placements of shorter duration—who are effective models of creating and sustaining positive communities of learning. (Criteria for Cooperating Teacher Form).

Itemized below are selected assignments or activities in different courses that contribute to candidates’ growth in developing the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to manage classrooms effectively.

By design, the preliminary teacher preparation program fosters the ability of candidates to evaluate instructional alternatives, articulate the pedagogical reasons for instructional decisions, and reflect on teaching practices. The program fosters each candidate’s realization that the analysis and assessment of practices promote a teacher’s professional growth.

In the program, candidates read, analyze, discuss, and evaluate professional literature pertaining to important contemporary issues in California schools and classrooms, and use sources of professional information in making decisions about teaching and learning.

Candidates learn how to use and interpret student assessment data from multiple measures of student academic performance to inform instruction. They learn how to plan and differentiate instruction based on student assessment data and diverse learning needs of the full range of learners (e.g., struggling readers, students with special needs, English learners of varied proficiency levels, educational and cultural backgrounds, speakers of non-dominant varieties of English, and advanced learners).

AND

Candidates learn to select, assess, make pedagogical decisions, and reflect on instructional practices in relation to (a) state-adopted academic content standards for students and curriculum frameworks, (b) principles of human development and learning, (c) the observed effects of different practices, and (d) consultation with colleagues.

Given the overlap between these two components of the standard—and significant overlap with components within the standard previously addressed, above, a combined response is offered to these last components.

Standard 6 Appendices

• 6.1 Hughes Dissertation
• 6.2A ED 195 :MS Student Teaching Seminar
• 6.2B ED 196: SS Student Teaching Seminar
• 6.3 Summative E-Portfolio Guidelines
• 6.4 Program Completer Interview
• 6.5 Alumni Survey Form
• 6.6 Criteria for Cooperating Teacher Form
• 6.7 ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching
• 6.8 KNS 156: Health Education
• 6.9 Table of Contents from Page & Page, Promoting Health & Emotional Well-being in Your Classroom, Chapter 4
• 6.10 ED 110/111: Educational Psychology
• 6.11 Lemov, Teach Like a Champion.

Preparation to Teach Reading-Language Arts

Standard 7-A: Multiple Subject Reading, Writing, and Related Language Instruction

The preparation program provides substantive, research-based instruction that effectively prepares each candidate to teach reading/language arts. Each candidate will be prepared to deliver a comprehensive program of systematic instruction in reading, writing, listening, and speaking aligned to the state-adopted English Language Arts Content Standards and the Reading/Language Arts Framework (2007). The program provides candidates with systematic, explicit instruction to meet the needs of the full range of learners (including struggling readers, students with special needs, typologies of English learners, speakers of non-dominant varieties of English, and advanced learners)who have varied reading levels and language backgrounds, as referenced in the Reading Instruction Competency Assessment (RICA) Content Specifications and Chapter 7 of the Reading/Language Arts Framework (2007). Language Arts encompasses the domains of: Reading, Writing, Written and Oral English-Language Conventions, and Listening and Speaking.

The preparation program provides each candidate for a multiple subject teaching credential with experience in a classroom where beginning reading is taught. The program places all candidates in field experience sites and students teaching assignments with teachers whose instructional approaches and methods in reading are consistent with the Reading/Language Arts Framework (2007).

The primary course that prepares candidates to teach Reading-Language Arts is Westmont’s ED 170: Reading and Language Arts Instruction in Diverse Elementary Classrooms. The course is designed to provide candidates with the knowledge, skills, and instructional strategies need to asses, plan, and teach a balanced, comprehensive, systematic program of Language Arts instruction for the full range of learners. Candidates organize their knowledge in a systematic and sequential manner and learn research-based strategies for explicit instruction of reading, writing, listening, and speaking aligned to the state-adopted English Language Arts Content Standards and the Reading/Language Arts Framework. At the end of the term, candidates meet individually with the professor to orally communicate their knowledge of how to plan and deliver a balanced and comprehensive Language Arts program for the full range of learners.

In ED 170, candidates articulate verbally, in writing, and on three exams, that Language Arts encompasses the key elements of these domains: Reading (reading a wide range of increasing complex literature and informational texts, and being aware of text structures and features), Writing (utilizing the writing process, writing appropriately to persuade, inform, or narrate, writing for real audiences and real purposes, and using evidence to support one’s ideas), Language Convention (using academic and content vocabulary, and appropriate use of correct conventions, Listening and Speaking (engaging in academic discourse with partner/small groups/whole class and collaborating effectively).

In ED 170, candidates receive explicit instruction to meet the needs of the full range of learners: struggling readers (by identifying reading deficiencies early and targeted specific deficiencies), students with special needs (by utilizing research-based strategies to work with specific need), English Learners (by incorporating SDAIE strategies, front-loading vocabulary, supporting ELs with academic sentence frames), speakers of non-standard English (by incorporating sentence frames to structure student’s use of language in writing and speaking) and advanced learners (by incorporating enrichment strategies to go faster and/or deeper and utilizing multiple intelligence approaches).

In ED 170, candidates read about literacy framework and approaches in the following material:

• Tompkins, Gail (2014, 6th ed.). Literacy in the 21st Century: A balanced approach. Allyn & Bacon.
• (2007) K-12 Reading/Language Arts Framework for California Public Schools
• Lemov, Doug (2010). Teach Like a Champion. Jossey-Bass.
  • Chapter 10: “How all Teachers can (and must) be Reading Teachers”
  • Chapter 11: “The Fundamentals: Teaching Decoding, Vocabulary Development, and Fluency”
  • Chapter 12: “Comprehension: Teaching Students to Understand What They Read”

As part of two other required courses, candidates read the following relevant texts:

In ED 120: Elementary Social Studies and Science, candidates read:

• Cary, Stephen (2007, 2nd ed.). Working with Second Language Learners: Answers to Teachers’ Top Ten Questions, Heinemann.

In ENG 106: Language Acquisition, candidates read:

• Brown, Douglas (2007, 5th ed. ). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson.

Though ED 170 is the primary course where candidates learn how to offer effective instruction in reading, numerous other courses address essential elements of literacy development and instruction. ED 170 builds on the knowledge learning in ENG 106, PSY 115, ED 110, ED 100, ED 105, ED 120, ED 150, and ED 172. For example:

In ENG 106 (Language Acquisition) candidates examine the process of acquiring and developing first and second languages and the basic structures of English use. They examine fundamental components of human language including phonology, morphology, syntax and semantic analysis.

In PSY 115 (Child Development) candidates gain an understanding of theories of development, cognition, and multiple intelligences.

In ED 110 (Educational Psychology) candidates gain an understanding of theories of development, cognition, multiple intelligences, management, motivation to learn, assessment, transference, and generalization of skills.

In ED 105 (Cultural Diversity) candidates explore how diversity impacts learning in the contexts of schools. Note: candidates engage in a class partnership with a predominately Latino elementary classroom.

In ED 100 (Explorations in Teaching) candidates gain an understanding of current issues facing instructional practice in schools. Specific to this program standard, candidates address the impact of culture, English Learners, and SES on learning to read, write, listen, and speak. Note: candidates participate in a 40-hour fieldwork placement in a diverse elementary school.

In ED 120 (Social Studies and Science Methods) candidates learn to integrate reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills to help the full range of learners acquire content knowledge in Social Studies and Science.

In ED 150 (Math Methods) candidates learn to integrate reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills to help the full range of learners acquire content knowledge in Math.

In ED 130 (Special Education) Candidates investigate the needs of exceptional students in general education classes and consider strategies to appropriately modify assignments for special needs learners.

In ED 160 (Computers for the Classroom) candidates learn how to utilize technology to support students as readers and writers.

In ED 172 (Children’s Literature), a pre-requisite course, candidates investigate and analyze a wide variety of high-quality literature genres for different developmental stages of students.

In ED 190 (Student Teaching) candidates collaborate with their cooperating teacher to teach reading and writing skills as they assume increasing teaching responsibilities across 15 weeks (including a total of 4 weeks of full-time teaching).

In ED 195 (Student Teaching seminar) candidates meet weekly with their supervising professor to reflect on their experience, address concerns, and set goals. Literacy issues are addressed frequently.

The Multiple Subject credential program prepares candidates to do the following:

Standard 7A Appendices

• 7A.1 ED170Syllabus2017Fall.pdf
• 7A.2 Program Template for formal lesson plans
• 7A.3 Letter to parents/guardians
• 7A.4 ED 170 Literacy Case Studies
• 7A.5 ENG 106 (Language Acquisition)– syllabus

Standard 7-B: Single Subject Reading, Writing, and Related Language Instruction

The single subject teaching credential teacher preparation program provides substantive, research-based content literacy instruction (defined below) that effectively prepares each candidate to teach content-based reading and writing skills to a full range of students including struggling readers, students with special needs, English learners, speakers of non-standard English, and advanced learners. The single subject credential program prepares candidates to do the following:

The primary course that prepares single subject candidates to teach literacy skills is Westmont’s ED 171: Content Area Literacy. The course is designed to examine literacy as it applies to the study and acquisition of subject matter content. This course provides candidates with the knowledge, skills, and research-based instructional strategies needed to assess, plan, and teach content-based literacy skills to a full range of students in diverse secondary classrooms. At the end of the term, candidates meet individually with the professor to communicate orally their knowledge of literacy instruction and how they can meet the needs of the full range of students to access their specific content.

Though ED 171 is the primary course where candidates learn how to offer effective literacy to the full range of learners, there are numerous other courses that address essential elements of literacy development and instruction. For example:

• In ENG 106 (Language Acquisition) candidates examine the process of acquiring and developing first and second languages and the basic structures of English use. They examine fundamental components of human language including phonology, morphology, syntax and semantic analysis.
• In ED 111 (Educational Psychology) candidates gain an understanding of theories of development, cognition, multiple intelligences, management, motivation to learn, assessment, transference, and generalization of skills.
• In ED 105 (Cultural Diversity) candidates explore how diversity impacts learning in the contexts of schools. Note: candidates engage in a class partnership with a predominately Latino elementary classroom.
• In ED 101 (Explorations in Teaching) candidates gain an understanding of current issues facing instructional practice in schools. Specific to this program standard, candidates address the impact of culture, English Learners, and SES on learning to read, write, listen, and speak. Note: candidates participate in a 40-hour fieldwork placement in a diverse secondary school.
• In ED 121 (Subject-Area Curriculum and Instruction) candidates gain knowledge of instructional strategies, curriculum, materials, the preparation of instructional plans, and conceptual frameworks specific to the candidate’s major content area. Emphasis given to working with California 7-12 content standards and adapting instruction to the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse learners.
• In ED 130 (Special Education) Candidates investigate the needs of exceptional students in general education classes and consider strategies to appropriately modify assignments for special needs learners.
• In ED 151 (Secondary Curriculum, Classroom Management, and Instruction) candidates develop a syllabus for their content area that includes literacy aspects.
• In ED 161 (Computers for the Classroom) candidates learn how to utilize technology to support students as readers and writers.
• In ED 191 (Student Teaching) candidates collaborate with their Cooperating Teacher to teach content literacy skills.
• In ED 196 (Student Teaching seminar) candidates meet weekly with their supervising professor to reflect on their experience, address concerns, and set goals. Literacy issues are addressed frequently.

In ED 171, candidates read the following texts to examine content-based literacy strategies to facilitate learning of subject matter for the full range of learners in diverse classroom:

• Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2012, 3rd ed.). Improving Adolescent Literacy: Content Area Strategies at Work. Pearson.
• Fisher, Brozo, Frey, & Ivey (2011). 50 Instructional Routines to Develop Content Literacy. Pearson.
• Chapters 10-12 from Lemov, Doug (2010). Teach Like a Champion. Jossey-Bass. (required text for ED 111)
• CA. State Content Standards and Common Core Standards

Students also self-select a literacy book in your content area. Possible recommendations:

• English:
  • Appleman, D (2009, 2nd ed.). Critical Encounters in High School English: Teaching Literary Theory to Adolescents, Language and Literacy Series. Teachers College Press.
  • Atwell, N. (1998, 2nd ed.). In the Middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Heinemann.
  • Burke, J. (2007, 3rd ed.). The English Teacher's Companion: A Complete Guide to Classroom, Curriculum, and the Profession. Heinemann.
  • Gallagher, K. (2006). Teaching Adolescent Writers. Stenhouse.
  • Tovani, C. (2000). I Read It, But I Don’t Get It: Comprehension strategies for adolescent readers. Stenhouse.
• Math: Hancewicx, Heuer, Metsisto, Tuttle, and Kenney (2005). Literacy Strategies for Improving Mathematics Instruction.
• Science: Chamberlain, Crane (2009). Reading, Writing, and Inquiry in the Science Classroom,
  Grades 6-12: Strategies to improve content learning. Corwin.
• Social Studies:
  • Teacher Curriculum Institute Staff (2010). Bring Learning Alive: Methods to transform middle and high school social studies instruction. Teachers’ Curriculum Institute.
  • Irvin, J (1995). Enhancing Social Studies Through Literacy Strategies. National Council for the Social Studies.
• Art: Tucker, A (2001). Visual Literacy: Writing about Art. McGraw-Hill.

The Single Subject credential program prepares candidates to do the following:

Standards 7B Appendices

• 7B.1 ED 171 (Content Area Literacy)– syllabus
• 7B.2 Program Template for formal lesson plans
• 7B.3 Website example of ED 171 Instructional Strategies
• 7B.4 ED 171 Literacy Case Studies
• 7B.5 ED 171 Public Writing Assignment
• 7B.6 ENG 106 (Language Acquisition)– syllabus
• 7B.7 ED 121 (Secondary Curriculum and Instruction) – syllabus
• 7B.8 ED 101 (Explorations in Teaching) syllabus
• 7B.9 ED 151 (Secondary Curricula, Management and Instruction) -- syllabus
• 7B.10 ED 111 (Educational Psychology) Classroom Management Assignment
• 7B.11 ED 111 (Educational Psychology) Collaborative Research Project
• 7B.12 ED 111 (Educational Psychology) Letter to Parents/Guardians

Pedagogical Preparation for Subject-Specific Content Instruction

Standard 8-A- Pedagogical Preparation for Subject-Specific Content Instruction by Multiple Subject (MS) Candidates

In subjects other than Reading-Language Arts, the preliminary teacher preparation program provides introductory coursework and supervised practice that begin to prepare each candidate for a Multiple Subject (MS) teaching credential to plan and deliver content-specific instruction consistent with state-adopted academic content standards for students and curriculum frameworks in the following major subject areas: mathematics, science, history-social science, visual and performing arts, physical education, and health. In the program, MS candidates apply the appropriate Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) to the teaching of each major subject area. They learn and use specific pedagogical knowledge and skills that comprise the subject-specific TPEs for multiple subject candidates. In each major subject area, MS candidates demonstrate basic ability to plan and implement instruction that fosters student achievement of state-adopted academic content standards for students, using appropriate instructional strategies and materials. In the program, candidates begin to interrelate ideas and information within and across the major subject areas.

This entire area is one of our Multiple Subject Candidates’ strengths. Cooperating teachers in the field consistently rate Westmont’s MS candidates highly across the content areas—acknowledging their background knowledge as well as their pedagogical- content knowledge.

Students interested in a Multiple Subject Credential normally come to Westmont already relatively-well-prepared. By the time they have been accepted into the Westmont credential program, MS candidates have been steeped in a liberal arts environment that focuses on rigorous, carefully selected courses across the disciplines most relevant to the elementary curriculum.

Candidates consistently report being well prepared for the CSET, almost universally passing all required components on the first attempt ever since the CSET was first instituted in 2003.

MS Credential Program alumni report being well prepared to teach in the content areas, especially in the traditional core areas of the curriculum: English/Language Arts, History/Social Science, Mathematics, and Science. Although alumni are well prepared in the visual and performing arts, physical education, and health, they may have relatively less opportunity to practice instruction in these areas during their field placements.

In each of the methods classes that constitute the MS Credential Program, and/or relevant pre-requisite classes, candidates learn the California-adopted academic standards and learn about the State Academic Framework pertinent to that specific area of the curriculum. They learn and demonstrate a range of subject-specific instructional strategies and are exposed to a range of subject-specific instructional resources consistent with the state-adopted content standards.

In the subject areas of mathematics, science, history-social science, visual and performing arts, and physical education/health, MS candidates demonstrate their ability to plan developmentally appropriate lessons and demonstrate their ability to teach lessons in each of these areas even prior to beginning full-time field work. Likewise, during field- work, supervisors ensure that each candidate submits written lesson plans and has the opportunity to assume responsibility for full-class instruction in each of these areas.

Course instructors provide multiple readings, assignments, and discussions as opportunities for candidates to grow in the area of interrelating instruction among the different content areas comprising the elementary curriculum.

8A(a) Mathematics.

Prior to the MS credential program, candidates receive a thorough comprehensive grounding in mathematical concepts and the reasoning behind basic algorithms. They practice explaining mathematical concepts to one another in small groups throughout MA 160 and MA 165: Fundamentals of Mathematics I and II.

The main course relevant to pedagogical-content knowledge of mathematics is ED 150: Math Instruction for All Students—Elementary. Candidates take this course while engaged in their Early Field Experience, and the semester prior to full-time student teaching.

During full-time student teaching (ED 190), candidates complete fifteen weeks of full- time work in the elementary classroom, including the teaching of mathematics lessons in accord with the state-adopted curriculum standards. They include a brief reflection on their ability to teach mathematics—along with relevant supporting artifacts—see Sample MS Student Teaching Portfolio.

During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork:

Extracted from the MAT 160 Syllabus:

The purpose of Math 160 is to promote a thorough understanding of the mathematics you should know to be qualified to teach at the elementary level. This includes:

• The base 10 number system and the standard algorithms for the basic operations;
• The algebraic properties of and the differences between the whole numbers, the integers, and the rational numbers and how the number systems are related;
• The crucial role played by logic and pattern recognition in mathematics;
• The importance of functions and pairing relationships – particularly one-to-one correspondences and equivalence relations;
• The use of variables and algebraic expressions to communicate and understand general procedures and relationships.

This course is not intended to correct deficiencies in basic mathematical background – you have demonstrated your basic competency in arithmetic and algebra by satisfying Westmont’s mathematics admission requirement as a prerequisite to this course. Though this course will be sensitive to instructional issues, it is not intended to teach you how to teach – teaching methods will be addressed in courses from the Education Department.

Rather, its purpose is to deepen your mathematical understanding. The goal of this course is to reconsider from a more advanced perspective the mathematical processes and ideas that one encounters during the early part of an academic career. This deepened understanding is intended to equip you to analyze student misunderstanding and formulate alternate instructional approaches. Just as your reading abilities and appreciation of literature should far exceed the level of 'see spot run' or "Where the Red Fern Grows", so too one's knowledge and understanding of mathematics should extend beyond and be deeper than the material one will actually teach. This course will examine familiar mathematics from a perspective that will be new to most of you. We will focus on the abstract and theoretical structure of mathematics, emphasizing problem solving, communication, and reasoning. Put another way, rather than practicing computation, we will be exploring and communicating the ideas and reasons behind the mathematical manipulations.

Relationship to other expectations

The Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools (2005) (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ma/cf/) lists six goals for mathematics students.

1. that they develop fluency in computation;
2. that they learn to communicate mathematical ideas precisely;
3. that they develop logical thinking;
4. that they make connections among mathematical ideas and with other disciplines;
5. that they apply mathematics to everyday life;
6. that they develop an appreciation for the beauty and power of mathematics.

More recently, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers have been working on a Common Core State Standards Initiative. The final standards (http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf ) were released in June 2010 and since have been adopted by 45 of the 50 states.

California adopted the Common Core State Standards August 2, 2010. The standards identify the mathematical content that students should master at each grade level. For example, one of the outcomes for second graders is that they be able to “[e]xplain why addition and subtraction strategies work, using place value and the properties of operations.” Third graders should be able to “[c]ompare two fractions with the same numerator or the same denominator by reasoning about their size.”

Moreover, at every level, students are expected to engage in a set of common mathematical practices. Mathematical Practices

1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others.
4. Model with mathematics.
5. Use appropriate tools strategically.
6. Attend to precision.
7. Look for and make use of structure.
8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

As elementary school teachers, you will be responsible for helping students and departments achieve these goals. Thus in addition to knowing the basic algorithms and manipulations of mathematics, you must become competent problem solvers, good communicators and be able to reason mathematically. You will need to see how mathematics builds on itself. If you are to teach your students to appreciate mathematics, you must learn to value mathematics yourself.

The Common Core State Standards use 10 major headings under which the outcomes for each grade level are organized. At most five of the major categories are addressed at any grade level. The major headings and the grade levels at which they are first introduced are listed below. 1. Counting and Cardinality (Grade K) 2. Operations and Algebraic Thinking (Grade K) 3. Number and Operations in Base Ten (Grade K) 4. Measurement and Data (Grade K) 5. Geometry (Grade K) 6. Number and Operations – Fractions (Grade 3) 7. Ratios and Proportional Relationships (Grade 6) 8. The Number System (Grade 6) 9. Expressions and Equations (Grade 6) 10. Statistics and Probability (Grade 6)

MA 160 addresses the seven major headings which are listed in bold. The remaining three are taken up in MA 165. It is important to recognize that mathematics, and so this course, does not easily split up into simple categories. Just try doing measurement, probability, statistics, or algebra without understanding numbers. In turn, the ideas underlying numbers depend upon patterns, functions, logic, and are often best understood in terms of geometry and measurement. In general, mathematics consists of the search for patterns and the logical analysis of systems and structures. Geometry is meaningless until one begins to understand its patterns and structure via logic, but there are no patterns or structures to understand without some elementary geometric ideas in the first place. It is interesting to note that the areas least likely to be named as part of mathematics, namely patterns and logic, play such a central role in mathematics. Unfortunately, many students come away from mathematics lessons and courses believing mathematics to be an activity where students are to drill on computational techniques and instructors demonstrate the techniques and check answers. While some drill is needed, the driving force in mathematics should always be towards conceptual understanding. The value of understanding is clearly evident in the Common Core’s list of Mathematical Practices.

In response to Reviewers’ Round 2 Comment relevant to Mathematics—Comment #1: inter-relationships among topics in mathematics)

After receiving Reviewers’ Round 2 comments, we asked the CTC for clarification and direction as to what evidence on this point might be considered persuasive. At the suggestion of our Green Cohort Consultants, we have provided comments about student teacher performance from current Supervisors’ Logs.

In each case, the most direct relevant evidence we have highlighted in green. That is to say, the highlighting is NOT in the original notes of the e-conversation among Supervisor, Student, and Cooperating Teacher.

Because of the Dialogical Nature of these Logs, with comments from three different parties, it will be helpful either to read this on the computer, or if printed out, to print this material in its original color, which is used (often in conjunction with different fonts) to distinguish original comments from supervisor from the other parties’ comments.

The first comment is from a Cooperating Teacher, regarding a 3rd grade candidate:

8A-S3-Math-1-A-Comments from a 3rd Grade Cooperating Teacher

A second (partial) set of comments may be somewhat less directly relevant, but shows evidence of connections between mathematical topics and topics in other subjects:

8A-S3-Math-1-B-Comments on a candidate teaching 4th grade

The third is the commentary on a complete lesson completed early in a 5th grade teacher candidate’s classroom. The whole lesson, in this case, is about inter-relationships between different mathematical topics:

8A-S3-Math-1-C-Comments on a candidate teaching 5th grade

In response to Reviewers’ Round 2 comment on mathematics, Comment #2)

Again, after receiving Reviewers’ Round 2 comments, we asked the CTC for clarification and direction as to what evidence on this point might be considered persuasive. Once again, at the suggestion of our Green Cohort Consultants, we have provided comments about student teacher performance from Supervisors’ Logs.

Here are 5 extracts from Elementary Supervisor’s Observations, Spring 2016—3 different teacher candidates represented from 2 different schools and 2 different grade levels. There is a total of five lessons. The most direct evidence relevant to MODELING and ENCOURAGING elementary students to use MULTIPLE WAYS OF APPROACHING MATHEMATICAL PROBLEMS AND ENCOURAGING DISCUSSION OF DIFFERENT SOLUTION STRATEGIES, we have highlighted in green, below. That is to say, the highlighting is NOT in the original notes of the e-conversation among Supervisor, Student, and Cooperating Teacher. Because of the Dialogical Nature of these Logs, with comments from three different parties, it will be helpful to print this material in its original color, which is used (often in conjunction with different fonts) to distinguish original comments from supervisor from the other parties’ comments.

We PREDICT that an outside observer could find SOME evidence of the USE OF MULTIPLE STRATEGIES in math in almost any elementary student teacher’s Full Set of Observations. And certainly similar material is in the student teacher’s PLANBOOKS, if on-site reviewers would like further evidence of something our candidates demonstrate on a routine basis.

Examined carefully, there is ample evidence in these observations, as well, of various teachers’ work to foster positive attitudes to mathematics, through the use of food examples, personal stories, and helping students to feel safe.

8A-S3-Math-2-A: Example #1 of encouraging discussion of different solution strategies
8A-S3-Math-2-B: Example #2 of encouraging discussion of different solution strategies
8A-S3-Math-2-C: Example #3 of encouraging discussion of different solution strategies
8A-S3-Math-2-D: Example #4 of encouraging discussion of different solution strategies
8A-S3-Math-2-E-- Example 5 of encouraging discussion of different solution strategies

8A(b) Science.

Prior to the MS credential program, candidates receive an introduction—in the form of a four-unit course each—to (a) Life Science; (b) Physical Science; and (c) Earth Science, including oceanography, meteorology, and astronomy. (LS 12: Life Sciences, PHS 11: Physical Science, and PHS 114: Earth Science)PHS114

In addition to the modeling candidates have received previously, the main context for developing pedagogical-content knowledge and skills for effective instruction in science comes through ED 120: Social Studies and Science Instruction—Elementary. In this four-unit class taken the semester prior to full-time student teaching, candidates’ attention is divided about equally between social studies and science—for the most part taught as two distinct course modules.

During full-time student teaching (ED 190), candidates complete fifteen weeks of full- time work in the elementary classroom, including the teaching of science lessons in accord with the state-adopted curriculum standards (NGSS). They include a brief reflection on their ability to teach science—along with relevant supporting artifacts—in their MS Student Teaching Portfolio.

During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork:

8A(c) History-Social Science.

Prior to the MS credential program, candidates receive a thorough comprehensive grounding in HIS 7: American History, HIS 9: World Civilizations, and HIS 178: California Experience.

In addition to the modeling candidates have received previously, the main context for developing pedagogical-content knowledge and skills for effective instruction in history/social science comes through ED 120: Social Studies and Science Instruction— Elementary. In this four-unit class taken the semester prior to full-time student teaching, candidates’ attention is divided about equally between social studies and science—for the most part taught as two distinct course modules.

During full-time student teaching (ED 190), candidates complete fifteen weeks of full- time work in the elementary classroom, including the teaching of history-social science lessons in accord with the state-adopted curriculum standards. They include a brief discussion of their ability to teach history-social science—along with relevant supporting artifacts—in their final portfolio.

During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork,

8A(d) Visual and Performing Arts.

Prior to the MS credential program, candidates receive an in-depth experience in two courses: ART 180: Art for Children & Adolescents and MU 184: Music for Children.

Again, prior to the credential program, candidates receive practice in incorporating elements of drama in the teaching of literature as part of ED 172: Literature for Children and Adolescents (see pp. 6-7) Elements of drama and visual arts are likewise incorporated into model activities during ED 170: Reading/Language Arts -- taken during the fall semester of the Credential Program.

Elements of dance are taught during KNS 155: Fundamentals of Movement, discussed below, in conjunction with the main course text, Robert Pangrazi, Dynamic Physical Education for Elementary School Children.

During methods classes taken during the fall semester prior to full-time student teaching, candidates are encouraged at several points to integrate art and music into their teaching of other core subjects. For example, in ED 150 candidates demonstrate connections between music and mathematics. In ED 120, candidates are exposed to several resources that use music as part of teaching California History and as part of Ancient Civilizations. In the same course, the use of art as a primary source in history; and the use of art in expressing students’ learning is introduced.

All MS candidates submit a full written lesson plan during full-time student teaching as representative of their ability to teach the Visual and Performing Arts in a manner consistent with the state-adopted academic content standards.

During full-time student teaching (ED 190), candidates complete fifteen weeks of full- time work in the elementary classroom, including the teaching of lessons in accord with the state-adopted curriculum standards for the Visual and Performing Arts. At minimum, this takes the form of one full lesson in the Visual Arts, even in school settings where the MS Candidate is not primarily responsible for instruction in the arts. Typically, MS Candidates include music and elements of the theatre arts in their student teaching placements as well. They include a brief discussion of their ability to teach the Visual and Performing Arts—along with relevant supporting artifacts—in their final portfolio.

During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork,

Reviewers responded to what was submitted above by repeating the component of the standard relevant to the arts.

“During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork, MS candidates learn specific teaching strategies that are effective in supporting them to teach the state-adopted academic content standards for students in visual and performing arts. They guide students in achieving the goals of artistic perception; creative expression, understanding the cultural and historical origins of the arts; pursing meaning in the arts, and making informed judgments about the arts.”

We have discussed this within the program, but have not been able to determine what specific information would be helpful to the reviewers.

One possible and understandable concern was that the version of the syllabus originally submitted as primary evidence for the VISUAL ART component did not go into detail as to what occurred on which sessions. A more up to date syllabus (and more detailed syllabus, with enumerated techniques and media by specific session) for ART 180 is provided here:

This may or may not be relevant, but back in 2003-04, when our Liberal Studies major was submitted to the CTC as part of the 2042 revisions for approval as an Elementary Subject Matter [“waiver”] program, these courses and associated assignments were comprehensively approved. If anything, our coursework is stronger today than it was at that time.

No concerns relevant to the Visual & Performing Arts were raised at the time of the 2009 Accreditation Site Visit, when a comparable set of requirements were in place, and somewhat comparable information was provided to the CTC. We understand, of course, that reviewers need to work with the program as it exists now, and with the CTC’s CURRENT standards. We provide this context simply as part of our explanation that we are not sure what further information would be helpful at this time.

The institution is doing its best to understand, and respond to, the reviewers’ concerns. As we indicated in the second submission, we were not at all clear as to the specific focus of the reviewers’ concerns; and we are still operating in the dark based on the response of the reviewers above.

Is the concern about the SPECIFIC TEACHING STRATEGIES? If so, a number of these are indicated on the course syllabi and required textbooks used in ART 180 and MU 184.

Or is the concern about HOW the strategies are acquired? The syllabi show that the strategies are acquired partly

(a) by the modeling of the instructor;
(b) partly by active participation in sample strategies;
(c) partly by each member of the class actively teaching an art lesson (ART 180); and
(d) partly by participating in doing and learning art in the role of K-12 students while their peer does the sample teaching referenced in point (c).

The final sentence [“The response to the standard discusses the artistic development of the candidate, not how the candidate guides their students”] suggests that the reviewers may be less concerned about what WASC and other accrediting agencies used to call “course inputs,” and more concerned to see the “outputs” of candidates. If we are reading the concern correctly, perhaps reviewers would be interested in sample lessons from current or recent student teachers that SHOW candidates “guiding elementary students in achieving the goals of artistic perception; creative expression, understanding the cultural and historical origins of the arts; pursing meaning in the arts, and making informed judgments about the arts.” This is what our CTC consultants suggested might be most helpful.

Accordingly, we have attached sample lessons.

The first sample shows how a candidate introduced to Grade 3 students:

• Elements of VPAS-Visual Arts Strands 1 (Artistic Perception), 3 (Historical & Cultural Context), and 4 (Aesthetic Valuing)

The second sample shows how a candidate introduced to Grade 5 students:

• Elements of VPAS-Visual Arts Strands 1 (Artistic Perception), specifically helping students to:

Develop Perceptual Skills and Visual Arts Vocabulary:

1.1 Identify and describe the principles of design in visual compositions, emphasizing unity and harmony.

Although not identified as such on the written lesson plan this lesson also relates to Strand 5 (Connection, Relationship, Applications)

The third sample shows how a candidate introduced to Grade 2 students:

• Elements of VPAS-Visual Arts Strands 1 (Artistic Perception)

The fourth sample, incorporating the styles of Van Gogh, Kandinsky, and Frank Stella, shows how a candidate introduced to Grade 6 students to:

• Elements of VPAS-Visual Arts relevant to 1 (Artistic Perception), 2 (Creative Expression 3 (Historical & Cultural Context), 4 (Aesthetic Valuing), and 5 (Connection, Relationship, Applications)

The fifth sample shows how a candidate working with Grade 4 and 5 students introduced activities relevant to :

• Elements of VPAS-Visual Arts Strand 1 (Artistic Perception) and 5 (Connection, Relationship, Applications)

8A(e) Physical Education.

Prior to the MS credential program, candidates enroll in PEA 32: Fitness for Life as well as two, one-unit physical education activity courses. Candidates have an extremely wide range of options for their activity courses, from introductions to traditional sports, to less traditional activities such as yoga or Latin Dance.

The main course where skills and attitudes most directly relevant to teaching elementary children are developed is KNS 155: Fundamentals of Movement.

During full-time student teaching (ED 190), candidates complete fifteen weeks of full- time work in the elementary classroom, including the teaching of lessons in accord with the state-adopted curriculum standards for Physical Education. At minimum, this takes the form of one full lesson in the Physical Education, even in school settings where the MS Candidate is not primarily responsible for instruction in PE. Candidates include a brief discussion of their ability to teach physical education—along with relevant supporting artifacts—in their final portfolio.

During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork,

Reviewers understandably requested a complete syllabus for KNS 155, since the one initially provided was missing pages.

A more complete syllabus for KNS 155: Fundamentals of Movement is now provided.

Reviewers indicated that even in the revised response to the standards, the complete syllabus “did not reflect the narrative response to the standards nor did it provide sufficient information for how the program fulfills the following portion of the standard. It is recommended that the syllabus for KNS 155 be fleshed out to include the multiple lessons plans mentioned in the narrative. Additionally, it is not clear how the readings, referenced in the narrative, are a part of the syllabus.

During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork, MS candidates learn content-specific teaching strategies that are effective in supporting them to teach the state-adopted academic content standards for students in physical education. They guide students in achieving the goals of the development of a variety of motor skills and abilities in students, developing student recognition of the importance of a healthy lifestyle, developing student knowledge of human movement, student knowledge of the rules and strategies of games and sports, and student self-confidence and self-worth in relation to physical education and recreation.

A significantly revised syllabus for KNS 155 is provided which attempts to more clearly align with the narrative response to the standard and provide sufficient information for how the program fulfills the standard. The syllabus has been fleshed out to show how the readings referenced in the narrative, are a part of the syllabus. In addition, sample lesson plans prepared by pre-candidates show representative activities taught in the interest of developing a variety of motor skills and other specified elements of the standard:

• Sample lesson plan prepared for kindergarten
• Sample lesson plan prepared for Grade 1
• Sample lesson plan prepared for Grade 2
• Sample lesson plan prepared for Grade 3
• Sample lesson plan prepared for Grade 4
• Sample lesson plan prepared for Grade 5
• Sample lesson plan prepared for Grade 6

8A(f) Health.

Reviewers repeated the component of the Standard, as follows:

“[Candidates] guide students in achieving the goals of the acceptance of personal responsibility for lifelong health, respect for and promotion of the health of others, understanding of the process of growth and development, and informed use of health-related information, products, and services.”

Here again, we have discussed this as a program and are not certain where the primary locus of the reviewers’ concerns lies.

We continue to believe our candidates are well equipped to guide K-12 students in the areas above, and demonstrate that capacity in whatever areas of the curriculum they are asked to address during their major field experience. Candidates in recent years have been well prepared, for instance, to fulfill cooperating teachers’ requests to teach a nutrition unit to sixth-graders; or a human body unit to fifth-graders, to cite two recent examples.

We are happy to provide additional evidence of candidate work or whatever else might be helpful at this stage, once we have a clearer sense of where the concerns and questions lie.

Prior to the MS credential program, candidates enroll in KNS 156: Health Education for the Classroom Teacher. As described in the syllabus, students not only learn to apply course content to themselves, as human beings and as professional teachers, but also “to assist prospective teachers with curriculum ideas and strategies for teaching health education.”

During full-time student teaching (ED 190), candidates complete fifteen weeks of full- time work in the elementary classroom, including the teaching of at least one complete lesson in Health, referencing state-adopted curriculum standards.

During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork,

Standard 8A Appendices

8.1 MA 160 and MA 165: Fundamentals of Mathematics I and II
8.2 ED 150: Math Instruction for All Students—Elementary.
8.3 Sample Multiple Subject Candidate’s final e-portfolio
8.4 Table of Contents: Van de Walle et al., Ch. 3-4
8.5 Slideshow/movie assignment 8.6a LS 12: Life Sciences
8.6 b PHS 11: Physical Sciences 8.6c PHS 114: Earth Sciences
8.7 ED 120: Social Studies and Science Instruction—Elementary
8.8a HIS 7: American History
8.8 b HIS 9: World History
8c HIS 178: California History
8.9 Table of Contents, Social Studies Alive!
8.10 Far Away and Long Ago, Table of Contents
8.11 Joan of Arc Page activity
8.12 Unit Plan
8.13 a ART 180: Art for Children 8.13b MU 184 Music for Children
8.14 ED 172: Literature for Children and Adolescents.
8.15 ED 170: Reading/Language Arts
8.16 KNS 155: Fundamentals of Movement
8.17 Table of Contents for Hurwitz, Children and Their Art
8.18 PEA 32: Fitness for Life
8.19 KNS 156: Health for the Classroom Teacher
8.20 Table of Contents, Promoting Emotional Health
8.21 PSY 115: Child and Adolescent Development

8A-R.1 KNS 155: Fundamentals of Movement
8A-R.2 Teacher interview assignment in ED 120
8A-R.3 More current (and more detailed) Syllabus for ART 180: Art for Children

Standard 8-B:
Pedagogical Preparation for Subject-Specific Content Instruction by Single Subject (SS) Candidates

Single Subject Candidates enter the Westmont credential program well prepared in their chosen field, and well poised to equip themselves further with pedagogical content- knowledge and skills.

The primary courses where subject-specific instructional skills are developed are ED 121: Curriculum and Instructional Planning—Secondary; ED 171: Content Area Literacy—Secondary; ED 151: Curriculum, Classroom Management, and Instruction— Secondary.

[Subsequent to the Initial Submission for Program Assessment, the syllabus labeled ED 121 (subject-specific pedagogy for all Single Subject Candidates) has been replaced by individually-tailored and individually-numbered Subject-Specific Pedagogy courses. This was not requested by the reviewers, but is simply a change that has occurred since the Initial submission.

References to “ED 121,” below, were not changed during 2016-17, in order to respect the integrity of the Original Document. At the same time, reviewers should know that when ED 121 is mentioned, it is referring to what is now the entire SET of course syllabi written for subject-specific pedagogy.]

Previous to the Single Subject program, as part of ED 101, single subject candidates have completed a forty-hour placement, typically over ten weeks, in a carefully selected subject-specific mentor’s classroom in the local area.

In ED 121, candidates complete an additional thirty-hour placement in a subject-specific mentor’s classroom (This 30-hour placement is shared with the course below: ED 171). Candidates also meet their designated Clinical Subject-Area Mentor—typically the same as their classroom host—for additional structured sessions outside of the school placement. Virtually all assignments completed in ED 121 are focused on the candidate’s particular subject.

During the same semester as ED 121, candidates take ED 171: Content Area Literacy— Secondary, where all assignments are focused on the individual candidate’s particular subject area.

Further development of subject-specific pedagogical knowledge and skills occurs in ED 151 in early January, where again almost all assignments are focused on the candidate’s particular subject. Each candidate reads a recommended subject-specific instructional methods text as part of ED 151.

Single-subject candidates complete an all-day, full public school semester placement in a local junior high or high school, extending approximately five weeks beyond Westmont’s spring semester. Among other expectations, candidates assume full semester-long responsibility for three courses. Since they know the Westmont candidate will be present all semester long, administrators and cooperating teachers traditionally have given Westmont student teachers a degree of authority over grading and other aspects of the classroom exceeding those normally granted to student teachers from other programs who may be present for shorter placements.

Westmont is approved to offer preliminary single subject credentials in eight areas:

• Art
• English
• History/Social Science
• Mathematics
• Physical Education
• Science
• World Languages: Spanish
• Music

Among these areas, English and History/Social Science have traditionally attracted more candidates. Spanish and Music are still new to Westmont’s Department of Education. Although students regularly express interest in the possibility of teaching both fields, and although the pipeline of undergraduate majors is steady or growing, we have not yet admitted candidates in these two areas.

While the small total number of Single Subject candidates precludes offering separate courses in each discipline, the small total number allows for a great deal of individual attention to each Single Subject Candidate. In all of the Single Subject Credential classes, professors tailor the content of courses and field placements to each individual candidate’s particular needs. Guest speakers and small-group observations of a teacher at work in the classroom are arranged with that year’s cohort and their specific content- areas in mind.

Cooperating teachers consistently rate Single Subject candidates highly, and express high praise for the design and implementation of the Single Subject program [Complete set of Cooperating Teacher comments from 2013].

In the subject to be authorized by the single subject teaching credential, the preliminary teacher preparation program provides substantive instruction and supervised practice that effectively prepare each candidate for an SS Credential to plan and deliver content-specific instruction that is consistent with (a) the state-adopted academic content standards for students and/or curriculum framework in the content area, and (b) the basic principles and primary values of the underlying discipline.

Assignments focused on subject-specific instruction, including developing familiarity with state-adopted content standards and academic frameworks; and including the demonstration of the candidate’s understanding of the basic principles and primary values underlying the discipline.

The program provides multiple opportunities for each SS candidate (a) to learn, practice and reflect on the specific pedagogical knowledge and skills that comprise the Commission adopted subject-specific Teaching Performance Expectations (TPE 1B), and (b) to apply the TPEs to instruction in the subject to be authorized by the credential.

As shown in the chart above, candidates have multiple and sustained opportunities from the pre-professional stage up to full-time student teaching to learn, practice, and reflect on their subject-specific pedagogical knowledge and skills. One instrument that serves as a spur to reflect on the subject-specific TPEs (TPE 1B) is this series of subject-specific charts, given to candidates early in the Credential Program year, and towards the end of the program.

Again, as shown in the chart above, candidates have multiple and sustained opportunities to apply the TPEs to instruction in their specific subject-area throughout the program.

Candidates’ fullest demonstration of their ability to apply the TPEs in their specific subject area, of course, is demonstrated in the extended spring semester of the Credential Program year, where (among other responsibilities) candidates are fully in charge of three periods of instruction in their specific subject area, under the guidance of one or more carefully-selected mentors in that same subject area. Moreover, candidates are observed weekly by their college supervisor, and participate regularly in two- or three-way conferences (including one or more cooperating teachers). Single Subject student teachers are simultaneously enrolled in ED 196: Student Teaching Seminar, where among other activities, they gather to reflect on their instruction, including reflection on the particular demands of their chosen subject.

In the program, each SS candidate demonstrates basic ability to: plan and organize instruction to foster student achievement of state-adopted K-12 academic content standards for students in the subject area; use instructional strategies, materials, technologies and other resources to make content accessible to students; and interrelate ideas and information within and across major subdivisions of the subject.

Candidates’ fullest demonstration of their ability to plan and organize instruction in their specific subject area is demonstrated in the extended spring semester of the Credential Program year, where (among other responsibilities) candidates are fully in charge of three periods of instruction in their specific subject area, under the guidance of one or more carefully-selected mentors in that same subject area. Moreover, candidates are observed weekly by their college supervisor, and participate regularly in two- or three-way conferences (including one or more cooperating teachers). Single Subject student teachers are simultaneously enrolled in ED 196: Student Teaching Seminar, where among other activities, they gather to reflect on their instruction, including reflection on the particular demands of their chosen subject. Candidates also participate in Professional Learning Communities in their subject area at the school site.

Candidates prepare a comprehensive electronic portfolio documenting their ability to plan and implement instruction in their chosen subject area. Candidates demonstrate their ability to implement technology on a regular basis during student teaching, and are assessed on these skills as part of the cooperating teacher’s evaluation of TPE #4:
Making Content Accessible. They further represent their ability to use different technologies within their electronic portfolio itself, and the portfolio as a whole is one additional demonstration of their technological expertise.

Candidates demonstrate their ability to teach across major subdivisions of their subject, in part, in completing the student teaching assignment itself—which normally involves different components of (say) History/Social Science: a teacher may be assigned a government class, a US History class, and a World History class. As part of their response to TPE #1, candidates include reflection on their knowledge and skills across the sub-divisions of their subject area.

8B (a) Mathematics. During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork:

In addition to the many common assignments briefly described above and described in more detail in course syllabi—commonly framed assignments, but which in fact speak to the nitty-gritty details of different disciplinary demands of the sort identified below— candidates’ knowledge and skill in each of the areas mentioned here is developed through the reading of a subject-area text in ED 121 and in ED 151:

• David Rock and Douglas K. Brumbaugh, Teaching Secondary Mathematics, 4th ed.

Or equivalent text(s) approved by the course instructor and department chair

-----------------------

8B (b) Science. During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork:

In addition to the many common assignments briefly described above and described in more detail in course syllabi and/or course handouts—commonly framed assignments, but which in fact speak to the nitty-gritty details of different disciplinary demands of the sort identified below—candidates’ knowledge and skill in each of the areas mentioned here is developed through the reading of a subject-area text in ED 121 and in ED 151:

• Rodger W. Bybee, Janet Carlson Powell, and Leslie W. Trowbridge, Teaching Secondary School Science: Strategies for Developing Scientific Literacy, 9th edition;

Or equivalent text(s) approved by the course instructor and department chair

8B(c) History-Social Science. During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork:

In addition to the many common assignments briefly described above and described in more detail in course syllabi and/or course handouts—commonly framed assignments, but which in fact speak to the nitty-gritty details of different disciplinary demands of the sort identified below—candidates’ knowledge and skill in each of the areas mentioned here is developed through the reading of a subject-area text in ED 121 and in ED 151:

• Bower & Lobdell, History Alive! Engaging All Learners in the Diverse Classroom; and
• Sam Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past

Or equivalent text(s) approved by the course instructor and department chair.

8B(d) English. During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork:

In addition to the many common assignments briefly described above and described in more detail in course syllabi and/or course handouts—commonly framed assignments, but which in fact speak to the nitty-gritty details of different disciplinary demands of the sort identified below—candidates’ knowledge and skill in each of the areas mentioned here is developed through the reading of a subject-area text in ED 121 and in ED 151:

• Mary Lou Brandi and Katherine S. McKnight, The English Teacher's Survival Guide: Ready-To-Use Techniques and Materials for Grades 7-12

Or equivalent text(s) approved by the course instructor and department chair.

Teacher candidates in English understand, plan, design, and implement instruction that includes the following:

8B(e) Art. During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork:

In addition to the many common assignments briefly described above and described in more detail in course syllabi and/or course handouts—commonly framed assignments, but which in fact speak to the nitty-gritty details of different disciplinary demands of the sort identified below—candidates’ knowledge and skill in each of the areas mentioned here is developed through the reading of a subject-area text in ED 121 and in ED 151:

• Amy Tucker: Visual Literacy: Writing about Art, 2002; and
• Helen D. Hume, The Art Teacher’s Survival Guide for Secondary Schools, 2nd edition, 2014

Or equivalent text(s) approved by the course instructor and department chair

8B(f) Music. During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork:

In order for candidates to take advantage of pedagogical expertise within Westmont’s Department of Music, the proposal to add Music to the list of subjects for which we are approved to recommend preliminary candidates stated that MU 184: Music for Children and MU 185: Music in the Secondary Schools would be substituted for enrollment in ED 121: Curriculum and Instructional Planning--Secondary. The candidates in Music would attend on a non-credit basis specific sessions only of ED 121, in order to ensure that, among all program coursework, every competency was adequately developed.

Westmont has yet to accept a Music candidate into the Single Subject program (one applicant applied two years ago, but was not accepted and completed his credential at a different California institution.) Depending on the success in practice of the original idea, we are prepared to revise requirements so as to include MU 184, MU 185, and (the whole of) ED 121.

In addition to the many common assignments briefly described above and described in more detail in course syllabi and/or course handouts—commonly framed assignments, but which in fact speak to the nitty-gritty details of different disciplinary demands of the sort identified below—candidates’ knowledge and skill in each of the areas mentioned here is developed through the reading of a subject-area text in ED 121 and in ED 151:

• Robert A. Duke, Intelligent Music Teaching: Essays on the Core Principles of Effective Instruction; and
• Eric Booth, The Music Teaching Artist's Bible: Becoming a Virtuoso Educator

Or equivalent text(s) approved by the course instructor and department chair

Perhaps even more than other subject areas of Standard 8B, the skills and habits of mind identified here are explicitly developed in the undergraduate major. Please refer to the following Westmont College Catalog pages for the description of the Music Education Major.

8B(g) Physical Education. During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork:

In addition to the many common assignments itemized above and described in more detail in course syllabi—commonly framed assignments, but which in fact speak to the nitty-gritty details of different disciplinary demands of the sort identified below--candidates’ knowledge and skill in each of the areas mentioned here is developed through the reading of the following text for ED 121 read in ED 121 and ED 151:

• Darst & Pangrazi, Dynamic Physical Education for Secondary School Students, 6th ed. (2009)

Or equivalent text(s) approved by the course instructor and department chair

8B(h) World Language. During interrelated activities in program coursework and fieldwork:

Westmont was recently approved (2013) to offer Spanish, under the category of World Languages, and that is the only language we intend to accept Credential Applicants for.

In addition to the many common assignments itemized above and described in more detail in course syllabi—commonly framed assignments, but which in fact speak to the nitty-gritty details of different disciplinary demands of the sort identified below-- candidates’ knowledge and skill in each of the areas mentioned here is developed through the reading of the following text read in ED 121 and ED 151:

• Deborah Blaz, Foreign Language Teacher's Guide to Active Learning 8b16ForeignLanguageTextbook

Or equivalent text(s) approved by the course instructor and department chair

Standard 8B Appendices

8B.1 ED 121: Curriculum and Instructional Planning—Secondary 8B.2 ED 171: Content Area Literacy—Secondary
8B.3 ED 151: Curriculum, Classroom Management, and Instruction—Secondary 8B.4 Complete set of cooperating teacher comments from 2013
8B.5 Series of subject-specific self-assessment chart
8B.6 David Rock and Douglas K. Brumbaugh, Teaching Secondary Mathematics, 4th ed.
8B.7 Rodger W. Bybee, Janet Carlson Powell, and Leslie W. Trowbridge, Teaching Secondary School Science: Strategies for Developing Scientific Literacy, 9th edition
8B.8 Bower & Lobdell, History Alive! Engaging All Learners in the Diverse Classroom 8B.9 Sam Wineburg, Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past
8B.10 Mary Lou Brandi & Katherine S. McKnight, The English Teacher’s Survival Guide: Ready-to-use Techniques and Materials for Grades 7-12
8B.11 Amy Tucker: Visual Literacy: Writing about Art;
8B.12 Helen D. Hume, The Art Teacher’s Survival Guide for Secondary Schools, 2nd edition
8B.13 Robert A. Duke, Intelligent Music Teaching: Essays on the Core Principles of Effective Instruction;
8B.14 Eric Booth The Music Teaching Artist's Bible: Becoming a Virtuoso Educator 8B.15 Darst & Pangrazi, Dynamic Physical Education for Secondary School Students 8B.16 Deborah Blaz, Foreign Language Teacher's Guide to Active Learning
8B.17 Westmont College Catalog, Music Major 8B.18 Westmont College Catalog, Spanish Major

8B1.R ED 125:Science Curriculum & Instruction

Equity, Diversity and Access to the Curriculum for All Children

Reviewers wrote:

It is clear that students are exposed to many different underrepresented groups but it is not clear how they demonstrate knowledge of maximizing educational potential. Specifically, the following areas of the standard needs more explanation…

In response, please see remarks below, in the context of each particular component of the Standard.

Candidates examine principles of educational equity, diversity, cultural and linguistic responsiveness and their implementation in curriculum content and school practices for all students.

Preparing candidates for an increasingly diverse student population is a priority throughout the Westmont Multiple and Single Subject programs. Located in a city and county where the percentage of non-White, non-Anglo students exceeds state and national averages, we work constantly and systematically as a faculty to take advantage of each daily opportunity to prepare candidates for helping non-mainstream students and students who qualify for free-or-reduced-lunch succeed, academically and otherwise. We make every effort to use field sites only where candidates and pre-professionals will have regular exposure to students and fellow educators of color. We also include success with diverse learners as a criterion on our list of qualifications for cooperating teachers. Evaluation scoresheets and rubrics regularly include criteria such as “incorporates strategies particularly effective with English Learners.”

Although emphasized throughout the program, the most systematic and intensive exposure to issues related to diversity, including cultural and linguistic responsiveness, is in ED 105: Perspectives on Cultural Diversity, typically taken prior to candidates being accepted into the Multiple or Single Subject credential program. Candidates who have not taken the course previously may take it as a co-requisite. Almost equally central is the curriculum of ENG 106: Language Acquisition—again taken as a pre-requisite (typically), or much less commonly as a co-requisite.

Almost every pre-requisite course or course in the credential program contributes to candidates’ ability to teach non-mainstream students, starting with ED 100 or ED 101 in which candidates complete (among other assignments relevant to this Standard—See below) a forty-hour practicum in a culturally diverse setting.

Candidates provide all students equitable access to the core curriculum and all aspects of the school community. The program provides opportunities for candidates to learn how to maximize academic achievement for students from all ethnic, race, socio-economic, cultural, academic, and linguistic or family backgrounds; gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation; students with disabilities and advanced learners; and students with a combination of special instructional needs.
Candidates are prepared to effectively teach diverse students by increasing candidates’ knowledge and understanding of the background experiences, home languages, skills and abilities of student populations; and by teaching them to apply appropriate pedagogical practices informed by sound theory and research that provide access to the core curriculum and lead to high achievement for all students.

Throughout the program and pre-requisite courses, candidates are regularly and explicitly reminded of their responsibility to help ALL students succeed, including students from traditionally marginalized groups. Students are exposed to ways in which American public schools and teachers can serve students of color, students in poverty, students with non-mainstream linguistic histories, and other groups referenced above through the following readings and course discussions.

Reviewers asked for more information specifically on how the program, in the words of the Standard 9 component immediately above (and repeated immediately below) provides opportunities for candidates to learn how to “maximize academic achievement” for each of the groups listed.

The program provides opportunities for candidates to learn how to maximize academic achievement for students from all ethnic, race, socio-economic, cultural, academic, and linguistic or family backgrounds; gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation; students with disabilities and advanced learners; and students with a combination of special instructional needs.

In one sense, virtually everything we do in the program is about maximizing academic achievement for all. As we have tried very deliberately to make clear throughout the Program Standards Document, this is an all-pervading set of concerns throughout the program.

Again, one way to documents this concern is that every lesson plan, every unit plan, candidates complete as part of their on-campus work or field work includes a required section of ways to ensure the maximum academic achievement for a range of learners in the context of that particular lesson. Again, please see the standard template for lesson plans, where candidates routinely and systematically document how they have designed instruction to meet (among others) the needs of English Learners, students with disabilities, and advanced learners.

Certainly everything done in this one course completed by all Multiple Subject and Single Subject candidates, ED 105: Perspectives on Cultural Diversity and Education, is not merely about exposure: it’s directly and indirectly about maximizing academic achievement for each of the groups identified above. In this case we will clearly modify the syllabus in the future, as follows, to substantiate in greater detail the kinds of strategies to which candidates are exposed to in relation to each category or sub-category of student identified in the syllabus.

While it is not as explicit in the syllabus as it might be, a current, dominant, and pervasive theme in the course is helping students—all students; and helping parents—all parents, feel welcome and included. To feel safe.

As a precondition for all other strategies for maximizing academic achievement, the course talks about the need for students to feel physically and emotionally safe. This handout from ED 105: Day One is succeeded by talking (not for the last time in this course or in this program) about ways to help candidates’ own K-12 students, in turn, to feel safe as a precondition to all other learning, academic and otherwise.

The table below includes a very small sampling of strategies for maximizing academic success currently taught in this ED 105 course (all the while realizing, as explicitly explained to candidates) that these are generalizations and that there is enormous individual and sub-group variation within each of the following groups.

Candidates study and discuss the historical and cultural traditions of the cultural and ethnic groups in California society, and examine effective ways to include cultural traditions and community values and resources in the instructional program of a classroom.

One of the core emphases of ED 105 is specific narratives representing the experiences of different cultural groups. The historical background is given particular emphasis throughout the course.
Resources for candidates’ own further study and resources appropriate for K-12 students are regularly identified in context throughout the course. We try not to wear out the same guest speakers, year after year, but we regularly incorporate guests from on- and off-campus to speak to their own individual experience and possible implications of their experience for others who self-identify similarly. While in this particular case the program cannot guarantee that every candidate, every year, is exposed to a guest speaker from each of these groups in this particular class, we can guarantee that candidates will have exposure in class—and throughout the program—to persons with backgrounds different than the candidate majority. Guests who have spoken in recent years include those who can speak to potentially representative experiences of:

• Eastern European immigrants
• African Americans
• Self-identified gay/lesbians, as well as a student with lesbian parents
• Native Americans and those who have taught in Native American schools
• Asian Americans, including Chinese, Japanese, and Korean
• Students of Mixed race
• Native Hawaiians
• Filipinos
• Latinos, including visiting Mexican nationals, as well as Mexican-Americans

A sampling of the resources to which candidates are exposed in this one course only—apart from numerous references throughout the program to the Latino majority population in local school districts—is shown in the table below. Normally instructor brings to class suggestions for further reading, apart from what is listed here:

Reviewers wrote:

It is clear that students are exposed to many different underrepresented groups….[ but it is not clear how] “Candidates study and discuss ...and examine effective ways to include cultural traditions and community values and resources in the instructional program of a classroom.”

Clearly in the list provided initially in response to this component of the Standard, the emphasis is on what candidates are exposed to---not what the candidates are doing, in turn, to include various cultural traditions, community values, and resources in the instructional program of THEIR K-12 classrooms. There is, of course, some overlap in these two sets of resources, but most of the items we initially cited were, yes---intended for the candidates themselves.

We welcome, then, the opportunity to provide examples of the many, many resources candidates are exposed to with respect to introducing cultural traditions, values, and resources to students in THEIR K-12 classrooms. Since this material is not as explicit as it could be on the syllabus, especially for ED 105, ED 120: Elementary Social Studies and Science, and/or ED 123: SS History/Social Science, we will ensure that effective Fall 2016 these syllabi include extra detail to pinpoint which particular days some of this material is introduced. [We missed our deadline for making these items explicit on relevant syllabi. Program is updating these syllabi for Fall 2017.]

Candidates develop the ability to recognize and eliminate bias in order to create an equitable classroom community that contributes to the physical, social, emotional, and intellectual safety of all students. The program includes a series of planned experiences in which candidates learn to identify, analyze, and minimize personal and institutional bias.

Bias in curriculum and instruction is discussed across the program, including ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching, but is a central theme in ED 105: Cultural Diversity. Among the specific experiences designed to help students recognize their own—and others—biases:

• The iceberg
• The right-handed/left-handed
• Culture Walk
• Autobiographical essay, using Rodriguez’s autobiography as springboard, where bias is a specific component of the assignment
• Curriculum-from-the-past exercise
• Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (Peggy McIntosh)

More generally in ED 105:
(A) much of the reading of Ruby Payne, A Framework for Understanding Poverty deals with the largely hidden biases associated with class/SES. Students’ essays on this text demonstrate their growing awareness of their own class biases.
(B) Much of David I. Smith, Learning from the Stranger directly and indirectly discusses bias, including the less visible aspects of culture that contribute to cross-cultural and inter-cultural tensions. Again, students demonstrate awareness of their biases in their written response to this text.

Candidates have the opportunity to systematically examine his/her stated and implied beliefs, attitudes and expectations about diverse students, families, schools, and communities, and to apply pedagogical practices that foster high expectations for academic performance from all participants in all contexts.

Candidates examine their conscious and unconscious beliefs and expectations for traditionally marginalized students and their families throughout the Westmont program. As indicated above, there are readings and discussions in virtually all component courses relevant to having high expectations for all students and acquiring a wide range of particular instructional strategies that will help to fulfill those expectations. The pre-professional placement, Early Field Placement, and full-time student teaching in culturally diverse schools all provide extensive opportunities for candidates to see appropriate instructional and relational strategies being modeled, and to apply such instructional and relationship strategies themselves. Required written reflection exercises in all coursework, but especially during full-time Student Teaching, insure that candidates are conscious of the need to foster high expectations for academic success for all students.

Reviewers requested more information on how candidates demonstrate this portion of the Standard 9 component immediately above:

….apply pedagogical practices that foster high expectations for academic performance from all participants in all contexts. Candidates demonstrate this most fully in the context of their full-time semester-long student teaching placement, where they are evaluated by cooperating teachers in part on their success with English Learners and other learners outside the pedagogical mainstream.

Candidates demonstrate further their ability to successful reach a range of learners in their culminating e-portfolio, which includes a major section of artifacts and reflection demonstrating candidates’ success in implementing strategies that led to achievement with a wide range of learners.

Conceivably, one could argue that the point of the sentence (and perhaps this is the reviewers concern in this context?) from the standard above is NOT the application of pedagogical practices (which our candidates clearly demonstrate, as noted above);

NOR on the successful academic performance of a wide range of students in varied contexts (which again, our candidates clearly demonstrate, as noted above);

but on the HIGH EXPECTATIONS themselves—clearly articulated in written form and communicated to cooperating teachers and college supervisors, as well as to the K-12 students themselves. If this is the case, that was not how we in the program initially understood the language.

To the extent that evidence of the verbal ARTICULATION of the high expectations may be the point of the reviewers’ concerns, the program is certainly willing to add another set of reflection assignments to the Multiple Subject and Single Subject Seminars, where candidates verbally articulate their high expectations for a designated list of different categories of students, along with a sub-list in each case of strategies relevant to each category of student and which in each case also is part of the candidate’s repertoire of pedagogical strategies overall.

9.1 ED 105: Perspectives on Cultural Diversity
9.2 ENG 106: Language Acquisition
9.3 ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching

Preparation for Learning to Create a Supportive, Healthy Environment for Student Learning

All classes in the MS and SS Credential Program prepare candidates to grow in their ability—and eventually to demonstrate full classroom leadership—in the area of creating a supportive, healthy environment for student learning.

In Westmont’s Credential Program and pre-requisite courses, faculty and candidates together are expected to model the development of a safe community for learning. Courses are not simply vehicles for delivering information about an appropriate learning environment. Each course becomes in itself a learning community where members are encouraged—and expected—to help one another develop emotionally and socially, as well as academically.

One of the central themes in one of the core courses relevant to this Standard (KNS 156: Health for the Classroom Teacher) is the need for candidates themselves to develop—and model for others—habits of emotional health. By taking ownership for their own emotional health, candidates put themselves in a far better position to provide a safe and healthy environment for learning for others. One of the core objectives of this course is to help candidates recognize that “every teacher is a health teacher, and thus a student role model,” and that this modeling occurs inevitably, for better and for worse.

Again, every course in the Westmont MS program contributes to candidates’ growth in this area. Particularly noteworthy, however, are ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching, where many topics relevant to this standard are introduced, KNS 156: Health Education, referenced above; and in student teaching ED 190 and ED 191, where candidates apply their skills full-time in the elementary, middle school, or high school classroom.

The Department of Education has adopted three target Professional Dispositions which— among others—faculty and candidates are expected to model at all times.

Through planned prerequisites and/or professional preparation, the teacher preparation program ensures the following:
Candidates are provided multiple opportunities to learn how personal, family, school, community, and environmental factors are related to students’ academic, physical, emotional, cultural and social well-being. Candidates have knowledge of diverse family structures, community cultures, and child rearing practices in order to develop respectful and productive relationships with families and communities and more effectively engage with families and communities.

Candidates have knowledge of major laws and principles that address student rights and parent rights pertaining to student placements. Candidates learn about the effects of student health, safety, and accident prevention on student learning. Candidates study the legal responsibilities of teachers related to student health, safety, and the reporting requirements relating to child abuse and neglect.

All of these areas are introduced to candidates or pre-candidates in ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching, especially in conjunction with Ryan & Cooper, Those Who Can, Teach (13th ed.), Chapter 8. Among the topics covered at this time are:

• Copyright law
• Teacher liability and the teacher’s responsibility to provide a safe environment for students
• Reporting of child abuse
• Confidentiality
• Due process
• Sexual harassment
• Cases involving freedom of expression
• Religious freedom and religious neutrality in the schools
• Search and seizure

Student and parent rights concerning language background, and the larger context of bilingualism and national and state language policy are introduced in ED 100/101, but much expanded upon in ENG 106: Language Acquisition, especially in conjunction with Wayne Wright, Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners, Ch. 3 & 4.

KNS 156: Health Education for the Classroom Teacher includes a specific session on safety and violence prevention Page & Page, Promoting Health…in Your Classroom, Ch. 9. A number of other topics potentially related to this component of Standard 10 are discussed here in somewhat less detail.

The need for safety in Science Instruction is discussed in ED 120: Science & Social Studies Curriculum and Instruction, in conjunction with Janice Koch, Science Stories, Ch. 6.

The legal foundations of Special Education, including teachers’ responsibilities and parents’ rights relative to students with special needs is a core topic in ED 130: Special Education for the Classroom Teacher. See also Turnbull & Turnbull, Exceptional Lives, Table of Contents.

Candidates discuss real-life applications and cases pertinent to these topics in ED 195 and ED196: Student Teaching Seminar (MS) and ST Seminar (SS).

In the initial response to our submission, reviewers wrote that they had a difficult time identifying how candidates demonstrate their learning in regards to the following two sentences of this component of the standard:

(1) “Candidates have knowledge of major laws and principles that address student rights and parent rights pertaining to student placements.” Specifically, how do candidates demonstrate this knowledge?

Once again, candidates have always demonstrated their understanding of legal requirements relevant to their role as teachers during full-time Student Teaching, where they are explicitly evaluated by their cooperating teachers on multiple relevant criteria, including (in the words of the Evaluation Form, their “understanding of key elements of national and state laws pertinent to education, and their application in the classroom;” and their ability to “identif[y] suspected cases of child/abuse/neglect and report appropriately.”

In the future, effective Spring 2016, candidates or pre-candidates will also, as part of ED 100/101, demonstrate their understanding of legal requirements on a quiz that covers the following:

• Copyright law
• Teacher liability and the teacher’s responsibility to provide a safe environment for students
• Reporting of child abuse
• Confidentiality
• Due process
• Sexual harassment
• Cases involving freedom of expression
• Religious freedom and religious neutrality in the schools
• Search and seizure

(2) “Candidates study the legal responsibilities of teachers related to … the reporting requirements relating to child abuse and neglect.” How do candidates demonstrate their knowledge of reporting requirements relating to child abuse and neglect?

Candidates, in the words of the Standard component here, have always “stud[ied] the legal responsibilities of teachers related to…the reporting requirements relating to child abuse and neglect.” Further, candidates have always demonstrated their understanding of legal requirements relevant to their role as teachers in multiple ways, including during full-time Student Teaching, where they are explicitly evaluated by their cooperating teachers on multiple relevant criteria, including (in the words of the Evaluation Form, their “understanding of key elements of national and state laws pertinent to education, and their application in the classroom;” and their ability to “identif[y] suspected cases of child/abuse/neglect and report appropriately.”

As one further demonstration of the requirements of this component, effective in the syllabi for Spring 2016, candidates will receive a copy of the following publication to read and to be quizzed on as part of the Seminar (ED 195 [Multiple Subject] or ED 196 [Single Subject] that accompanies full-time student teaching.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/educator.pdf

Candidates have opportunities to learn and practice effective strategies and techniques for crisis prevention, conflict management, and resolution in ways that contribute to respectful, effective learning environments, including recognizing and defusing situations that may lead to student conflict or violence.

Almost every course in the Westmont MS and SS Credential Programs contributes to candidates’ growth in this area.

The most explicit and comprehensive demonstration of candidates’’ knowledge of preventing crises and resolving potential conflicts in a manner that respects student dignity and leads to students’ maximum and most holistic growth is found in ED 110/111: Educational Psychology. In this course candidates complete a thorough Classroom Management Plan with one section devoted to interventional strategies. Most of the content and activity in ED 100/111, in fact, contributes directly or indirectly to candidates’ growth in this area, as candidates learn to engage all students, to differentiate instruction, to practice consistent and efficient routines, to provide intrinsic motivation, and to build relationships—so as to prevent much potential tension or conflict from arising in the classroom in the first place.

Again, KNS 156: Health Education stresses the teacher’s responsibility to maintain his or her own emotional health and to manage stress effectively. Specific attention is given to promoting safety and violence prevention, as well as dealing with crises.

Candidates apply and further demonstrate their skills and knowledge relative to student safely and dealing with student behavior during full-time student teaching (ED 190/191; and the weekly discussion-oriented, problem-solving-oriented meetings that accompany full-time student teaching (ED 195/196: Student Teaching Seminar).

Candidates understand the effects of family involvement on teaching, learning and academic achievement, including an understanding of cultural differences in home- school relationships. Candidates learn and apply skills for communicating and working constructively with students, their families and community members, including the effective use of interpreters.

As discussed in the introduction and under our response to the very first component of Standard 10, above, most courses in our MS and SS Programs stress the centrality of building appropriate partnerships with families, understanding students’ family backgrounds, and recognizing the potential role of varying cultural heritage in building and sustaining an appropriate family-school partnership.

Candidates are introduced to this notion in ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching (see Ryan & Cooper, Those Who Can, Ch. 6 & 14).

The role of family background is a major theme of ED 105: Cultural Diversity, where (from among numerous examples) candidates learn that in Mexico there may be traditionally more of a wall separating family and school life, and some Mexican- American families may not initially understand the school’s or teacher’s expectations to establish a close working relationship. This is a particular theme in the work of Guadalupe Valdes, discussed in ED 105 orally.

Candidates’ knowledge of diverse family backgrounds is applied and developed even further through full-time student teaching. Candidates are expected to participate in parent conferences and public events at the host school. Candidates attend IEPs if possible, and all Single Subject candidates participate in meetings of professional learning communities. Candidates write a letter of introduction to their students’ families at the beginning of their full-time placement. As participants in parent conferences in diverse schools, candidates are exposed to the role of interpreters, and have even served as interpreters for parent conferences themselves.

In the initial response to our submission, reviewers wrote that they had a difficult time identifying how candidates demonstrated their learning in regards to the following sentence from the component immediately above:

“Candidates understand the effects of family involvement on teaching, learning and academic achievement, including an understanding of cultural differences in home-school relationships.” How do candidates demonstrate this understanding?

Once again, candidates have for many years demonstrated this throughout ED 105: Cultural Diversity and Education; and have for many years demonstrated this through their full-time student teaching, where they are explicitly evaluated by cooperating teachers on items directly relevant to this component of the standard.

In addition, effective Fall 2016 [implementation of this addition to ED 105 re-scheduled for Fall 2017], a new assignment [boxed immediately below] for ED 105—Cultural Diversity and Education—will further demonstrate this knowledge and skill-set:

Much—if not all--of the work in this course relates in some way to (in the language of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing) the effects of family involvement on teaching, learning and academic achievement [and personal and family identity], including an understanding of cultural differences in home school relationships. Further, you cannot leave this course without having developed additional skills for “communicating and working constructively with students, their families, and community members.”

All of your written assignments, your tests, and the various kinds of oral and written communication during your Field Experience already involve significant opportunities to demonstrate and/or apply the understanding you have refined or developed in this course.

However, in order to make this learning even more explicit to all parties concerned, and as a reference for yourself as you work toward your Teaching Credential, you will produce, as a significant component (1/3rd) of your Final Exam, a TAKE-HOME essay summarizing all you have learned about the following:

• How family involvement affects teaching
• How family involvement affects learning
• How family involvement affects academic achievement
• How cultural differences affect home-school relationships
• Things to keep in mind when communicating and working with students who may or may not be from the cultural group(s) with which you self-identify
• Things to keep in mind when communicating and working with families and community members who may or may not be from the cultural group(s) with which you self-identify

“Candidates … apply skills for communicating and working constructively with … community members, including the effective use of interpreters.” How do candidates demonstrate their application of these skills?

Please see below, for a combined response under “Candidates understand when and how to access site-based and community resources and agencies,

Candidates understand when and how to access site-based and community resources and agencies, in order to provide integrated support to meet the individual needs of each student, including social, health, educational, language services, and other resources.

Site-based and community-based resources for students are introduced in ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching.

The need to partner with other professionals and para-professionals is addressed in ED 130: Special Education for the Classroom Teacher (see Class 3 and Class 14 of syllabus).

This knowledge is expanded upon and applied during ED 195 and ED196: Student Teaching Seminars (MS) and (SS), where candidates are directed to build relationships with other faculty and administrators, as well as counselors.

In the initial response to our submission, reviewers wrote that they had a difficult time identifying how candidates demonstrate their learning in regards to the following component of the standard:

“Candidates understand when and how to access site-based and community resources and agencies, in order to provide integrated support to meet the individual needs of each student, including social, health, educational, language services, and other resources.” How do students demonstrate that they understand when and how to access these resources?

Although we have always exposed candidates to these topics and these resources on (at least) an ad hoc basic, this is an area where our program can definitely be more systematic and thorough in the future.

In response to the reviewers’ flagging of this item, we initiated contact earlier this fall with appropriate parties both at the Santa Barbara County Office of Education and the Westmont College Department of Sociology (specifically the professors who work in the applied track within that department), and requested the assistance of both in developing an annual workshop on these topics.

The long-term goal, as communicated to both parties above, is to partner with other IHEs active in the Santa Barbara area and invite candidates, supervisors, and possibly even cooperating teachers from other programs, in addition to requiring participation from our own candidates as part of their completion of ED 195 or ED 196. We look forward to sharing our progress in this area at the time of the Accreditation Site Visit.

Candidates learn how decisions and common behaviors of children and adolescents can enhance or compromise their health and safety. Candidates learn common chronic and communicable diseases of children and adolescents, and how to make referrals when these diseases are recognizable at school. Candidates learn effective strategies for encouraging the healthy nutrition of children and youth.

While some of this material is introduced in ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching, the primary domain where candidates learn and demonstrate this component of Standard 10 is in KNS 156: Health Education. Practically the entire course focuses on how decisions and common behaviors of children and adolescents can enhance or compromise their health and safety. Candidates learn about promoting healthy eating in Page & Page, Promoting Health…in Your Classroom. The course also explicitly addresses sexually- transmitted diseases.

One sub-component--recognizing common communicable diseases and appropriate interventions—are discussed in context during ED 195/196: Student Teaching Seminar. At the same time, our program could be more explicit and comprehensive in addressing this sub-component. By the time of the on-site review in 2017, we will have this item explicitly built in and documented as part of our program evidence.

Candidates have knowledge and understanding of the physiological and sociological effects of alcohol, narcotics, drugs and tobacco and of ways to identify, refer, and support students and their families who may be at risk of physical, psychological, emotional or social health problems.

These topics are introduced in ED 100/101, again most explicitly through Ryan & Cooper, Those Who Can, Chapter 4.

Candidates receive further instruction in these topics, including ways of identifying, referring, and supporting potentially at-risk students and families, during KNS 156: Health Education, especially through Page & Page, Promoting Health…in Your Classroom, Ch. 2 and 7.

Candidates complete infant, child and adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) certification that meets the criteria of the American Heart Association or the American Red Cross.

As part of the Credential Candidate advising process, candidates are informed that they need to complete CPR certification, and that this certification needs to be current at the time when the recommendation for the credential is made. This is an explicit item that is checked on the candidate’s overall record before the final recommendation for the credential is sent. [Final Check Form]

Standard 10 Appendices

10.1 KNS 156: Health for the Classroom Teacher
10.2 ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching
10.3 ED 195/ED196 Student Teaching Seminar
10.4 Professional Dispositions
10.5 Ryan & Cooper, Those Who Can, Teach (13th ed.), Table of Contents
10.6 ED 105: Cultural Diversity
10.7 Ruby Payne, A Framework for Understanding Poverty, Table of Contents
10.8 ENG 106: Language Acquisition
10.9 Wayne Wright, Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners
10.10 Page & Page, Promoting Health…in Your Classroom, Table of Contents
10.11 ED 120: Science & Social Studies Curriculum and Instruction
10.12 ED 130: Special Education for the Classroom Teacher
10.13 Turnbull & Turnbull, Exceptional Lives, Table of Contents
10.14 ED 110/111: Educational Psychology
10.15 Classroom Management Plan
10.16 Final Check Form

Using Technology in the Classroom

Westmont Multiple and Single Subject Candidates are well prepared to use technology in the classroom and in all aspects of their professional lives.

The most comprehensive, systematic, and intentional opportunity candidates have to develop classroom technology skills is in ED 160/161: Computers for the Classroom Teacher. Occasionally this course is taken as a co-requisite to the credential program, but the overwhelming number of candidates have already successfully completed the course well before acceptance into the program.

Technology skills are integrated throughout the program. These include, but are not limited to:

• Creating a website
• Emailing (send/receive emails, attach documents to emails, sort emails into folders)
• Using Contacts (how to label contacts, how to create and send to a group)
• Blogging
• Collaborating with Google Docs
• Storing and organizing classroom files
• Saving files to various locations
• Creating presentations on multiple platforms (PowerPoint, Presentation, ShowMe, HaikuDeck, Prezi)
  • Inserting images (PowerPoint and documents)
  • Compacting images and files to send and to insert in various locations
  • Customizing animation and sound
  • Inserting videos
• Grading electronically (gradebooks and “track changes”)
• Creating a lesson rubric
• Creating a seating chart
• Using a spreadsheet to create a chart (Excel, Google Spreadsheet)
• Video-conferencing (Skype, Google Hangouts)
• Creating and administering an electronic survey
• Creating a newsletter with a publishing program
• Creating an electronic portfolio
• Using an LMS or CMS to manage course content and communicated with students
• Social networks for professional growth & student communication
• Using mobile devices in the classroom
• Basic troubleshooting
• Copyright issues with information found online
• Evaluating sites for credibility
• Acceptable use policies
• Cyberbullying

Multiple Subject candidates have already constructed a preliminary demonstration-of- learning electronic portfolio as part of their Liberal Studies major capstone experience.

In ED 160/161, all candidates create a demonstration-of-learning portfolio in the form of a website to document their learning as it applies to using technology in the classroom.

All candidates prepare a summative electronic portfolio as part of ED 195/196: Student Teaching Seminar, which is itself a demonstration in part of having certain relevant skills in technology—apart from individual components in the Portfolio as a whole that demonstrate technological expertise.

Through planned prerequisites and/or professional preparation, the teacher preparation program ensures the following:

Candidates are familiar with basic principles of operation of computer hardware and software, and implement basic troubleshooting techniques for computer systems and related peripheral devices before accessing the appropriate avenue of technical support.

Candidates learn to be independent and collaborative technology problem-solvers largely by years of practice. Basic principles of hardware and software are integrated, however, throughout ED 160/161.

A core theme in ED 160/161 (and indeed, throughout the Westmont credential programs) is collaboration and contributing to the learning of one another. Collaborative technologies, including blogs, Google tools, and wikis, are used on a regular basis in ED 160/161 to support this collaboration. Students write for and respond to others in order to expand and deepen their understandings.

When doing presentations in methods classes, candidates instinctively reach out to one another to ask for—and to offer—assistance before summoning professors or IT professionals.

In both the Multiple and Single Subject credential programs, there is a designated Peer Technology Coordinator (a fellow candidate, that is) each year, who agrees to assist both pro-actively and reactively, when other peers are not able to solve a problem.

During full-time student teaching, candidates are almost always the ones to help their cooperating teachers to solve (for example) minor connection or display issues, rather than vice-versa.

Likewise, candidates are as often as not the ones in the student teacher-cooperating teacher relationship to initiate the use of new technological programs to enhance instruction, communication with parents and colleagues, or other application of technology.

Candidates use appropriate technology to facilitate the teaching and learning process. Candidates are able to evaluate and select a wide array of technologies for relevance, effectiveness, and alignment with state-adopted academic content standards, and the value they add to student learning.

Candidates become familiar with equipment and a wide range of soft-ware to enhance the meaningfulness and memorability of learning. They quickly learn to distinguish extraneous, razzly-dazzly—and possibly distracting—bells and whistles from equipment and programs that are truly relevant to student learning, and that truly enhance instructional effectiveness.

Candidates become accustomed throughout the credential program to the routine use of the Document Camera, for in-class and field presentations. They constantly bring content-enriching electronic images into their lessons. Candidates are regularly exposed to—and employ in their own lessons and presentations—various features of PowerPoint and the iPad. In ED 170: Elementary Reading/Language Arts, candidates study RICA terminology with use of the Quizlet App.

Candidates are regularly exposed to—and employ in their own lessons and presentations—various features of PowerPoint and other presentation software, including online and mobile apps such as Haiku Deck, Google Presentation, ShowMe, and Prezi. Through use and discussion in their various classes, and particularly in ED 160/161, they learn to think critically about which forms of presentation are most effective for a given learning objective.

They learn to use mobile devices to get immediate feedback from students, including the use of Socrative.

They construct portfolios large and small on a range of platforms.

During ED 160/161, as well as during methods classes, they are exposed to programs that assist (for example) with everything from adding sound, video, and animation to routine presentations; first-generation-technology programs designed to enhance rote, traditional- flash-card-style learning of math facts or the shapes of the fifty American states; methods of surveying students or parents; tracking, aggregating, and dis-aggregating data in a science experiment; publishing newsletters or classroom newspapers as part of the Language Arts curriculum; or the possibilities for virtual dissection in the science lab.

Again, in their methods class presentations and during full-time student teaching, candidates are rewarded for harnessing technology appropriately in the interest of learning state-adopted academic content standards, and not simply the technology’s entertainment value.

Candidates demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the legal and ethical issues related to the use of technology, including copyright issues and issues of privacy, security, safety, and acceptable use. Candidates demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the appropriate use of computer-based technology for information collection, analysis, and management in the instructional setting.

Legal and ethical issues, including (among others) copyright concerns, confidentiality and security issues; and cyberbullying are explicitly delineated as topics in the ED 160/161 course syllabus. These topics are addressed most systematically in Course Sessions #4 and #7. Candidates’ initial reading and preparation-for-class on this designated day involves locating electronic articles relevant to these topics; reading, responding in writing (again, in electronic form), and being prepared to share findings and reflections with peers. They additionally engage in activities that help them understand the scope of digital citizenship, as well as how these issues can be addressed and taught about in the classroom.

ED 160/161 course syllabus makes explicit reference to—and course as a whole [and Westmont Credential Program as a whole] supports—the notion of “Technology with Intention.” That is to say, candidates are advised that “technology must be used for intentional purposes in the classroom.” Candidates have to reflect in [electronic] written form about “how, why and when” it is appropriate to employ different kinds of technology. Course includes time explicitly devoted to sharing and collaborative reflection on the “thought process” behind selecting one website or tool over another.

Professors in other courses seek to model this ideal of technology with intention, selecting only technological programs, resources, and tools that will actually enhance candidates’ learning—and in turn, the academic learning of their students.

Candidates demonstrate competence in the use of electronic research tools and the ability to assess the authenticity, reliability, and bias of the data gathered. Candidates analyze best practices and research on the use of technology to deliver lessons that enhance student learning.

Candidates access a variety of electronic research tools in much of their pre-requisite coursework, including required courses from the English department in Written Composition. Assignments throughout the program require the use of electronic research tools or electronic resources (among many others, ED 120: Social Studies and Science---Unit Assignment). In ED 150: Elementary Math, candidates create a movie or other technology presentation. In ED 110/111 candidates conduct a literature review using electronic research tools to gather quality sources.

Exploring and analyzing best practices on the use of technology to enhance student learning is also addressed throughout the program. In ED 160/161, students read articles throughout the course that discuss best practices and research on this topic, and create written (electronic) responses to analyze the articles, as well as each other’s responses. During the course, they also observe a classroom lesson at a local school to analyze these practices in real life.

Candidates bring into the Credential Program an already-developed sense of the need to be vigilant about the authenticity, validity, and potential biases of electronically-available information. This topic is also explicitly addressed in the 4th and 7th Course Sessions of ED 160/161.

In the Initial Review of the Program document it was noted that Readers were unable to determine how “Candidates demonstrate … the ability to assess the authenticity, reliability, and bias of the [research] data gathered.”

As mentioned previously, this is a topic and set of habits that gets emphasized campus-wide at Westmont, and all available evidence suggests that candidates are well prepared in this area.

Here is one assignment, among others, in ED 160/161 where candidates demonstrate this ability. This is from the course web-site from this fall’s course [2015], but consistent with what candidates have always demonstrated through this course, among others:

http://walded160fall2015.weebly.com/assignments/in-class-assignments-929

Evaluating Credibility 1:35-2:00

Last week, Joe led us through an exercise in evaluating credibility of sources when doing a research topic.

Let's also think about how to evaluate whether a site is trustworthy. Go to this page, and scroll down to the "Legit-o-Meter Tip Sheet" link. Pick two sites below, and, using the Legit-o-Meter Tip Sheet, work with your partner to determine which of the following websites are legit and which are phony. Think about how the author came across as credible (or not credible). How did the creators come off as experts? What design decisions make the website seem credible (or not credible)?

1. Site A: Dog Island
2. Site B: Computer Tan
3. Site C: Dehydrated Water
4. Site D: The Ova Privum Foundation
5. Site E: Gmail Tap
6. Site F: US Constitution
7. Site G: White House

• Create a Google doc with your partner titled "Evaluating Credibility: Your Name & Your Partner's Name".
• Look through the websites together, discussing and taking note as you go of the markers of credibility the website creators used for each website, as well as any red flags that make the site seem less credible.
• Based on the evidence you gather, discuss and decide: which of these websites, if any, are real, and which, if any, are hoaxes. For any that are real, determine if the content seems purely factual, or if it is biased in a certain direction.
• Document your decisions, and the reasoning for these decisions on your google doc. Once you've finished documenting, add an "Evaluating Credibility" post to your Technology Goals & Reflections page. Post your document here in any format you'd like.

Candidates integrate technology-related tools into the educational experience and provide equitable access to available resources to the full range of learners. Candidates understand that students come with varying degrees of technological knowledge and skills. Candidates encourage the use of technology with students in their research, learning activities, and presentations, and explore options for students who do not readily have access to technology in their homes and classrooms.

Candidates recognize that their K-12 students will have varying degrees of access to technological resources, and thus varying degrees of technological knowledge.

At the secondary level in recent years, public school media centers—accessible to most students during breaks—have helped to democratize access to technological resources. The prevalence of student personal mobile devices has also served to democratize access to technology for many.

At the elementary level, candidates work with their cooperating teacher and individual school media/technology coordinators to arrange instructional time where all students have access to computers. Almost all local public school classrooms used for fieldwork use both document-cameras during instruction, and most use iPads as well.

At the secondary level, student teachers use AppleTV and whatever else they may have access to in their particular classroom and school site.

In the Initial Review of the Program document it was noted that Readers were unable to determine how “Candidates … provide equitable access to available resources to the full range of learners.”

Changes have been made in the third and twelfth session of the Course Schedule for ED 160/161: Computers for the Classroom Teacher, as shown in the most recent syllabus.

In addition to candidates completing readings and activities that help acquaint them with strategies for providing equitable access to the full range of learners, as part of the twelfth session, candidates now participate in one or more classroom observations where they see how real life classrooms make accommodations to ensure equitable access to the full range of learners, including English Language Learners and those with disabilities. They engage in a discussion with the instructors at the site on this topic.

In addition, the following text is in the process of being added to the Handbook for Multiple Subject Candidates, the Handbook for Single Subject Candidates, and the Handbook for Cooperating Teachers, under the Heading of Access to Technology:

(1) Providing equitable access to technological resources to the full range of learners.

As part of the initial orientation to the school and classroom during full-time (Spring Semester) student teaching, candidates will take the responsibility for asking their cooperating teacher(s) how the school and teacher ensure equitable access (a) to e-mail;

(b) to sites that record student grades and assignments; and (c) any other technological resource needed by the full range of students under their supervision. For example, if there is a student with visual or auditory impairments, how does the teacher and school ensure that (a) technology available to other students is available to a student with one or more special needs; and (b) how does the teacher and school ensure that appropriate technological resources are available specific to the needs of each student with identified special needs. Candidates will document and reflect on this conversation as part of the 2nd session of ED 195 or 196: Student Teaching Seminar.

Candidates use computer applications to manipulate and analyze data as a tool for assessing student learning, informing instruction, managing records, and providing feedback to students and their parents.

These topics are thoroughly addressed in ED 160/161. As explicitly delineated on the course syllabus, candidates learn to create course or classroom web-sites, store and organize classroom files, set up and use electronic gradebooks, create evaluation rubrics, create seating charts, and u se spreadsheets. See especially Course Sessions #2, 3; 11-14. See also the chief course textbook: Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works.

With respect to communication with their students and parents, candidates learn blogging skills, operate programs useful for video-conferencing with parents or absent students. (Session #10), and learn about creating newsletters in publishing programs (Session #9). In Session #11 they also learn about learning or course management systems (LMS and CMS) which can be used to communicate with students and parents alike. In Session 13 they learn to create and administer electronic surveys, as well as creating and evaluating electronic portfolios.

Candidates apply these skills during ED 190/191, full-time student teaching.

Candidates learn to use a variety of technologies to collaborate and communicate with students, colleagues, school support personnel, and families to provide the full range of learners with equitable access to all school and community resources.

Communication and collaborative use of technology is emphasized in ED 160/161 and throughout the program.

Multiple assignments in pre-requisite courses require collaborative projects involving technological resources. In ED 110/111, for example, candidates use GoogleDocs to work on collaborative research projects. Throughout the methods courses and fieldwork, GoogleDocs is used as a communication tool between candidates and professors.

In ED 160/161, assignments are routinely collaborative, and candidates are asked to think about why and how these types of collaboration could be used in a classroom. They use the learning or content management systems (LMS or CMS) Moodle with various teachers throughout the program to communicate with professors. In ED 160/161, they also are exposed to other LMS/CMS platforms and taught to consider these and other collaborative software such as Google tools and mobile apps for communication with students, colleagues, families, and school support personnel.

Multiple assignments in pre-requisite courses require collaborative projects involving technological resources. In ED 160/161, candidates create multiple collaborative projects using a wide range of tools such as Google Docs, Presentations, and Drawings, collaborative brainstorming software, mobile apps, videoconferencing tools, social networking tools, and learning or course management systems (see Sessions #2, #11, and #12).

During full-time student teaching, candidates and professors use Twitter to stay connected throughout the day and to encourage one another as a cohort.

As noted immediately above, with respect to communication with their students and parents, candidates learn blogging skills, operate programs useful for video-conferencing with parents or absent students, and learn about learning or course management systems (LMS/CMS) to communicate with and provide feedback for parents and students. They learn to create and administer electronic surveys. They create and learn to evaluate electronic portfolios.

In the Initial Review of the Program document it was noted that Readers were unable to determine how “candidates … explore options for [K12] students who do not readily have access to technology in their homes and classrooms.”

Changes have been made in the third and twelfth session of the Course Schedule for ED 160/161: Computers for the Classroom Teacher, as shown in the most recent syllabus.

As part of the dialog around digital citizenship & professional obligation, candidates discuss and read about options for students who do not readily have access to technology. During the classroom observation, this is also a topic they discuss with the educators we observe.

In addition, the following text is in the process of being added (along with the material referenced above) to the Handbook for Multiple Subject Candidates, the Handbook for Single Subject Candidates, and the Handbook for Cooperating Teachers, under the Heading of Access to Technology [This step has been completed, but it should be noted that these three documents have been consolidated into a single Handbook.]

(1) Exploring options for K-12 students who do not readily have access to technology in their homes and classrooms.

As part of the initial orientation to the school and classroom during full-time (Spring Semester) student teaching, candidates will take the responsibility for asking their cooperating teacher(s) how the school and teacher ensure equitable access (a) to e-mail; (b) to sites that record student grades and assignments; and (c) any other technological resource used in the classroom for students who do not have ready access to technology in their homes. Candidates will document and reflect on this conversation as part of the 2nd session of ED 195 or 196: Student Teaching Seminar.

Standard 11 Appendices

A1- ED 160/161: Computers for the Classroom Teacher

A2 - Sample summative electronic portfolio for Student Teaching (ED 190/191) A3 - Pitler, Hubbell & Kuhn, Using Technology with Classroom Instruction…, 2nd ed.

11R.1 Current syllabus for ED 160/161: Computers for the Classroom Teacher

Preparation to Teach English Learners

Of the 19 Standards, this was the one about which reviewers expressed the most concern.

One major change that reviewers should be aware of up front: We have hired a different part-time professor to teach (a significantly revised) course directly relevant to the standard. This is Dr. Ann Lippincott, who recently retired from UCSB. Dr. Lippincott taught the course for Westmont this past spring, even prior to receiving Reviewer feedback, is teaching it for the program again this year (2015-16), and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Syllabus for ENG 106: Language Acquisition

The course is organized into four domains:

1. Language Structure and Use
2. 1st and 2nd Language Development
3. Standards and Laws
4. Instructional Methodologies

The course continues to be an examination of the process of acquiring and developing first and second languages and the basic structures of English usage. The course includes historical and current theories of language acquisition as well as teaching methodologies. Traditionally, this course is taken by students aspiring to be teachers but may be taken as an elective by any student. The instructor has designed this course to provide a meaningful learning experience for all students.

As is noted on the syllabus, the course is designed to address the following Teaching Performance Expectations:

TPE 1a: Making Subject Matter Comprehensible
TPE 4: Making Content ACCESSIBLE
TPE 7: Teaching English Learners
TPE 8: Learning about Students
TPE9: Instructional Planning
TPE 12: Professional, Legal, and Ethical Obligations
On the syllabus, it is noted where these TPEs are addressed via readings, assignments, course lectures and/or in-class activities.

A different textbook is currently being used as of Spring 2015, as well: Lynn T. Diaz-Rico & Kathryn Z. Weed, The Crosscultural, Language, and Academic Development Handbook: A Complete K-12 Reference Guide (4th edition).

***

There were ten components of the standard specifically targeted by the reviewers, as indicated below (For ease of reference in a Standard that has so many different parts, the components of the Standard for which more information was requested is shown in red, in the original language of the Standard, AFTER the original response.

Whether a particular component of the standard was framed in this exact language, reviewers requested in the first three cases specifically more information about how candidates demonstrated their knowledge relevant to that component.

As noted below under multiple components, sections concerning the Focus Students on all four sections of the CalTPA constitute one major demonstration of skills and knowledge related to Standard 12.

Another task that provides evidence, in part, for various components below is the candidate’s final portfolio, in particular the section related to Domain 3: Engaging and Supporting Students in Learning.

Finally and most important (although not specifically acknowledged below), candidates demonstrate the skills of effectively supporting English Learners during their full-time Student Teaching placement, as shown by cooperating teachers’ evaluations on relevant portions of the program evaluation form for full-time Student Teaching.

Throughout the Westmont credential program, Multiple and Single Subject candidates are continually mindful of the need to accommodate English Learners.

The fact that Santa Barbara County schools have at least 50% more English Learners, proportionately, than California as a whole; and that so many English learners are enrolled in our partner districts and partner schools, keeps candidates constantly aware of the need to accommodate instruction to the needs of these learners. (As of 2013, 34.7 % English Learners for Santa Barbara County vs. 22.7% in California as a whole. See http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us).

Evaluation forms for the Peer Lessons candidates present in classes specifically include as one of the criteria the lesson’s effectiveness for English Learners.

While almost all of the coursework in the Multiple and Single Subject credential program helps to raise awareness of English Learners on some level, the course where candidates get the most sustained and systematic background is ENG 106: Language Acquisition.

The course is described on the syllabus as follows:

The course is an examination of the process of acquiring and developing first and second languages and the basic structures of English usage. The course includes historical and current theories of language acquisition as well as teaching methodologies. Traditionally, this course is taken by students aspiring to be teachers but may be taken as an elective by any student. The instructor has designed this course to provide a meaningful learning experience for all students.

As delineated likewise on the course syllabus, the class is designed to address the following Teaching Performance Expectations:

TPE 4: Making Content Comprehensible
TPE 5: Student Engagement
TPE 7: Teaching English Learners
TPE 8: Learning about Students
TPE 11: Social Environment
TPE 12: Professional, Legal, and Ethical Obligations
TPE 13: Professional Growth

Westmont’s candidates are fortunate in having a highly experienced part-time professor for this course—an instructor with a long tenure at Westmont; and one who has long experience teaching parallel courses for the University of California—Santa Barbara and other local IHEs. This course is typically taken as a pre-requisite for the credential program, but occasionally is taken as a co-requisite.

Through planned prerequisites and/or professional preparation, the teacher preparation program ensures the following:

Candidates learn foundations for successful English learner achievement:

• Candidates have opportunities to acquire knowledge of linguistic development, first and second language acquisition, positive and negative language transfer, and how home language literacy connects to second language development.

A basic introduction to linguistics, stages in first and second language acquisition, language transfer, and how home language connects to second language development is given to candidates through ENG 106, Class sessions #1-3 and associated outside reading and written reflection.

With respect to second language acquisition specifically, Class Session #3 is particularly pertinent. As described on the course syllabus, this session includes the following:

Anticipatory Chart on First Language Acquisition; The Child’s Acquisition of Language; Language Connection; Seven Models of Second Language Acquisition; First & Second Language Acquisition (SLA); Krashen’s Five Hypotheses of SLA; Lesson Demos: Live Action English and the Natural Approach; Schooling for Language Minority Children; BICS & CALP; Perspectives on Achievement; Five Interacting Principles; the Apple Activity and Stand and Deliver video clips; Contributing Disciplines; What Does the Research Say about How English Learners Learn?

• Candidates learn from current research and practice how cognitive, pedagogical, and individual factors affect students’ language acquisition.

Here again, as immediately above, Class Sessions #1-3 of ENG 106 and associated outside reading and written reflection are intended to expose candidates to research and practice relevant to how cognitive, pedagogical, and individual factors affect students’ language acquisition.

Personal and other background factors affecting students’ language acquisition, including cognitive and individual factors, are explicitly addressed in Class Session #1: “Personal & Background Factors Affecting English Language Literacy Development.” Pedagogical factors are addressed, among other places in this course, under the heading of Class Session #1: “Teachers’ Influence.”

(1) Candidates learn from current research and practice how cognitive, pedagogical, and individual factors affect students’ language acquisition.

In addition to what was written previously:

Candidates learn from current research and practice about how these factors affect language acquisition most explicitly in ENG 106, from Diaz-Rico & Weed, Chapter 1. Candidates continue to learn about these factors throughout ENG 106, but especially through Class #6 and Class #7. Candidates’ understanding of these factors is demonstrated in this one course, among other ways, through the Analysis of Student Oral Language Samples, the class Mid-Term, through the English Language Development Lesson, and through the final exam.

MS candidates review and demonstrate their knowledge of these factors in ED 120 through their reading, discussion, and written examination on Cary, Working with Second Language Learners: Answers to Teachers’ Top Ten Questions, of which Chapters 2 and 4 are particularly relevant to understanding various background factors.

MS and SS candidates demonstrate their knowledge and ability to apply this knowledge of background factors in practice, in part, through the four tasks of the CalTPA, which require candidates to connect their chosen strategies of accommodation to the specific needs and background of their English Learner Focus Students.

MS and SS candidates demonstrate their knowledge and ability to apply this knowledge of background factors, in part, through Domain 3 of their final portfolio, containing artifacts and reflection on how relevant TPEs were demonstrated during full-time Student Teaching.

• Candidates acquire skills for managing and organizing a classroom with first- and second-language learners.

Skills for managing and organizing classrooms with first- and second-language learners—that is to say: all of the classrooms in the schools Westmont works with—are taught in all courses. Management and organization of classrooms is addressed most explicitly in ED 110/111, and includes various strategies for grouping students (Session #8/Module 21. Again, these issues are discussed in ED 190/191: Student Teaching and concurrent seminars—ED 195-196: Student Teaching Seminar.

The organization of classrooms, including different models for working with English Learners, is addressed in ENG 106, Class Sessions #5 (“Program Models for ELLs”) and associated outside reading and written reflection. In the same course, Class Sessions #1, #7, and #10, along with associated outside reading and written reflection, are also especially relevant to this component of Standard 12.

• Candidates acquire skills to collaborate with specialists and paraprofessionals.

Throughout the Westmont credential program, candidates acquire skills of collaboration in general. Among many other examples, for instance, candidates in ED 110/111 pair up for class presentations on portions of Teach Like a Champion; and work in small groups for a research project on motivation. In ED 170: Elementary Reading/Language Arts, candidates work with an “academic partner” to plan collaboratively two lessons in reading and writing.

Candidates consider the role of language specialists and paraprofessionals, and how school personnel are organized to support English Learners as part of ENG 106: Class Session #5: Program Models for ELLs. Among other inputs, course instructor describes how at one time bilingual para-professionals WERE the bilingual programs in some districts—but that standards for para-professionals have been raised significantly in recent years. Professor shares with students from his experience of having bilingual paraprofessionals from his elementary experience in LAUSD and in middle school classrooms in Oxnard.

In ED 170: Elementary Reading/Language Arts, and in ED 171: Content-Area Literacy (Single Subject Candidates), there is discussion of the CELDT—what it is, how results can be used by the classroom teacher, and how to access this information within the school.

Candidates work with their cooperating teachers to collaborate with language specialists and paraprofessionals during full-time Student Teaching: ED 190/191.

• Candidates learn and understand the importance of students’ family and cultural backgrounds, and experiences in planning instruction and supporting student learning. Candidates communicate effectively with parents and families.

The importance of understanding and accommodating the students’ family and cultural backgrounds is a major theme of ED 105: Cultural Diversity. This is taught through reading of discussion of Ruby Payne, A Framework for Understanding Poverty; and Richard Rodriguez, Hunger of Memory, among other readings and activities. Candidates explore students’ family and cultural backgrounds in the same class as part of the class partnership activities and culminating book project.

The importance of family and cultural background in planning instruction and supporting student learning is discussed and modeled in ENG 106 throughout the course, but particularly in Class Session #1.

During full-time student teaching, candidates write directly to parents—in many cases in both English and Spanish—to introduce themselves at the beginning of the placement, and may in addition write again later in the semester. Candidates regularly participate in parent conferences.

Candidates understand effective program design and structures for English learners:

• Candidates learn about state and federal legal requirements for the placement and instruction of English learners, and ethical obligations for teaching English learners

Candidates are introduced to state and legal requirements pertinent to the placement of English Learners very briefly during ED 100/101, especially in relation to Chapter 3 of Ryan & Cooper, Those Who Can, Teach—the section on English Learners.

A much more detailed and comprehensive treatment of state and federal requirements, including a history of language policy and ethical obligations, occurs during ENG 106, Class Session #4, described on the syllabus as follows:

Language and Education Policy for English Language Learners: 1492; History Circle; My People Made It without Bilingual Education; What’s Wrong with Your People? Quickwrite; Timeline; California Proposition 227 (1998) now Education Code 300-340.

(2) Candidates learn about state and federal legal requirements for the placement and instruction of English learners, and ethical obligations for teaching English learners.

As now structured, one of the four central domains of ENG 106: Language Acquisition, is Standards & Laws. Through a participatory Line-Up activity, students glean an historical perspective on laws and policies at both federal and state levels. They also are introduced to the Home Language Survey and the processes for initial designation (EO, I-FEP, EL) as well as re-designation of English Learners (R-FEP). Furthermore, they engage in a “treasure hunt” through the Education Code, Sections 300-340, that specifies what is deemed as “appropriate” programs for bilingual students. They learn about the CELDT and are exposed to a representative sampling of Released Test Questions. This typically generates a lively discussion, the intent of which is to provide context from which they can make better sense of their future students’ scores. Finally, students in this course learn to navigate the California ELD Standards. Please see especially, Classes 8 and 10 on the syllabus.

Candidates in ENG 106 read from the CLAD Handbook, Chapter 6.

Candidates’ understanding of these laws and ethical considerations is demonstrated in this one course, among other ways, through the Analysis of Student Oral Language Samples, the class Mid-Term, through the English Language Development Lesson, and through the final exam.

Both MS and SS candidates study the Next Generation English Language Development Standards in the context of ED 170 (Elementary Literacy) and ED 171 (Content-area Literacy). Candidates read, highlight, analyze, and look for overlap with the Common Core State Standards.

• Candidates learn how to implement an instructional program that facilitates the two goals mandated by California to acquire academic English and accelerate grade-level academic achievement by effectively using materials, methods, and strategies so that students acquire listening, speaking, reading and writing skills in academic English.

Models for instructional programs designed for English Learners are introduced during ED 100/101, once again very briefly, in relation to Chapter 3 of Ryan & Cooper, Those Who Can, Teach—the section on English Learners.

A major portion of ENG 106 is devoted to understanding how to design and to collaborate in implementing an instructional program for English Learners.

Class Sessions #5, and 7-9, in particular, are focused on the character and components of instructional programs. Skills, activities, resources, and background knowledge related to Listening and speaking is emphasized in Session 7:

Listening and Speaking: The Recommended Best Practices for Teaching ELD; Total Physical Response (TPR); What are the Differences; ELD Standards Sequence for Oral Communication; Strategies that Develop and Promote Listening and Speaking skills Across the Curriculum; The Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM). Contrastive and Error Analysis; Language and Code Switching; Strategies; Cooperative Learning & Student Grouping; Organizing the Physical Setting of the Classroom.

Skills, activities, resources, and background knowledge related to Reading is emphasized in Session 8:

Reading: The Tea Party; Whole Language; Jump-in or Popcorn Reading (The Piano); Found Poetry; Pedagogical Practices and Effective Approaches Affecting Literacy Development Across the Curriculum; Reading Strategies for LEP/EL Students; Directed Reading Thinking Activity (DRTA); Key Word DRTA; the Request Procedure; Anticipatory Guides; Outlines; Direct and Discussion (Referential) Questions; Scanning, Finding the Main Idea: “Language Learner Traits.”

Skills, activities, resources, and background knowledge related to writing is emphasized in Session 9:

Writing: Cultural Thought Patterns, Contrastive Rhetoric, and Implications of Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Academic Writing; Story Board, Story Map, Interactive Journals, Process Writing, Graphic Organizers.

(3) Candidates learn how to implement an instructional program that facilitates the two goals mandated by California to acquire academic English and accelerate grade-level academic achievement by effectively using materials, methods, and strategies so that students acquire listening, speaking, reading and writing skills in academic English.

In ENG 106: Language Acquisition, candidates are introduced to a “Functions/Forms” model of Academic Language. They engage in in-class activities to which they apply the newly introduced linguistic concepts and generate sentence frames that students would need to express such classroom functions as: hypotheses in science, explanation of procedures in mathematics, justification of opinions in history/social studies, predictions and agreement/disagreement in an n argument. They then have opportunities to experientially apply this model via their participation in the demonstration lessons that are taught in a non-English language. This is where the learning has the potential to take hold and be transferred to their teaching of English Learners. These demonstration lessons—because they are taught in a non-English language—make visible materials, methods, and strategies that are critical for English learners to be able to optimally access the content while in the process of developing listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills in their new language. The final examination in this course is the analysis of English Language Development and/or SDAIE content lessons. This includes an analysis of how academic language is addressed in a lesson plan. The SDAIE Analysis Grid addresses L/S/R/W aspects of instruction.

In this same course students read the CLAD Handbook, Chapters 4 and 5, and demonstrate their understanding in part through the Final Examination.

In ED 170 (Elementary Literacy) and ED 171 (Content-area Literacy). candidates are required to complete a comprehensive Literacy Case Study (170 Version and 171 Version) that includes, among other components, a demonstration of knowledge relevant to the areas of listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills.

MS and SS candidates demonstrate their knowledge and ability to facilitate a range of strategies such that students acquire listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills in part through their responses to the four tasks of the CalTPA, which require candidates to employ strategies of accommodation, including strategies relevant to listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills, to the specific needs and background of their English Learner Focus Students.

MS and SS candidates demonstrate their knowledge and ability to apply this knowledge of implementing a program that enhances the likelihood of achieving these two goals, in part, through Domain 3 of their final E-portfolio, containing artifacts and reflection on how relevant TPEs were demonstrated during full-time Student Teaching.

• Candidates learn the purposes, goals, and content of the locally adopted instructional program for the effective teaching and support of English learners to meet the two goals of acquiring English and accelerating academic achievement.

See below, in conjunction with the following two components of the standard.

• Candidates understand the local and school organizational structures and resources designed to meet the diverse needs of English learners (e.g.typologies, home language literacy, level of English proficiency, cultural backgrounds).

See below, in conjunction with the following component of the standard.

• Candidates learn the purposes, goals, and content of the adopted instructional program for the effective teaching and support of English learners; and candidates understand the local and school organizational structures and resources designed to meet English learner students’ needs.

Ultimately, we are confident that our candidates are being equipped to work effectively with English Learners, their families, and school personnel whose primary focus is English Learners. At the same time, these three related components of Standard 12 is an area where Westmont’s program needs to go into more depth between now and the Accreditation Site Visit.

While:

(a) individual professors have met with building principals to discuss programs for English Learners and the ELD standards;

(b) we have discussed in our Teacher/Principal Advisory Board how to strengthen our candidates’ overall preparation for English Learners;

(c) the ENG 106 course and major text, Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners (Wayne Wright, 2010), introduce these issues more globally; and

(d) course instructor for ENG 106 shares from his extensive personal experience, including service on the Santa Barbara Unified School District’s English Learner Advisory Council (DELAC):

we know we can systematize and document our work in this area more thoroughly. Specifically, we need to familiarize our candidates more systematically about, and to document more systematically, the following:

• The local and school-site organizational structures for teaching English Learners
• Locally-adopted instructional resources for English Learners
• Our candidates’ interaction with district-specific and site-specific personnel

We will share our progress on these three points at the time of the Accreditation Site Visit.

Reviewers expressed appreciation for the Program’s statements about Westmont’s need to strengthen the following two components, but indicated they needed more additional information even at the current stage.

4) Candidates learn the purposes, goals, and content of the locally adopted instructional program for the effective teaching and support of English learners to meet the two goals of acquiring English and accelerating academic achievement.

5) Candidates understand the local and school organizational structures and resources designed to meet the diverse needs of English learners (e.g. typologies, home language literacy, level of English proficiency, cultural backgrounds).

As we noted previously, these two items have been under-developed in our program in the past.

As a first step, we have added an examination of the following document to the seminars that accompany full-time student teaching (ED 190/195 and ED 191/196):

http://www.sbunified.org/districtwp/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/BoardApprovedELMasterPlan.pdf

Effective Spring 2016 Multiple Subject and Single Subject candidates will read this document and demonstrate their understanding (a) through oral discussion; (b) through a designated journal assignment that focuses on the degree to which they are seeing these policies and procedures implemented in their placement; and (c) through following appropriate procedures in the classroom where they are placed for full-time student teaching.

Since receiving the reviewers’ comments, we have also reached out to the Santa Barbara County Office of Education and the Santa Barbara Unified School Districts (SBUSD), asking if there is on-going training for new teachers and/or principals that our candidates might participate in. Alternatively or in addition, we have asked if there is someone in the SBUSD who is able to provide annual training in this area. At the present time, these initiatives remain in the exploratory stage. For the moment, the clearest demonstration of our candidates’ knowledge of local school and district arrangements will be the examination on the English Learner Master Plan that occurs in the student teaching seminars.

Candidates understand and implement effective instructional practices for ELD and content instruction for English learners, including systematic explicit ELD instruction:

Instruction that is compatible with and complementary to ELD and content instruction for English Learners is infused throughout the Westmont program. In ED 120: Social Studies and Science in the Elementary School, for example, Multiple Subject candidates read as a supplementary text, Stephen Cary’s Working with English Learners: Answers to Teachers’ Top Ten Questions, 2nd ed. In ED 150: Elementary Math Instruction, candidates read a chapter from their textbook dealing with English Learners. Further examples could easily be documented from ED 170: Elementary Reading/Language Arts ED 171: Content-Area Literacy (SS), and ED 151: Curriculum, Management, and Instruction (SS).

As for instructional components that are specifically labeled “ELD,” and exposure to systematic and explicit steps in ELD instruction, candidates receive their most direct exposure to this material once again in ENG 106: Course Session #10. This is outlined in the syllabus as follows:

Content-Area Instruction for ELLs: ELD vs. Content-based ELD Vs. SDAIE; SDAIE Demonstration & Lesson Analysis; SDAIE Lesson Plan Format, Template, and Reflection; Scaffolding & Scaffolding Strategies for SDAIE.

Candidates learn about state and federal legal requirements for the placement and instruction of English learners.

Candidates learn about state and federal legal requirements for the placement and instruction of English learners during ENG 106: Class Sessions #4 and 5, described on the syllabus and in response to a parallel component of this same standard, above.

Candidates have opportunities to learn and are provided with multiple, systematic opportunities to demonstrate knowledge and application of pedagogical theories, principles, and practices for (a) English Language Development leading to comprehensive literacy in English; and (b) for the development of academic language, comprehension and knowledge in the subjects of the curriculum, making grade- appropriate or advanced curriculum content comprehensible to English learners.

These components are addressed separately, below, under the bullet points provided in the Standards.

• Candidates acquire and demonstrate the ability to use initial, diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment information (including performance based assessment) to identify students’ language proficiencies and to develop effective instruction that promotes students’ access to and achievement in the academic content standards. (e.g., development of content and language objectives, flexible strategic grouping, structured oral interaction).

Candidates are introduced to the concepts of initial, diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment—in general—in multiple courses: ED 170, ED 171, ED 120, and ED 150— among others. ED 110/111, for example, explicitly addresses assessment practices for both Multiple and Single Subject candidates in the penultimate session of the course—a session focused entirely on assessment.

Assessment techniques relevant to language and literacy (and thus of particular relevance to this standard) are further taught in ED 170: Elementary Reading/Language Arts and ED 171: Content-area Literacy (SS).

Both of these courses address various components of language and literacy, including listening, speaking, writing, and reading; and include attention to assisting English Learners with access and achievement in other fields besides literacy—especially text- heavy content in science and history/social science.

Assessment specifically for English Learners is the focus of ENG 106, Class Session #6, described in the syllabus as follows:

Assessment: Validity and Reliability; Home Language Survey; Identification, Placement, and Redesignation/Reclassification; The California English Language Development Test (CELDT); Levels of English Language Development; ELD Standards; Test Types; Types of Language Assessments; Designing Assessments; Building Scaffolds for Assessment Tasks; Limits of Traditional Assessments; Samples of Authentic, Alternative Assessments.

For each of the numbered components below, 6-10, reviewers requested more specific information on how candidates demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and abilities.

6) Candidates acquire and demonstrate the ability to use initial, diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment information (including performance based assessment) to identify students’ language proficiencies and to develop effective instruction that promotes students’ access to and achievement in the academic content standards. (e.g., development of content and language objectives, flexible strategic grouping, structured oral interaction).

In addition to what is written above:

In both ED 170 and 171, MS and SS candidates demonstrate their ability to use initial, diagnostic, formative and summative assessment information, in part, through a Literacy Case Study (MS Version and SS Version) of an English Learner to diagnose the EL's ability to read, write, listen, and speak. Candidates administer literacy assessments, analyze the data, and write a summary for a "Student Study Team Meeting" that identifies strengths, areas for growth and appropriate instructional strategies to address the EL's need.

In this set of exercises, Multiple Subject candidates demonstrate the ability to use the following: Anecdotal records, Reading Interest Survey, Concepts of Print, Phonemic Awareness, Alphabetic Principle, Speaking and Listening Checklists, San Diego Quick, Decoding Assessment, Running Record, Fry Oral Reading Test, Writing Sample analysis, SOLOM (Student Oral Language Matrix).

In this set of exercises, Single Subject candidates demonstrate the ability to use the following: Anecdotal records, Reading Interest Survey, Speaking and Listening Checklists, San Diego Quick, Running Record, Writing Sample analysis, SOLOM (Student Oral Language Matrix)

For additional details on these assignments, see the links to the Case Study assignment pages above.

MS and SS candidates demonstrate their knowledge and ability to carry out various forms of assessment in part through their summative E-portfolio, especially narrative and artifacts selected in support of the TPEs in Domain 2.

MS and SS candidates demonstrate their knowledge and ability to carry out various forms of assessment in part through the four tasks of the CalTPA.

• Candidates learn how to differentiate instruction based upon their students’ primary language and proficiency levels in English, and considering the students’ culture, level of acculturation, and prior schooling.

Although not explicitly labeled with the term “differentiation,” resources, techniques, activities and background knowledge pertinent to differentiating instruction are, in fact, infused throughout ENG 106. Such differentiation takes into account such factors as proficiency levels in English, and considering the students’ culture, level of acculturation, and prior schooling. See especially the syllabus for ENG 106, Class Sessions #6-10

The need for differentiated instruction—and differentiation specifically for English Learners at different stages—is also a recurring theme in the Westmont Credential program, hammered home to candidates at every possible opportunity, in every possible way.

As noted elsewhere, the program’s Lesson Plan Template includes provision for differentiation. As candidates prepare their own lesson plans, and as they are exposed to the lesson plans of peers, this need to differentiate is held constantly before them. Candidates are reminded throughout full-time student teaching of the need to provide differentiated instruction, and this is a common theme in the feedback that supervisors provide to candidates.

7) Candidates learn how to differentiate instruction based upon their students’ primary language and proficiency levels in English, and considering the students’ culture, level of acculturation, and prior schooling.

In addition to what is written above:

All lesson plans completed by Multiple Subject Candidates in ED 110, 120, 150, and 170, in addition to selected demonstration lesson plans completed during full-time Student Teaching include sections where candidates must demonstrate their ability to provide some degree of differentiated instruction.

All lesson plans completed by Single Subject Candidates in ED 111, 151, 171, and in their subject-specific pedagogy class (ED 122- ED 129); in addition to selected demonstration lesson plans completed during full-time Student Teaching, include sections where candidates must demonstrate their ability to provide some degree of differentiated instruction.

MS and SS candidates demonstrate their knowledge and ability to carry out various forms of assessment in part through their summative E-portfolio, especially narrative and artifacts selected in support of the TPEs in Domain 3: Engaging and Supporting Student Learning; and Domain 4: Planning Instruction.

MS and SS candidates demonstrate their knowledge and ability to plan and implement differentiated instruction in part through the four tasks of the CalTPA.

• Candidates understand and demonstrate the importance of structured oral interaction in building academic English proficiency and fluency.

The importance of oral interaction in assisting English Learners to gain fluency and ultimately to build their overall academic proficiency is a theme of the entire course in ENG 106. As noted above, however, structured oral interaction, including skills, activities, resources, and background knowledge related to Listening and Speaking is emphasized in Session 7, described in the syllabus as follows:

Listening and Speaking: The Recommended Best Practices for Teaching ELD; Total Physical Response (TPR); What are the Differences; ELD Standards Sequence for Oral Communication; Strategies that Develop and Promote Listening and Speaking skills Across the Curriculum; The Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM). Contrastive and Error Analysis; Language and Code Switching; Strategies; Cooperative Learning & Student Grouping; Organizing the Physical Setting of the Classroom.

8) Candidates understand and demonstrate the importance of structured oral interaction in building academic English proficiency and fluency.

In both ED 170 (MS) and ED 171(SS) candidates are exposed to a wide variety of SDAIE strategies and are asked to consistently integrate strategies in each lesson.

In ED 171 (SS), candidates participate in an in-class exercise of "Structured Academic Engagement" to support and scaffold students to increase language development as they discuss mainstream curriculum.

Among the strategies taught in ED 171 which encourage oral interaction, and which candidates are asked to demonstrate through in-class activities and subsequent instruction during full-time Student Teaching:

______ Think-pair-share
______ Learning Stations
______ Jigsaw
______ Reciprocal Teaching
______ Echo or Choral Reading
______ Student Questions for Purposeful Learning
_____ Numbered Heads
_____ Four Corners
_____ Line Up
_____ 3-step Interview
_____ Coming to Consensus
_____ My Turn, Your Turn – Concept Sort
_____ Find your Partner
_____ Barrier Games
_____ Great Debate
_____ Inner Circle/Outer Circle

The importance of oral interaction in assisting English Learners to gain fluency and ultimately to build their overall academic proficiency is a theme throughout ENG 106. The foundation for this is established in the first five class sessions that address Course Domain 1: Language Structure and Use, as well as in Class 8 when students are introduced to the Interaction Hypothesis. It is further developed in Course Domain 4: Instructional Methodologies. Structured oral interaction, including skills, activities, resources, and background knowledge related to Listening and Speaking are made most visible in Classes 11 and 12.

Candidates receive input in Classes 8, 11, and 12 through:

-A Language Experience Approach Demonstration lesson (Class 11)
-A Total Physical Response demonstration lesson (Class 11)
-A Natural Approach demonstration lesson (Class 11)
-An analysis of Irregular Past Tense Verbs lesson plan (Class 12)
-Discussion of Academic Vocabulary Development (Class 12)
-Reading of the CLAD Handbook (4th ed.) Chapter 4: Oracy and Literacy for ELD

In ED 120: Social Studies and Science in the Elementary Classroom, Multiple Subject candidates read Working with Second Language Learners: Answers to Teachers’ Top Ten Questions, Chapter 4 of which emphasizes structured oral interaction.

Candidates demonstrate their knowledge and ability to facilitate structured oral interaction in part through the four tasks of the CalTPA.

• Candidates learn to analyze and articulate the language and literacy demands inherent in content area instruction for English language learners (e.g., linguistic demands, language function and form, audience and purpose, academic vocabulary, comprehension of multiple oral and written genres).

Breaking down a task or a specific text in order to analyze the language and literacy demands of the task or text, is infused throughout the Westmont program. It is taught most explicitly during the literacy courses, ED 170 (MS) and ED 171 (SS). Candidates practice identifying and being intentional about teaching academic vocabulary, the differing comprehension demands of different genres and registers of text. See course instruction designated on the syllabus for Thursdays between late September to mid- November (ED 171) and ED 170 (each class session, mid-October through mid- November).

9) Candidates learn to analyze and articulate the language and literacy demands inherent in content area instruction for English language learners (e.g., linguistic demands, language function and form, audience and purpose, academic vocabulary, comprehension of multiple oral and written genres).

In ENG 106, students engage in a variety of in-class activities that address academic language (functions/forms) and academic vocabulary. In this course, students also experience demonstration content lessons (science, social studies, and English language arts) that are taught in a non-English language. They then analyze both their experiences as participants/learners vis-à-vis criteria such as language and literacy demands, the role of sentence frames (functions/forms), academic vocabulary, and listening/reading comprehension. For their final examination, they are given a variety of content lesson plans that employ Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) strategies. These they must analyze vis-à-vis the aforementioned criteria.

In ED 170 (MS), candidates daily practice using academic vocabulary in Morning Meetings, academic partner conversations

In ED 171 (SS), candidates read a chapter on Academic Discourse, view videos of Kate Kinsella leading English Learners in academic discourse, participate in in-class exercises (see Accountable Talk Table Tents) and then lead mini-lessons highlighting different instructional strategies to engage students in academic discourse. Further, as part of demonstration lesson plans, candidates generate a list of essential academic and content vocabulary needed for all students (including English Learners) to effectively read/write/listen/speak.

At the very least indirectly, candidates demonstrate their knowledge and ability to analyze and articulate the language and literacy demands inherent in content area instruction through the four tasks of the CalTPA. In all four tasks, the candidate must be able to identify the language and literacy demands such that the Focus Student and all other English Learners in the lesson are successful in accessing identified academic content.

• Candidates learn how to use a wide variety of strategies for including ELs in mainstream curriculum, providing scaffolding, modeling, and support while maintaining access to academic content and providing opportunities for language development.

Candidates are exposed to a range of strategies especially effective for English Learners throughout the Westmont Credential Program. Among many other places where such strategies are specifically addressed in the course syllabus, see especially ENG 106: Class Sessions #10-12, and indeed Class Sessions #7-9.

10) Candidates learn how to use a wide variety of strategies for including ELs in mainstream curriculum, providing scaffolding, modeling, and support while maintaining access to academic content and providing opportunities for language development.

As is mentioned in the response above, students experience demonstration content lessons (science, social studies, and English language arts) that are taught in a non-English language. They then analyze both their experiences as participants/learners vis-à-vis criteria such as language and literacy demands, the role of sentence frames (functions/forms), academic vocabulary, and listening/reading comprehension. For their final examination, they are given a variety of content lesson plans that employ Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) strategies. These they must analyze vis-à-vis the aforementioned criteria.

As well, they participate in at least three lessons that are designed to model English Language Development. As with the content demonstration lessons, they analyze both their experiences as participants/learners vis-à-vis criteria such as language and literacy demands, the role of sentence frames (functions/forms), academic vocabulary, and listening/reading comprehension. For their final examination, they are given a variety of ELD lesson plans that they must analyze vis-à-vis the aforementioned criteria.

In both ED 170 (MS) and ED 171(SS) candidates are exposed to a wide variety of SDAIE strategies and are asked to consistently integrate strategies in each lesson. See attached SDAIE strategies.

In ED 171 (SS), candidates participate in an in-class exercise of "Structured Academic Engagement" (attached) to support and scaffold students to increase language development as they discuss mainstream curriculum.

Candidates demonstrate their knowledge and ability to use a variety of appropriate strategies for including ELs in mainstream curriculum, n in part through the four tasks of the CalTPA, which specifically call for the use of scaffolding, modeling, or other appropriate support such that the Focus Student and all other English Learners are successful in accessing academic content and developing their English abilities.

Standard 12 Appendices

12.1 ENG 106: Language Acquisition
12.2 ED 105: Cultural Diversity
12.3 Wright, Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners, Table of Contents
12.4 ED 170: Reading/Language Arts (MS)
12.5 ED 171: Content-area Literacy (SS)
12.6 Lesson Plan Template

12R.7 Current syllabus for ENG 106
12R.8 Table of Contents for CLAD Handbook
12R.9 Literacy Case Study (ED 170—Multiple Subject)
12R.10 Literacy Case Study (ED 171—Content-Area Literacy)
12R.11 Table of Contents for Cary, Working with Second Language Learners: Answers to Teachers’ Top Ten Questions

Preparation to Teach Special Populations Students with Special Needs in the General Education Classroom

The Multiple and Single Subject Credential program at Westmont consistently keeps candidates attentive to the needs of students with special needs. The need to accommodate students with special needs is emphasized each time candidates teach mini- lessons to their peers on campus, as they do in ED 120 (Elementary Social Studies/Science Methods), ED 121 (Subject-Area Curriculum & Instruction), ED 150 (Elementary Math Methods), ED 170 (Elementary Reading/Language Arts), and ED 171 (Content-Area Literacy).

On the Westmont Lesson Plan Template there is a required section for accommodating students with special needs—a template that candidates use for both their peer lessons and for selected formal written lesson plans taught in the field during the Early Field Experience and full-time Student Teaching.

Candidates’ most systematic and comprehensive exposure to the knowledge and skills for effective teaching of students with special needs comes in ED 130: Special Education for the Classroom Teacher. This course has been taught for approximately five years by the same part-time instructor who teaches similar courses in the credential program at the University of California—Santa Barbara, across town.

Candidates demonstrate the skills and knowledge for effective teaching of students with special needs in a variety of ways, notably including (1) their completion of the four tasks of the California Teaching Performance Assessment; and (2) their work with students with special needs during full-time student teaching, and the documentation of the same as part of their culminating electronic portfolio.

Through planned prerequisites and/or professional preparation, the teacher preparation program ensures the following:

Candidates demonstrate a basic level of knowledge and skills in:

a) assessing the learning abilities of students in order to identify and differentiate for those needing referral for assessment, identification of disabilities and eligibility for special education, Section 504 services, or gifted and talented education programs;

Candidates are introduced to issues surrounding the identification of students with disabilities and other special needs in ED 100/101: Explorations in Teaching, typically taken as a pre-requisite well before entering the credential program. Candidates complete a forty-hour placement in a public school setting that includes students with special needs, and they read and discuss Chapter 3 from the Ryan & Cooper text, “Who are today’s students in a diverse society?”

The primary context in which candidates learn about the assessment and referral process, including the criteria for eligibility for special services, is in ED 130, Class Sessions #2, 3, and 4. Candidates learn the larger legal framework and specific laws which address education for students with disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Americans with Disabilities Act). They consider the notion of “Free Appropriate Public Education,” and carefully review elements of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). In conjunction with reading Chs. 2 and 5 of Turnbull & Turnbull (Exceptional Lives: Special Education in Today’s Schools, 7th ed., candidates learn in general terms about the identification of disabilities and identification of GATE students, and the referral and pre- referral process.

Throughout the remainder of the course, candidates continue to read Turnbull & Turnbull. Each chapter focuses on a particular disability and presents in-depth discussion of the best assessment, evaluation, and instructional practices. Candidates learn about the characteristics of a range of high-incidence and low-incidence disabilities, including how candidates might identify these disabilities and begin to make appropriate interventions, and/or follow through on the interventions already in place for students identified as having a disability. Throughout the course candidates complete classroom assignments on in which they apply a range of assessments including: task analytic assessments, applied behavioral assessments (specifically as related to School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports), and curriculum-based assessment.

b) assessing the language abilities of students in order to identify and differentiate for those needing referral for assessment, identification of disabilities and eligibility for special education, Section 504 services, or gifted and talented education programs;

Candidates are introduced to the assessment of language abilities in ED 170: Reading & Language Arts (MS); or ED 171: Content-Area Literacy (SS).

In ED 170, candidates read and discuss Tompkins, Literacy in the 21st Century, Ch. 3 (“Assessing Student’s Literacy Development”) and Ch. 6 (“Assessment of Proficiency in the Language Arts”), in addition to assessment-related handouts and activities.

With respect to second-language assessment issues, specific assessments such as the CELDT, and the interaction of language and disability issues, candidates’ primary introduction is in ENG 106: Language Acquisition. The syllabus delineates the coverage of these topics in the sixth class session as follows:

Assessment: Validity and Reliability; Home Language Survey; Identification, Placement, and Redesignation/Reclassification; The California English Language Development Test (CELDT); Levels of English Language Development; ELD Standards; Test Types; Types of Language Assessments; Designing Assessments; Building Scaffolds for Assessment Tasks; Limits of Traditional Assessments; Samples of Authentic, Alternative Assessments.

Candidates demonstrate their ability to interpret CELDT results and to plan appropriate interventions as part of four tasks of the California TPA.

During ED 150: Elementary Mathematics Methods, a current IEP is shared with Multiple Subject candidates.

In ED 170, candidates read and discuss Tompkins, Literacy in the 21st Century, Ch. 11, which deals with differentiation in the context of literacy.

c) considering issues of language learning as compared to issues of language disability and how these relate to academic achievement;

During ED 130: Special Education, Class Session #10, candidates consider the issues surrounding diversity in special education, and learn to distinguish strictly second- language issues from true learning and language disabilities, as well as appropriate interventions in cases where students are dealing with these as overlapping sets of issues.

Again, however, the primary context in which candidates learn about these issues and their relationship to academic achievement is in ENG 106: Language Acquisition, as noted above. As noted immediately above, the syllabus describes the coverage of these topics in the sixth class session as follows:

Assessment: Validity and Reliability; Home Language Survey; Identification, Placement, and Redesignation/Reclassification; The California English Language Development Test (CELDT); Levels of English Language Development; ELD Standards; Test Types; Types of Language Assessments; Designing Assessments; Building Scaffolds for Assessment Tasks; Limits of Traditional Assessments; Samples of Authentic, Alternative Assessments.

d) providing appropriate differentiated instruction that ensures all students access to the core curriculum;

The teacher’s responsibility to differentiate is emphasized throughout the Multiple and Single Subject program.

As noted elsewhere, the program’s Lesson Plan Template includes provision for differentiation. As candidates prepare their own lesson plans, and as they are exposed to the lesson plans of peers, this need to differentiate is held constantly before them.

Throughout ED 130, candidates learn strategies to differentiate instruction and ensure all students have access to the core curriculum. Classes 11, 12, and 13 focus on providing candidates with general planning strategies, such as Universal Design for Learning and differentiated instruction, as well as specific strategies to adapt instruction for diverse learners. Candidates learn how to develop Universally Designed lessons and then, as necessary, adjust those lessons based on a student’s IEP. Candidates learn about several evidence based interventions to help them address the educational needs of students with

Candidates are reminded throughout full-time student teaching of the need to provide differentiated instruction, and this is a common theme in the feedback that supervisors provide to candidates

e) selecting and using appropriate instructional materials and technologies, including assistive technologies, to meet the needs of students with special needs in the general education classroom; and

The availability and use of assistive technology is introduced in passing during ED 160/161: Computers for the Classroom Teacher, specifically in the introduction to Pitler, Hubbell & Kuhn, Using Technology…2nd ed.

During Class Session #14 of ED 130: Special Education, candidates focus specifically on “emerging technologies to assist students with disabilities.” Further, developmentally- appropriate and particular-disability-appropriate instructional resources, including technological and assistive-technological resources, are discussed in conjunction with the discussion of each different category of special need.

f) identifying when and how to address social integration needs of students with disabilities who are included in the general education classroom.

The social integration of students with special needs is a theme that runs throughout ED 130. Practical strategies and tools for supporting the social integration of children with disabilities in the regular classroom are given special focus in this course. Candidates read about strategies for supporting the social inclusion of children with disabilities in Exceptional Lives (Turnbull & Turnbull). The entire text is structured around the theme of inclusion. Chapter 2 focuses on "Ensuring progress in the general education curriculum through Universal Design for Learning and inclusion,” as well as specific illustrations and recommendations for every category of disability in following chapters. Creating an inclusive classroom is a major theme in this course. Specifically, candidates are taught a procedure to develop and use adaptations in a way that meaningfully includes a student with a disability in the classroom (see Kurth; 2013). Additionally, candidates learn how to build and implement school-wide positive behavioral support strategies in support of inclusion of all students with disabilities in general education activities.

Candidates develop the basic knowledge, skills, strategies, and strengths-based approach for teaching the full range of students in the general education classroom, including all categories of special populations such as students with disabilities, students on behavior plans, English learners, and gifted and talented students. Candidates understand that students may be represented in multiple subgroups.

By design, ED 130: Special Education covers the full range of disabilities—that is to say, all categories of populations with special needs.

Specific class sessions are devoted to high-incidence needs, including the characteristics of each particular special need and appropriate resources and other interventions for addressing that particular need. With regard to low-incidence disabilities, a single class session may expose candidates to multiple categories of disabilities.

In the same course (ED 130), candidates are required to read and discuss each chapter, as well as develop a presentation on one of the disability categories. Candidates develop and deliver a presentation to fellow teacher candidates on one of the disability topics covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Presenters are required to find updated information on the disability and teach fellow candidates the different learning and behavior characteristics for students identified with the disability.

Candidates are introduced to strategies for working effectively with gifted and talented students (Class Session #14). Candidates review what they have been taught about English Learners previously, in ENG 106, during ED 130: Special Education Class Session 10: “Diversity in special education.”

Candidates learn about the role of the general education teacher in identifying and teaching students with special needs, as well as relevant state and federal laws pertaining to the education of exceptional populations and the general education teacher’s role and responsibilities in developing and implementing tiered interventions.

During ED 130: Special Education, candidates are introduced to strategies for working effectively with paraprofessionals (Class Session #14). During Class Sessions #2-4, especially, but throughout the course, candidates learn their role in identifying and teaching students with special needs—and the federal and state legal framework governing the execution of their classroom role.

During ED 190/191: Student Teaching, candidates apply what they have learned previously in ED 130 and other program components in order to effectively share in identifying and teaching students with special needs. They work with their cooperating teacher, college supervisor, and other school personnel to uphold state and federal laws, and to develop—or more often implement—a range of developmentally appropriate, particular-disability-appropriate, and content-appropriate interventions.

As noted elsewhere, the department’s Standard Lesson Plan Template reminds candidates on a daily basis of their responsibility to provide accommodations. These written plans also serve then as a partial basis for cooperating teachers and college supervisors to evaluate candidates’ ability to provide and implement appropriate interventions.

Candidates demonstrate skills in creating a positive, inclusive climate of instruction for all students with special needs in the general classroom and demonstrate skill in collaborative planning and instruction with education specialists and other school professionals.

During ED 130: Special Education, candidates are introduced to strategies for working effectively with paraprofessionals (Class Session #14)

During ED 190/191: Student Teaching, candidates demonstrate the ability to collaborate with others, including educational specialists and paraprofessionals, and are assessed on their ability to do so. They apply what they have learned in ED 130 and other courses to create a positive and inclusive environment for all students.

Standard 13 Appendices

13.1 Lesson Plan Template 13.2 ED 130: Special Education for the Classroom Teacher
13.3 Turnbull & Turnbull (Exceptional Lives: Special Education in Today’s Schools, 7th ed.
13.4 Tompkins, Literacy in the 21st Century
13.5 ENG 106: Language Acquisition
13.6 Kurth Document
13.7 Presentation Directions

Learning to Teach through Supervised Fieldwork

Many of the Multiple and Single Subject programs’ policies and procedures with respect to supervised fieldwork are documented in Westmont’s Multiple Subject Handbook and Single Subject Handbook

Reviewers should note that the Handbooks are in a fairly continuous state of revision. Significant changes have been made since the initial submission, and although we have been instructed as a general rule to keep the initial links there is now a multiple-purpose Handbook that is the current guide for Multiple Subject candidates, Single Subject candidates, and cooperating teachers.

The teacher preparation program includes a developmental sequence of carefully- planned, substantive, supervised field experiences in schools selected by the program sponsor. All candidates plan and practice multiple strategies for managing and delivering instruction that were introduced and examined in program and/or prerequisite coursework.

Qualified members of the teacher preparation program determine and document the satisfactory qualifications and developmental readiness of each candidate prior to (a) being given instructional responsibilities with K-12 students, and (b) being given daily whole-class instructional responsibilities in a K-12 school. In addition, each candidate must demonstrate a fundamental ability to teach in the major domains of the Teaching Performance Expectations.

Full-time faculty, normally already well acquainted with applicants, are all involved in the Admissions Process. The faculty makes every effort to set candidates up for success.

Candidates who do not appear to have satisfactory qualifications, a teachable spirit, and/or the developmental readiness to hit the ground running, are not accepted into the Multiple or Single Subject Credential programs in the first place.

In some cases, a promising but still questionable candidate is not rejected during the Admissions Process so much as encouraged to wait another year in order to re-apply.

The primary method of determining developmental readiness for any level of instructional responsibility during the fall is close individual observation, in and outside of methods courses. Among other considerations, the peer lessons candidates implement during class is one important source of evidence of whether the candidate is ready to take on increasing levels of responsibility. In addition to informal conversations, full-time program faculty review each candidate’s progress at a Departmental Meeting, typically the first meeting in the month of October, and determine what, if any, intervention is necessary at that stage.

During a later Departmental meeting, typically the last meeting in November or first meeting in December, candidates are officially approved—or not—or approved with specific written conditions—to continue into full-time student teaching. Those occasional-to-rare candidates given specific written conditions meet with one or more full-time faculty members during late November or December to identify specific steps necessary for success during full-time student teaching in the spring. Between the fall and spring semesters, once the GPA has been officially recorded, the program chair and program assistant record that the candidate has officially qualified for acceptance into the stage of full-time student teaching. (Sample acceptance letter into Student Teaching)

With respect to the Teaching Performance Expectations, these form the basis of the evaluation form used during full-time Student Teaching and thus all full-time faculty are familiar with these expectations and conscious of these as a benchmark in evaluating candidates’ readiness at the time of the early October and early December meetings. The candidates’ performance relative to each Teaching Performance Expectation is formally recorded in written form in March and May/June for each candidate.

By design, this supervised fieldwork sequence (a) extends candidates’ understanding of major ideas and emphases developed in program and/or prerequisite coursework; (b) contributes to candidates’ meeting the Teaching Performance Expectations, and (c) contributes to candidates’ preparation for the teaching performance assessment. Candidates have extensive opportunities to observe, acquire and use appropriate pedagogical knowledge, skills, and abilities.

The chief goal of the MS and SS Student Teaching Seminars (ED 195 and ED 196) is providing on-going, practical group support for full-time student teachers.

At the same time, another major goal is ensuring that candidates make connections with major ideas and emphases in their prior coursework and their immersion in the daily life of one or more classrooms.

The fact that the Seminar course instructors are the same faculty who are involved in supervision; and the same faculty who have been teaching relevant professional courses the semester or semesters before, helps to facilitate the making of connections.

During full-time student teaching, candidates have at least two formal opportunities to reflect on the Teaching Performance Expectations and the way their fieldwork is contributing (or more rarely, is not sufficiently contributing) to their professional growth in each of these areas.

During their ED 195/196 Seminars, candidates discuss their experience and performance during their field experience in relation to the demands of the Teaching Performance Assessment---and vice-versa.

As part of the sequence, all candidates complete individual assignments and group discussions in which coursework-based strategies are used and reviewed in relation to (a) state-adopted student academic content standards and curriculum frameworks; (b) students’ needs, interests and accomplishments; and (c) the observed results of the strategies.

During full-time Student Teaching, candidates meet together weekly during their Seminar to review candidates’ progress. Candidates and the course instructor, who doubles as the candidates’ full or shared field supervisor, constantly discuss as a group, overall patterns and selected individual hard cases pertaining to the effectiveness of candidates’’ instruction. This group discussion in the Seminars (ED 195/196) is in addition to the individual weekly consultation between field supervisor and candidate, normally immediately after field supervisor’s visit to the classroom. Apart from the supervisor’s or cooperating teacher’s “observed results” of the student teacher’s instructions, candidates are taught to reflect on the effectiveness of their own instruction. They reflect weekly in written form about the effectiveness of their instruction and explore with their supervisor ways to make their teaching even stronger.

With respect to Letter (b), above, the needs, interests, and accomplishments of K-12 students is a constant frame of reference for (1) the group discussions in the Seminars (ED 195/196); (2) the individual weekly consultation between field supervisor and student teacher, which may include the classroom teacher as his or her schedule allows; and (3) the student teachers’ written weekly reflections.

With respect to Letter (a), above, all demonstration lesson plans (that is to say, all formal lessons required as part of the Course Requirements during ED 190/191, must reference relevant state academic standards (including as appropriate Common Core) and succeed practically, in achieving the state academic standard so referenced. The relationship of day-to-day instruction to the state academic standards is also a constant oral, mental, and written frame of reference for (1) the group discussions in the Seminars (ED 195/196); (2) the individual weekly consultation between field supervisor and student teacher, which may include the classroom teacher as his or her schedule allows; and (3) the student teachers’ written weekly reflections.

The structured sequence of supervised fieldwork includes a formal process for determining the readiness of each candidate for advancement to daily responsibility for whole-class instruction in the program. Prior to or during the program, each candidate observes, discusses, reflects on and participates in important aspects of teaching, and teaches individual students and groups of students before being given daily responsibility for whole-class instruction….

As noted above, the primary method of determining developmental readiness for level of instructional responsibility throughout the program is close individual observation, in and outside of methods courses; and in and outside of supervised field work. In the latter case, the fact that full-time faculty double as field supervisors themselves facilitates communication of concerns, and the articulation of appropriate interventions, including documenting these concerns and interventions in writing and communicating these in a timely and explicit manner to all significant constituencies, including the student teacher, cooperating teacher(s), and, as necessary, building administrators.

Although there is a published sequence for assuming instructional responsibility in the classroom for MS student teachers; and although the ideal and prevailing pattern in the SS program is that student teachers are fully responsible for their three classes daily— Westmont supervisors are positioned to intervene quickly, and if necessary, insist that the cooperating teacher(s) take back responsibilities the student teacher has not clearly demonstrated his or her readiness to assume. Of necessity, the timing and nature of each intervention in a full-time student teaching placement varies. What does not vary is (1) the field supervisor being on top of the situation; (2) the field supervisor’s timely communication with the student teacher and his or her classroom teacher(s); and (3) the program’s insistence at all times that the learning of K-12 students can never be jeopardized by a Westmont student’s teacher hypothetical or actual lack of effectiveness.

The vast majority of the program’s student teachers are highly effective. At the same time, at the time of the site visit, we strongly encourage the visiting team to interview cooperating teachers and administrators involved in those rare situations where a student teacher has not lived up to program or school expectations—and to learn more about how our program faculty/supervisors have worked out appropriate plans of intervention.

Much of the above concerning full-time student teaching in the spring semester would apply to field placements during the fall semester. Again, the primary method of determining developmental readiness for level of instructional responsibility throughout the program is close individual observation, in and outside of methods courses; and in and outside of supervised field work. The peer lessons candidates implement during class on campus is one important source of evidence of whether the candidate is ready to take on increasing levels of responsibility.

As noted elsewhere in the IHE response to this standard, full-time program faculty review each candidate’s progress at a Departmental Meeting, typically the first meeting in the month of October, and determine what, if any, intervention is necessary at that stage. Concerns are discussed and addressed with candidates, with follow-up as needed.

During a later Departmental meeting, typically the last meeting in November or first meeting in December, candidates are officially approved—or not—or approved with specific written conditions—to continue into full-time student teaching. Those occasional-to-rare candidates given specific written conditions meet with one or more full-time faculty members during late November or December to identify specific steps necessary for success during full-time student teaching in the spring. Between the fall and spring semesters, once the GPA has been officially recorded, the program chair and program assistant record that the candidate has officially qualified for acceptance into the stage of full-time student teaching.

…Prior to or during the program each candidate observes and participates in two or more K-12 classrooms, including classrooms in hard-to-staff and/or underperforming schools.

Please see attached form. Between now and the Site Visit, we will add a column to show which schools (the majority of those we use) are officially designated as hard-to-staff and/or underperforming.

Readers request more information about how the program fulfills the following standard: “Prior to or during the program each candidate observes and participates in two or more K-12 classrooms, including classrooms in hard-to-staff and/or underperforming schools.” Please provide evidence regarding the composition of the schools used for fieldwork.

Composition of schools used for Fieldwork

From their first pre-professional placement through full-time student teaching, candidates have significant experiences with Non-White/Non-Anglo K-12 students, with students who are socio-economically disadvantaged, and students classified as English Learners.

As shown in the chart below, Santa Barbara-area public schools and school districts have a relatively high percentage of students in the three sub-groups mentioned above.

The individual school data is all from the 2014-15 academic year, School Accountability Report Cards on-line. All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

The schools listed for both the Multiple Subject program and Single Subject program are listed in the approximate order of frequency of use.

Over the years, additional schools within these districts have been used on occasion, but (a) this list includes all schools in which full-time student teachers are placed; and (b) schools used for pre-professional placements besides those listed would have comparable percentages of students in each category.

Since the Hope School District (Multiple Subject only) has fewer students in each of the three categories referenced in the table, all MS candidates have at least two of their three major placements OUTSIDE the Hope School District.

Prior to assuming daily responsibility for whole-class instruction, each candidate must have satisfied the basic skills and subject matter requirements.

The Program Assistant, in conversation with the Program Chair and other full-time faculty, is responsible for documenting in a timely manner that Multiple and Single Subject candidates have satisfied basic skills and subject matter requirements.

Typically, all requirements have been met prior to the beginning of the Credential Program, if not already met at the time of Acceptance or Conditional Acceptance into the Program the previous May. In the latter case [Conditional Acceptance], the program chair in consultation with the Program Assistant gives candidates explicit, timely, detailed conditions for continuing with the program. Candidates are notified at that time, and reminded thereafter, that they may not be accepted into full-time Student Teaching in January if they have not satisfied subject-matter requirements. (Letter of Acceptance).

During the supervised field experience, each candidate is supervised in daily teaching for a minimum of one K-12 grading period, including in a full-day teaching assignment of at least two weeks, commensurate with the authorization of the recommended credential. As part of this experience, or in a different setting if necessary, each candidate teaches in public schools, experiences all phases of a school year on-site and has significant experiences teaching English learners.

Every candidate, Multiple or Single, is placed in public schools for virtually all of their field experience. Once in fourteen years, we had a pre-professional, by her special request, complete her ED 100 forty-hour placement in a private school. And again, once in the past 14 years, in 2006, we had a Single Subject Candidate complete a small portion of her Student Teaching in Physical Education in a private school, so as to give her a broader range of experience. But those are the exceptions we are aware of.

Again, every candidate, Multiple or Single, has significant experiences in teaching English Learners across the range of their field experience. Rarely, when all other transportation options have been exhausted, we place pre-professionals for ED 100: Explorations in Teaching (40 hours prior to acceptance into candidate status) in a nearby school with limited English Learners. All Early Field Experience and all full-time Student Teaching, however, is completed in schools and classrooms with significant numbers of English Learners.

…Additionally, readers request information about how the program insures that “... each candidate ... significant experiences teaching English learners.” Limited information was provided in response to this standard, but readers request a complete explanation for both multiple and single subject candidates.

Composition of schools used for Fieldwork

As noted above, from their first pre-professional placement through full-time student teaching, candidates have significant experiences with Non-White/Non-Anglo K-12 students, with students who are socio-economically disadvantaged, and students classified as English Learners.

As shown in the chart below, Santa Barbara-area public schools and school districts have a relatively high percentage of students in the three sub-groups mentioned above.

The individual school data is all from the 2014-15 academic year, School Accountability Report Cards on-line. All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

The schools listed for both the Multiple Subject program and Single Subject program are listed in the approximate order of frequency of use.

Over the years, additional schools within these districts have been used on occasion, but (a) this list includes all schools in which full-time student teachers are placed; and (b) schools used for pre-professional placements besides those listed would have comparable percentages of students in each category.

Since the Hope School District (Multiple Subject only) has fewer students in each of the three categories referenced in the table, all MS candidates have at least two of their three major placements OUTSIDE the Hope School District.

English Learners

All Westmont candidates have significant experiences working with English Learners. As show in the chart above, all Multiple Subject candidates complete at least two of their three major placements in schools where the percentage of English Learners approaches or exceeds 50% of the school enrollment. Granted that English Learners are distributed in all classrooms, all candidates have significant experiences working with English Learners.

All Single Subject candidates complete all three of their major field experiences in schools with high percentages of non-Anglo/non-White students. Because of the success of the feeder schools in teaching English, however, fewer of these students are classified, as junior high or high school students, as English Learners. Within these schools, all Single Subject candidates have significant experiences with English Learners in their classrooms. This is a consideration, first of all, in the initial placements. But it is demonstrated most unequivocally in the data that candidates report on TPA Task “4”: Culminating Teaching Experience, in which candidates report having English Learners in the classroom for which they completed this particular task during full-time student teaching.

Single Subject candidates conduct research about their assigned K-12 students in order to write a paper specifically about their students’ backgrounds. They use data systems in their assigned placements in order to access grade, identified special needs, test scores, demographic information, and information on discipline.

Single Subject candidates also teach a designated lesson specifically designed for English Learners toward the beginning of their full-time student teaching placement, and engage in post-teaching reflection on the degree to which their teaching met the needs of their English Learners.

As to daily schedules and all phases of the school year, Westmont’s Multiple and Single Subject candidates operate on slightly different annual calendars and on slightly different schedules of phasing in responsibility for full-day responsibility, so this part of the Standard is addressed separately.

In the Multiple Subject program, for full-time student teaching, candidates are placed in the same classroom for a 15-week period matching the Westmont College academic calendar for Second Semester.

MS candidates experience the whole day over this 15-week period, including their host teacher’s morning preparation time prior to the official school day and extending to after-school meetings, conferences with parents, host teachers’ assigned duties, and after- school preparation for the next school day.

MS candidates gradually work their way up to full responsibility for the classroom, for the whole day, for at least a continuous two-week period. In addition, candidates experience prior to that a total of two-weeks’ worth of non-continuous days or half-days of full responsibility for the classroom. Their placement window typically includes critical points in the calendar, including parent conferences, preparation for standardized testing, and the administration of the testing itself.

At the beginning of the school’s academic year (effective August 2014), candidates observe the entire first three days of the school year, attend the school’s Back-to-School Night, and immediately begin their thirty-hour fall field placement—allowing at least weekly participation in the life of the classroom over roughly the course of the school’s first semester (Handbook).

We are currently exploring ways to ensure that MS candidates experience additional aspects of the end of the academic school year. The current plan is to have MS candidates interview their cooperating teachers about the end of the year; and also implement themselves, toward the end of their placement in May, an activity that would be parallel to end-of-year activities conducted by the cooperating teacher in June.

We are currently discussing additional ways to bolster Multiple Subject Candidates’ experience of both the beginning and the end of the year, including discussion with our Teacher Principal Advisory Board. We will report on the progress on these fronts at the time of the on-sight accreditation visit.

In the Single Subject program, for full-time student teaching, candidates are placed in one to three (typically two) classrooms for a 20-week period matching the local school districts’ Second Semester calendars.

SS candidates experience the entire school day, including participation in meetings, extra-curricular activities, and wherever feasible, their host teachers’ assigned out-of- class duties.

SS candidates’ formal accountability and responsibility for participation and observation in five or more academic classes is limited to an individually-negotiated two-week period.

However, they are, in fact, participating in the professional lives of their cooperating teachers’ and their classrooms for a full school day over a far longer period. As early in the second semester as reasonably possible—no later than the third week and normally earlier—the Single Subject candidate is fully responsible for three of their host teachers’ courses. This period of full responsibility extends to the very end of the host school’s academic calendar.

Single Subject candidates experience the first semester of a school’s life through their 30- hour fall semester placement, which includes three hours of observation and participation in classrooms each week over roughly the school’s first semester. Single Subject candidates must also must attend at least one full Back-to-School Night.

Additionally, readers request information about how the program insures that “... each candidate …….experiences all phases of a school year on-site…

All phases of a school year

In late August, all Multiple Subject candidates observe the entire first three days of an individually-assigned elementary classroom. Almost immediately (but in no case, no later than September 15) Multiple Subject candidates begin their Fall Early Field Experience placement, spread over the entire first semester (that is, up until the December holidays). MS candidates experience the full classroom day, Monday through Friday, until the first week of May. In order for candidates to experience the final weeks of the local school year, candidates (a) plan with their cooperating teacher a summative year-end experience prior to leaving the classroom; and (b) effective 2016-17, document in writing the ways in which the cooperating teacher plans the final 4-5 weeks of the semester. We have discussed this issue with the Westmont Teacher Advisory Board and colleagues at other institutions, and continue to explore options to strengthen our candidates’ preparation for this final stretch of the year. It is our understanding that the wording of this standard has changed in the latest standards, and we will ensure that our program is in compliance with the newest standards on this particular point.

Single Subject candidates also observe the first three days of school begin their Fall Early Experience as early as possible, so as to observe and participate in classrooms no later than the second week of the Fall Semester. They continue to observe and participate throughout the semester. During January, when the public schools are completing the school’s First Semester, candidates observe and meet with administrators. Candidates are on-site, for the full day, Monday through Friday throughout the schools’ entire second semester.

Prior to or during the program each Multiple Subject teaching credential candidate observes and participates in two or more of the following grade spans: K-2, 3-5, and 6- 9.

Westmont has always worked to ensure that all Multiple Subject candidates are given substantive experience in two or more of the designated grade spans.

However, at the time of the Accreditation Site Visit in 2009, a parallel component of the 2001 Multiple and Single Subject Standards was a source of some confusion. Up to 2009, Westmont was still using a previous taxonomy of the grade levels which defined the lowest group as K-3, rather than K-2 (as newly defined by the 2001 standards, and upheld in the 2009 standards). All of that to say, given the stress this item caused at the time of the previous site visit, Westmont has worked especially scrupulously on this particular component of Standard 14 ever since, to ensure that each Multiple Subject candidate individually, and the program as whole, is fully compliant.

Prior to the candidate's final program placement, the Multiple Subject Program Coordinator and Program Assistant check this form to make sure that at least two of the spans will be accounted for by the time the candidate completes the program.

Prior to or during the program each Single Subject teaching credential candidate observes and/or participates in two or more subject-specific teaching assignments that differ in content and/or level of advancement.

Each Single Subject candidate observes and participates in two subject-specific teaching assignments prior to full-time student teaching. These occur (1) in ED 101: Explorations in Teaching, where the pre-professional is placed for forty hours over a ten-week period in a subject-specific classroom matching his or her intended disciplinary interest; and (2) in the fall prior to full-time student teaching, where the candidate is placed for thirty hours over a roughly ten-week period in a subject-specific classroom matching his or her intended disciplinary interest.

In addition, during full-time student teaching, each Single Subject candidate has at least two cooperating teachers who have different sub-disciplinary assignments—and/or different grade level assignments.

Apart from the requirement of the standard, and in addition to what is written above, Westmont’s Single Subject candidates are often placed in two different school sites, helping them to gain an even broader range of experience.

These placements are documented on a form parallel to the form used for Multiple Subject candidates identified above.

Standard 14 Appendices

14.1 Multiple Subject Handbook
14.2 Single Subject Handbook
14.3 Syllabus—ED 190/195: MS Student Teaching and Seminar
14.4 Syllabus—ED 151: Curriculum, Classroom Management, and Instruction in Diverse Secondary Classrooms
14.5 Syllabus—ED 191/196: SS Student Teaching and Seminar
14.6 Conditional Letter of Acceptance
14.7 Sample acceptance letter into Student Teaching
14.8 Evaluation form for student teaching
14.9 Departmental template for lesson plans
14.10 Sequence for assuming instructional responsibility in the classroom for MS student teachers
14.11 Field supervisor’s timely communication with the student teacher and his or her classroom teacher(s)SS Verification Form
14.12 Letter of Acceptance
14.13 MS Verification Form

Qualifications of Individuals Who Provide School Site Support

One of the hallmarks of the Westmont Department of Education is the personal care and attention the program devotes to selecting individuals to host field experiences. Full-time faculty maintain close, direct, face-to-face contact with teachers overseeing field experiences, working to clarify procedures along the way, and intervening as early as possible where any of the parties involved voice potential concerns.

The Department works carefully with school site principals and other district personnel to identify and screen prospective cooperating teachers. The Department maintains careful records on the individuals who provide school site support, and does not re-use individuals where there is a pattern of miscommunication or perceived lack of support for our students and candidates.

The Department surveys teachers who serve as mentors during full-time student teaching, specifically eliciting feedback on the orientation, communication, and support they have received from the Westmont program: [Full set of comments from Cooperating Teachers, 2013]

Sponsors of programs define the qualifications of individuals who provide school site support. These qualifications include, but are not limited to a minimum of the appropriate credential (including EL authorization) and three or more years of teaching experience in California.

The Westmont Department of Education takes care to use only cooperating teachers who will serve as appropriate models and mentors for the impressionable candidates they host. We look for mentors who demonstrate a passion for mentoring, highly developed communication skills, habits of life-long learning, and excellence in helping all students succeed. Further, we identify mentors who have the willingness to invest time and effort in a deliberate mentorship.

In addition to screening prospective cooperating teachers through principal recommendations, first-hand knowledge of the teacher’s work, and prior experience with the Westmont program, we have identified a Comprehensive list of qualifications for prospective cooperating teachers. Building principals and prospective cooperating teachers themselves are asked to sign a statement for each host of a full-time student teacher that the teacher admirably demonstrates these qualifications. Among the qualifications are a minimum of the appropriate credential (including English Learner authorization), and three or more years of teaching experience in California.

Sponsors of programs provide ongoing professional development for supervisors that includes the Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) and information about responsibilities, rights, and expectations pertaining to candidates and supervisors. Individuals selected to provide professional development to supervising teachers (a) are experienced and effective in supervising credential candidates; (b) know and understand current educational theory and practice, the sponsors’ expectations for supervising teachers, state-adopted academic content standards and frameworks, and the developmental stages of learning-to-teach; (c) model collegial supervisory practices that foster success among credential candidates; and (d) promote reflective practice.

Only cooperating teachers who demonstrate successful classroom experience of their own, a positive record in hosting candidates [or strong potential to develop such a positive record;] who demonstrate current best practices, know their subject, including familiarity with state-adopted academic content standards and framework, including Common Core standards; who are highly relational, and who regularly reflect on their own practice are chosen as host teachers for full-time student teachers.

In our biggest partner district, Santa Barbara Unified School District, we work from a district-assembled list of cooperating teachers who are considered strong candidates and approved in principle to work with Westmont and two other local IHEs.

The Department provides professional development for sponsors chiefly in the form of a comprehensive and detailed meeting prior to hosting a student teacher, regular written communication, and on-going direct face-to-face interaction.

The program also gives every cooperating teacher a copy of 101 “answers” for new teachers and their mentors.

We are currently in the process of identifying appropriate current professional articles on being an effective mentor/cooperating teacher to distribute and discuss at strategic points with our cooperating teachers. At the time of the Accreditation Site Visit, we will have more to describe on the status and effectiveness of this effort.

A full-time faculty member, normally the Multiple Subject Program Coordinator or Single Subject Program Coordinator Meets, meets with every cooperating teacher in person. Prior to student teaching, a meeting is arranged for cooperating teachers at each school site. Building principals are invited to attend this meeting, especially if they have not attended a similar meeting already. Each cooperating teacher receives a detailed program Handbook specifically for Cooperating Teachers: Handbook for Cooperating Teachers.

In addition to receiving comprehensive written guidelines, each cooperating teacher receives oral clarification on a range of program expectations for the candidate’s performance. The cooperating teacher also receives oral clarification on program procedures. [Notes for Cooperating Teacher Meeting] Among the topics discussed in detail at the preliminary meeting:

• Contact information for all parties
• Calendar, including vacation and holidays
• Expectations for daily time in the building
• Expectations for the student teacher to participate in all aspects of the school life and all aspects of the cooperating teacher’s responsibilities
• Procedures for evaluation, including formal and informal feedback. Dates and forms to be completed by the cooperating teacher
• Procedures and expectations surrounding the Teaching Performance Assessment
• The nature of the Teaching Performance Expectations, and the relationship of that document to (a) the program evaluation forms; and (b) the Teaching Performance Assessment
• Rules governing substituting
• Procedures for sharing lesson plans
• Procedures for supervision by full-time Westmont faculty
• The need to provide early, detailed feedback to the candidate, and not to hold back in offering substantive suggestions
• The need to introduce the candidate to school faculty and staff
• The suggested progression for the candidate’s assumption of teaching responsibilities, and the need to adapt that for individuals
• The need to inform the program as soon as possible about potential concerns related to the candidate’s performance

Communication between the program and cooperating teachers in the field is enhanced by the fact that Westmont supervision is carried out in most cases by full-time Westmont faculty. Normally, the full-time faculty—who also serve as the Program Coordinators, are in the candidate’s classroom for a full lesson and debriefing every week. Where there are problems of any sort, the full-time faculty supervisor may be in the building multiple times during a single week—in addition to conferencing with the candidate and cooperating teacher in person or by other means, outside of the school site. Cooperating teachers have regularly expressed appreciation for the quality and timing of e-mail and phone communication.

Even in cases where supervision of candidates is shared, the fulltime faculty member always at least SHARES in the direct supervision of the candidate. For example, during the 2013-14 academic year, when candidate numbers necessitated hiring a retired superintendent, the retired superintendent and the full-time faculty member alternated visits, such that there was direct face-to-face communication between the cooperating teacher and the Westmont Multiple Subject Program coordinator at minimum every two weeks.

Communication and clarity of program procedures is one of the areas that cooperating teachers are surveyed about on an annual basis. Cooperating teacher usually give the Westmont program high commendations for the amount, the quality, and the clarity of program expectations. [Full set of comments from Cooperating Teachers, 2013]

Each teacher who supervises a candidate during a period of daily whole-class instruction is well-informed about (a) performance expectations for the candidate’s teaching and pertaining to his/her supervision of the candidate, and (b) procedures to follow when the candidate encounters problems in teaching.

Again, as noted immediately above, a full-time faculty member, normally the Multiple Subject Program Coordinator or Single Subject Program Coordinator, meets with every cooperating teacher in person. Prior to student teaching, a meeting is arranged for cooperating teachers at each school site. Building principals are invited to attend this meeting, especially if they have not attended a similar meeting already. Each cooperating teacher receives a detailed program Handbook specifically for Cooperating Teachers.

Again, in addition to receiving comprehensive written guidelines, each cooperating teacher receives oral clarification on a range of program expectations for the candidate’s performance. The cooperating teacher also receives oral clarification on program procedures. Among the topics discussed in detail at the preliminary meeting:

• Contact information for all parties
• Calendar, including vacation and holidays
• Expectations for daily time in the building
• Expectations for the student teacher to participate in all aspects of the school life and all aspects of the cooperating teacher’s responsibilities
• Procedures for evaluation, including formal and informal feedback. Dates and forms to be completed by the cooperating teacher
• Procedures and expectations surrounding the Teaching Performance Assessment
• The nature of the Teaching Performance Expectations, and the relationship of that document to (a) the program evaluation forms; and (b) the Teaching Performance Assessment
• Rules governing substituting
• Procedures for sharing lesson plans
• Procedures for supervision by full-time Westmont faculty
• The need to provide early, detailed feedback to the candidate, and not to hold back in offering substantive suggestions
• The need to introduce the candidate to school faculty and staff
• The suggested progression for the candidate’s assumption of teaching responsibilities, and the need to adapt that for individuals
• The need to inform the program as soon as possible about potential concerns related to the candidate’s performance

Again, communication between the program and cooperating teachers in the field is enhanced by the fact that Westmont supervision is carried out in most cases by full-0time Westmont faculty. Normally, the full-time faculty—who also serve as the Program Coordinators, are in the candidate’s classroom for a full lesson and debriefing every week. Where there are problems of any sort, the full-time faculty supervisor may be in the building multiple times during a single week—in addition to conferencing with the candidate and cooperating teacher in person or by other means, outside of the school site.

Again, even in cases where supervision of candidates is shared, the fulltime faculty member always at least SHARES in the direct supervision of the candidate. For example, during the 2013-14 academic year, when candidate numbers necessitated hiring a retired superintendent, the retired superintendent and the full-time faculty member alternated visits, such that there was direct face-to-face communication between the cooperating teacher and the Westmont Program coordinator at minimum every two weeks.

Communication and clarity of program procedures is one of the areas that cooperating teachers are surveyed about on an annual basis. Cooperating teachers almost invariably give the Westmont program high commendations for the amount, the quality, and the clarity of program expectations, and the accessibility of supervisors.

In response to the initial submission, reviewers indicated that they were unable to determine how the program addresses the following components of the standard:

“Each teacher who supervises a candidate during a period of daily whole-class instruction is well-informed about

(a) performance expectations for the candidate’s teaching and pertaining to his/her supervision of the candidate; and

(b) procedures to follow when the candidate encounters problems in teaching.”

In addition to the performance expectations already communicated to cooperating teachers during the Orientation Process, through the Handbook for Cooperating Teachers, and through the routine, consistent communication with cooperating teachers during the weekly observations by full-time Westmont faculty (all described previously), the program has drafted the following two additional items and is currently in the process of adding these to

• the Handbook for Cooperating Teachers, and
• the Orientation Process that precedes the onset of a full-time student teaching placement.

In specific response to concern (a), the following will be added to the Handbook and the Orientation Process:

Westmont’s Performance Standard for Student Teachers

At the mid-point and end of Spring Semester (full-time) student teaching, cooperating teachers are asked to complete Westmont’s Evaluation form for Full-Time Student Teachers.

Cooperating teachers rate student teachers on a five-point scale of Poor to Outstanding. The question may be raised, of course, of “Poor” or “Outstanding” in comparison with what or whom?

Here are some considerations designed to assist in defining these ratings:

1. In every case, you are asked to rate the student teacher’s performance in comparison to other student teachers, from Westmont and from any other colleges or universities with which you are familiar. And in comparison to student teacher’s performance at that particular point in his or her placement. At mid-point, the student teacher should be rated in comparison with other student teachers at mid-point in the placement.
2. The college supervisor will always carefully review your ratings in light of what the same supervisor has observed of the candidate’s performance in your classroom, in light of other Westmont candidates’ performances, and in light of other cooperating teachers’ ratings. If in the judgment of the Westmont supervisor, a particular teacher’s rating of a candidate seems out of calibration, the supervisor will immediately call this to the cooperating teacher’s attention and if necessary negotiate with the teacher an appropriate and mutually satisfactory revised response.
3. A rating of POOR means that the candidate’s performance in that area to date is completely unacceptable, and inconsistent with someone who is enrolled in a program leading to a teaching credential. Supervisor, candidate, and cooperating teacher(s) need to immediately identify detailed steps leading to improved performance.
4. A rating of BELOW AVERAGE means that the candidate’s performance in that area to date is cause for significant concern. Supervisor, candidate, and cooperating teacher(s) need to immediately identify detailed steps leading to improved performance.
5. A rating of AVERAGE means that the candidate has demonstrated some relevant skill and/or knowledge in this area but clearly has room for growth. If this rating is given at the time of the mid-term, candidate needs to be prepared to identify one or more specific, detailed, accomplishments in this area prior to the End-of-semester evaluation.
6. A rating of VERY GOOD means that the cooperating teacher is not only satisfied with the candidate’s skills, knowledge, and/or growth in this area, but generally PLEASED with the candidate’s performance. While the candidate is still expected to grow in this area, the cooperating teacher has no major concerns in this area, and has not identified specific action steps in this area that must be implemented.
7. A rating of OUTSTANDING means that the candidate’s performance in this area is truly exceptional—among the top 10% of student teachers observed at this stage of their careers. The cooperating teacher can readily identify specific accomplishments or examples of where the candidate’s performance justifies this rating.
8. Over time it is clear that the most frequent rating of Westmont student teachers by cooperating teachers in most areas of the form is a Very Good. In fleshing out what constitutes our institutional standard of performance for student teachers, therefore, we have chosen to describe a Very Good performance for each of the CTC’s thirteen Teaching Performance Expectations.

TPE 1 (Multiple Subject)

For the Multiple Subject credential, candidate is thoroughly comfortable with the content at the assigned grade level(s). Candidate routinely demonstrates a range of instructional strategies appropriate for the subject and topics taught. Candidate is acquainted with the standards relevant to different subjects. Candidate’s teaching in each subject is consistently characterized by accuracy, a sense of what is most important, and examples or activities that routinely bring the academic content alive.

TPE (Single Subject)

Candidate demonstrates knowledge of the field consistent with a college graduate in that major. Candidate has knowledge and skills ACROSS the different components of the field, for example, a Single Subject Candidate in English is strong not only in the interpretation of literature, but also writing, development of vocabulary, grammar, and whatever other areas of the English curriculum are part of the candidate’s assignment. Further, the candidate has the capacity and inclination to develop further, such that (for example) even if the candidate had not read a particular novel before entering the classroom, the candidate would know how to transfer knowledge and disciplinary habits of mind gained reading from other novels to the newly assigned work.

TPE 2

Candidate consistently demonstrates a range of strategies for monitoring what students are learning. Candidate consistently checks in with students during instruction, in multiple ways, and does not wait until the end of a lesson or the end of a unit to find out what students know or do not know. Formal monitoring strategies aside, candidate demonstrates an intuitive sense of whether the class is following him or her during instruction; and is able to gauge the emerging understanding not only of the class as a whole, but also that of specific individuals.

TPE 3

Candidate routinely demonstrates a range of strategies for assessing student learning. Candidates do not wait until the end of a unit to assess—they engage in baseline assessment and on-going assessment throughout the unit. Candidate gives feedback to students quickly and keeps accurate records that can be checked by parents and other parties. Candidate routinely uses assessment data gathered to inform subsequent instruction.

TPE 4

Candidate brings content alive through a range of instructional strategies. Candidate routinely uses apt examples from the here and now, helping students apply academic content and skills to real-life situations. Candidate routinely uses analogies and original, meaningful examples and cultural references that help students comprehend new content.

TPE 5

Candidate regularly interacts with learners throughout the instructional process, engaging in dialogue as appropriate, and finding ways to draw all students into large-group, small-group, or paired discussion. Candidate creates space within the instructional process to foster student initiative and student-generated comments or questions.

TPE 6

Candidate’s instructional strategies and expectations demonstrate an understanding of the developmental capacity and developmental preferences of the particular age group taught. Candidate demonstrates instructional strategies that allow diverse learners to engage.

TPE 7

Candidate consistently demonstrates the need to make academic instruction comprehensible and the classroom climate welcoming for English Learners. Candidate uses a wide variety of strategies to develop an understanding of the language issues the class as a whole—and particular individuals—may be confronting. Candidate makes use of assessment data available to him or her from other sources, and works with families, as feasible, to develop facility and fluency in English. Candidate reinforces oral instruction with a variety of visual and other supports to make content more accessible. Candidate’s own speech is clear and easy to follow.

TPE 8

Candidate takes initiative to learn about students, academically, emotionally, and otherwise, including communicating with families. Candidate uses what he or she has learned about students, the better to motivate students and make instruction more meaningful.

TPE 9

Candidate is always well prepared for instruction. Candidate takes into consideration the particular needs of each class, and the special needs of particular individuals, in the planning process. Candidate routinely anticipates cognitive and other learning challenges, and pro-actively builds into instruction strategies for addressing these challenges.

TPE 10

Class time is consistently well used. The candidate allocates neither too much, nor too little, time for direct instruction.

TPE 11

Candidate and class work well together to make the most of available learning time. Candidate employs a range of strategies for communicating expectations to students. Students clearly feel safe and are able to focus appropriately on learning.

TPE 12

Candidate is consistently on time or early for all assigned responsibilities. Candidate demonstrates good judgment in relating to students, colleagues, other members of the school community, and parents, serving as a model for others. Candidate goes above and beyond assigned duties in contributing to the classroom and school community.

TPE 13

Candidate consistently demonstrates professional growth. Candidate is clearly receptive to suggestions from mentors. Candidate consistently elicits feedback from different school and classroom constituencies, including (as appropriate) the students themselves.

In specific response to concern (b) above, the following text is the process of being added to the Handbook for Cooperating Teachers and to the Orientation Process for Cooperating Teachers:

When candidates experience difficulties of any kind:

Alert us at once! Pick up the phone—or e-mail us—sooner rather than later. Although the Westmont supervisor will be in your classroom at least weekly, and will be meeting with the candidate weekly outside of class, in many cases you as the cooperating teacher will identify potential concerns before anyone else. Never hesitate to notify the college supervisor(s) if you have concerns or questions of any kind. The earlier the support and remediation, the more it is likely to be effective.

Obviously this is not intended as an exhaustive list, but examples of the kinds of issues that you would wish to alert us about immediately:

• Not receiving feedback from you or others appropriately
• Failing to apply feedback in subsequent lessons
• Showing up late to a class or other designated responsibility
• Showing up to a class less than fully prepared, academically and otherwise
• Showing up tired or otherwise lacking enthusiasm
• Not demonstrating appropriate initiative
• Any evidence that outside responsibilities are interfering with the candidate’s primary professional focus (i.e., his or her classroom responsibilities)

Among other interventions that Westmont personnel will consider (again, not an exhaustive list):

• Scheduling an immediate conference between college supervisor and cooperating teacher(s) and developing an action plan to address identified concerns
• Scheduling an immediate conference between college supervisor and candidate and developing an action plan to address identified concerns
• Scheduling an immediate conference involving college supervisor, cooperating teacher, and candidate in order to develop an action plan that addresses identified concerns

In extreme cases, where candidate’s performance does not improve, Westmont will terminate the placement.

Program sponsors in collaboration with cooperating administrators provide opportunities for each candidate to work in diverse placements with English learners, students with special needs, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and hard to staff schools.

The Westmont Department of Education ensures that candidates have opportunities during field work to work in diverse placements. From their first pre-professional experience to full-time student teaching, candidates (or pre-candidates) are placed in schools where they will gain experience with students from different ethnicities and students from a range of socio-economic backgrounds. We have discontinued formal relationships with schools and districts that do not offer these opportunities for our students and candidates.

The following table offers an overview of Santa Barbara County and the districts in which we currently place students or candidates. Within these districts, we use schools typically at least as non-White Anglo as the district as a whole. For example, Monroe Elementary (within the Santa Barbara Unified School District), the host site for more elementary student teachers than any other over for at least a twenty-year period, has an enrollment (2013) that is 75.2 % Latino.

Demographic information courtesy of Santa Barbara County Office of Education (2013):

http://sbceo.org/districts/enroll-data/reports/pupilEnrollmentReport2013.pdf [As of 10/1/17, this link is no longer live. But the statistics shown under Program Standard 14 serve the same purpose of documenting that each candidate is given opportunies to work in diverse placements with English Learners, students with special needs, and students from low socio-economic backgrounds.]

15.1 Full set of comments from Cooperating Teachers, 2013
15.2 Comprehensive list of qualifications for prospective cooperating teachers.
15.3 Handbook for Cooperating Teachers
15.4 Notes/Agenda for Meeting with Cooperating Teachers

Learning, Applying, and Reflecting on the Teaching Performance Expectations

The planned curriculum of coursework and fieldwork embeds multiple opportunities for candidates to learn, apply, and reflect on each Teaching Performance Expectation (TPE).

As shown in the following tables, below, candidates have multiple opportunities to learn and apply all of the Teaching Performance Expectations.

Candidates are introduced to the Teaching Performance Expectations through course syllabi, which identify in each case the particular TPEs that the course is designed to focus on.

All candidates also receive, prior to Admission, either the Multiple Subject or Single Subject Handbook, which contains copies of the TPEs. The TPEs, as well as the complete Handbooks, are posted for candidates on the departmental web-page.

At the beginning of full-time student teaching, candidates review the Evaluation Form for student teaching, which is based entirely on the CTC TPEs. The cooperating teacher, in conjunction with the college supervisor, completes a mid-term (formative) evaluation and a final evaluation for the candidates’ file. The mid-term evaluation serves as a springboard to subsequent reflection in candidate’s weekly journals. The weekly written reflection immediately after the mid-term conference is one additional mechanism for candidates to reflect on their progress toward meeting the TPEs.

Effective Fall 2015, candidates will complete a reflective self-assessment exercise based on the TPEs (to be developed) at the beginning of the program, in the context of ED 110/111. Candidates will re-visit this self-assessment exercise toward the end of the fall semester.

As each candidate progresses through the program of sequenced coursework and supervised fieldwork, clearly defined pedagogical assignments within the program are increasingly complex and challenging. The candidate is appropriately coached and assisted so he/she can satisfactorily complete these assignments. The scope of the pedagogical assignments (a) addresses the TPEs as they apply to the subjects to be authorized by the credential, and (b) prepares the candidate for the teaching performance assessment (TPA).

With respect to supervised fieldwork, there is a clear pattern of increasing complexity and increasingly challenging assignments. During ED 100/101 and its 40-hour placement, pre-candidates are observing, working with individuals or small groups of students, grading papers, or assisting the teacher in other small logistical or aesthetic tasks. During the Fall Semester candidates observe for portions of the first week of the school year and attend Back-to-School Night. They also immediately embark on their 30-hour placement in which, among other responsibilities, they must teach full lessons in Reading/Language Arts and in Mathematics. During the Spring Semester, both the Multiple Subject and Single Subject candidates have a clear and specific trajectory laid out for them, involving increasing responsibility and increasing complexity.

Within coursework, pre-requisite classes typically involve short class presentations which in multiple cases may be presented in pairs or as part of a small group. During the Fall Semester, candidates teach full or partial lessons to their peers in the fields of Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science. These peer lessons are evaluated on criteria that parallel all of the TPEs—with the possible exception of TPE #12. By the time candidates reach each component of the TPA, they have acquired the relevant expertise that the particular TPA component calls for.

Qualified supervisors formatively assess each candidate’s pedagogical performance in relation to the TPEs and provide complete, accurate, formative and timely performance feedback regarding the candidate’s progress toward meeting the TPEs.

Two groups of educators are primarily responsible for offering candidates feedback, including feedback explicitly linked to the TPEs: (1) the Westmont faculty; and (2) the cooperating teachers. During the orientation to being a Cooperating Teacher, Westmont faculty (who double as supervisors during fieldwork, including full-time student teaching) carefully review the TPEs as part of the Evaluation Form used at mid-semester and at the end of the placement. College Supervisors meet individually with student teachers as part of the process of reviewing these evaluation forms, explaining in detail the specific portions of the TPEs where the candidate has excelled, and/or portions of the TPEs where the candidate should focus his or her professional growth efforts.

Standard 16 Appendices

16.1 Multiple Subject Handbook
16.2 Single Subject Handbook
16.3 Evaluation Form for student teaching

Implementation of the Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA): Program Administration Processes

Full implementation (all four tasks) of the CTC’s TPA began at Westmont in the 2007-08 academic year.

Since 2010-11, and for the foreseeable future, the tasks of the TPA are embedded in the program as follows:

I. Multiple subject Program

Subject-Specific Pedagogy

• ED 120: Teaching Science and Social Studies in the Elementary School (Fall Term)

Designing Instruction

• ED 170: Teaching Reading/Language Arts (Fall Term)

Assessing Learning

• ED 195: Student Teaching Seminar (Spring Term)

Culminating Teaching Experience

• ED 195: Student Teaching Seminar (Spring Term)

II. Single Subject Program

Subject-Specific Pedagogy

• ED 121: Curriculum & Instructional Planning in the Secondary School (Fall Term)

Designing Instruction

• ED 171: Content-area Literacy (Fall Term)

Assessing Learning

• ED 195: Student Teaching Seminar (Spring Term)

Culminating Teaching Experience

• ED 195: Student Teaching Seminar (Spring Term)

The TPA is implemented according to the requirements of the Commission-approved model selected by the program. One or more individuals responsible for implementing the TPA document the administration, scoring, and data reporting processes for all tasks/activities of the applicable TPA model in accordance with the requirements of the selected model. The program adopts a passing score standard and provides a rationale for establishing that passing standard.

A local retired principal, fully trained and regularly calibrated on all four tasks of the California TPA, serves as the program’s Institutional Coordinator [Job Description].

It is part of the Institutional Coordinator’s contracted job description to attend conferences and monitor updates to policies and procedures.

The Institutional Coordinator works with the Credential Analyst/Program Assistant and with the Department Chair to ensure that the TPA is implemented according to all the requirements of the California TPA model. The Institutional Coordinator serves as the primary (Lead) and initial scorer for all tasks submitted. Together with the Credential Analyst/Program Assistant, in consultation with the Department Chair, the Institutional Coordinator ensures that the minimum number of responses are double-scored.

From the beginning of implementation in 2007-08, the Westmont program has adopted a “3” as passing for each individual task. We have adopted that standard primarily to ensure consistently quality work across the four tasks—rather than allowing a candidate to score relatively high on the first three tasks and then become complacent on the final and most comprehensive of the tasks.

In addition to the comprehensive manual provided by the CTC, the Department has a well-established set of Institutional Policies and Procedures, shared with candidates at a meeting toward the beginning of their Multiple or Single Subject Program. This set of procedures documents for all constituencies how we have interpreted ambiguous points in the CTC manual, and represents how we have responded to the most frequently asked questions from candidates, faculty, cooperating teachers, or others in the past.

The program maintains both program level and candidate level TPA data, including but not limited to individual and aggregated results of candidate performance, assessor calibration status, and assessor performance over time. The program documents the use of these data not only for Commission reporting and/or accreditation purposes, but also for program improvement. The program assures that candidates understand the appropriate use of their performance data as well as privacy considerations relating to candidate data.

The Institutional Coordinator, with the assistance of the Credential Analyst/Program Assistant and in consultation with the Department Chair, maintains all program-level and candidate-level TPA data. These same individuals maintain records on calibration status over time. The use of data from the TPA for purposes of Program Improvement is documented in the last two Biennial Reports, of which the most recent is attached.

Candidates are informed in a beginning-of-the-year meeting for both Multiple Subject and Single Subject candidates, of the purpose of the assessment, how it will be used for the program as a whole, the need for each of them to pass each component of the TPA, and a range of matters pertaining to privacy, including the confidentiality of their completed response. An abbreviated version of this material is also printed in the Westmont College Catalog.

The program establishes and consistently uses appropriate measures to ensure the security of all TPA materials, including all print, online, video candidate, and assessor materials. The program also consistently uses appropriate measures and maintains documentation to assure the privacy of the candidate, the K-12 students, the school site and school district, and other adults involved in the TPA process.

Currently all materials related to the TPA, including written and digital materials pertaining to candidates and assessors, are housed in the Credential Analyst/Program Assistant’s office. This office is kept locked when not directly supervised. At no time are candidates or pre-candidates alone or unsupervised in this space.

The Department of Education is working with the Director of Institutional Assessment during the 2014-15 School Year to transition most materials related to the TPA to LiveText. The degree to which this transition has been effected—and effectual—will be reported on, initially, as part of the IHE response to the Common Standards.

While the college’s use of LiveText is currently in a pilot period, with a single year contract, it is expected that by the time of the Accreditation Site Visit Westmont will have had at least two full years of experience with the LiveText system to report on.

Standard 17 Appendices

17.1 Institutional Coordinator Job Description
17.2 Institutional Policies and Procedures
17.3 Biennial Report

Implementation of the Teaching Performance Assessment: Candidate Preparation and Support

The teacher preparation program assures that each candidate receives clear and accurate information about the nature of the pedagogical tasks within the Commission-approved teaching performance assessment model selected by the program, the passing score standard adopted by the program, and the opportunities available within the program to prepare for completing the TPA tasks/activities. The program assures that candidates understand that all responses to the TPA that are submitted for scoring must represent the candidate’s own unaided work.

Each year, program faculty lead a session in September that reviews the overall nature of the California TPA, and includes an explanation of our Institutional Policies and Procedures. This session is done once for the combined Multiple Subject and Single Subject candidates in ED 110/111: Educational Psychology. This introductory session includes a clear explanation of what is passing at Westmont. Candidates are clearly informed that the responses to the TPA must represent their own unaided work. Follow- up on the first task, Subject-Specific Pedagogy; as well as follow up on the nature of the TPA as a whole, is carried out in ED 120: Elementary Social Studies and Science (MS) and in ED 121: Subject-Specific Curriculum and Instruction.

The program assures that candidates understand and follow the appropriate policies and procedures to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the K-12 students, teachers, school sites, school districts, adults, and others who are involved in any of the components of the TPA tasks/activities.

Confidentiality is a major topic in the annual September meeting, and is specifically highlighted in the Institutional Policies and Procedures document. Candidates are clearly informed that pseudonyms must be used when discussing individual students or teachers.

Candidates complete a form signed by building principals, cooperating teachers, and the candidate him or herself, acknowledging that they have respected the rights of students and parents. These forms are collected and maintained on file in the Credential Analyst/Program Assistant’s office. Candidates also inform parents or guardians of the TPA [Letter] and give them the right to opt out.

The program provides timely formative feedback information to candidates on their performance on the TPA. The teacher preparation program provides opportunities for candidates who are not successful on the assessment to receive remedial assistance with respect to the TPEs, and to retake the task/activity up to the specified number of times established by the program. The program only recommends candidates who have met the passing score on the TPA for a preliminary teaching credential.

Candidates receive their scores within three weeks of submission. Candidates are clearly informed that the professor in charge of the course in which that particular task is embedded is available to offer remedial assistance.

At the same time, the candidates are reminded that neither the program as a whole, nor the individual professor, is allowed to provide “coaching” of a nature that would jeopardize the requirement identified immediately above, that the response (including 2nd or 3rd responses) must be the candidate’s unaided work.

Candidates may re-submit responses twice, as described in the College Catalog, and on the Institutional Policies and Procedures page.

Each individual component score of the TPA is part of the Final Check form that the Credential Analyst/Program Assistant and Department Chair jointly review in person prior to recommending a candidate for the preliminary credential.

The program provides formative assessment information and performance assessment results to candidates who successfully complete the TPA in a manner that is usable by the induction program as one basis for the individual induction plan.

The Westmont program has discussed this in the past with previous local Teacher Induction directors, and has received ambiguous and mixed messages—compounded by the significant recent turnover in the Santa Barbara County Teacher Induction’s director position. Westmont’s Education Department Chair will be discussing this item again in January 2015 to verify that the way we provide performance assessment results is indeed usable by the induction program and can provide, in part, a basis for the individual induction plan.

Standard 18 Appendices

18.1 Institutional Policies and Procedures for the TPA
18.2 TPA form for principals and cooperating teachers
18.3 Letter for parents
18.4 Final Check

Implementation of the Teaching Performance Assessment

The teacher preparation program establishes selection criteria for assessors of candidate responses to the TPA. The selection criteria include but are not limited to pedagogical expertise in the content areas assessed within the TPA.

In order to maximize consistency and reliability of assessment, Westmont’s Department of Education uses as few different assessors as possible. Initial scoring of each task has always been carried out by a single primary task assessor—the individual who doubles as the Institutional TPA Coordinator [Job Description].

Westmont’s TPA assessor pool is limited to credentialed teachers or principals (current or retired) and IHE faculty who have completed appropriate training on the task they are to score. Only assessors who have provided updated calibration records are eligible to score. From the beginning all assessors have been individually interviewed (one telephone interview is the exception).

Reviewers indicated that the narrative above did not address this component of the Standard:

The teacher preparation program establishes selection criteria for assessors of candidate responses to the TPA.

Certainly we can be more explicit in pointing to the selection criteria for TPA assessors we have always had in place; and, accepting this question as an invitation to elaborate, we would note the following:

Selection Criteria for TPA Assessors for Westmont:

As noted already, above, in the initial response:

1. Assessors for the TPA must be Credentialed Teacher, Principal, or IHE faculty (current or retired).
2. Assessors for the TPA must have completed all required training provided by the CTC, including the Foundations Day.
3. Assessors for the TPA must have renewed their calibration annually, as required by the CTC.
4. Assessors must provide written evidence for their completion of training and evidence likewise of their annual calibration.
5. Assessors must be known personally by full-time faculty in the program, or must provide appropriate recommendations.
6. Assessors must be individually interviewed, at the very least by phone.

7. An assessor’s annual record of calibration with respect to responses that are double-scored must be appropriately calibrated with other assessors hired by the program.

   Not previously in written form, but always understood and enforced (and of course some of this relates to retention, rather than initial selection per se):

8. Although admittedly somewhat subjective to enforce, program insists that assessors be consistent, detailed, and thorough in their written documentation on the Record of Evidence. (This was a major reason why an assessor who worked for the program previously no longer scores for us).
9. Assessors must return candidates’ responses in a timely fashion, as negotiated each year and with each task by the Department Chair.
10. Assessors must be willing and available to discuss individual scores or patterns of scoring, as requested by the Institutional Coordinator, Department Chair, or other full-time faculty.

The program provides assessor training and/or facilitates assessor access to training in the specific TPA model(s) used by the program. The program selects assessors who meet the established selection criteria and uses only assessors who successfully complete the required TPA model assessor training sequence and who have demonstrated initial calibration to score candidate TPA responses.

The Department of Education has provided support in the form of expense reimbursement for initial training and calibration. The Department of Education continues to provide support in the form of reimbursing expenses for attending TPA conferences. Westmont is such a small program that economies of scale have not permitted us to offer individual training for additional local scorers. In all cases, Westmont has used, and will continue to employ as scorers, only those who have completed appropriate training and initial calibration, and have provided records of annual recalibration.

Reviewers indicated that the narrative above did not address this component of the Standard:

The program provides assessor training and/or facilitates assessor access to training in the specific TPA model(s) used by the program. The program selects assessors who meet the established selection criteria and uses only assessors who successfully complete the required TPA model assessor training sequence and who have demonstrated initial calibration to score candidate TPA responses.

Perhaps the key phrase is “facilitates assessor access to training?” As noted above, the program has facilitated assessor training for two local retired principals, paying them and reimbursing expenses for all travel, meals and lodging associated with their attendance at CTC-sponsored trainings.

The program facilitated assessor training in this case to the point of bringing both retired principals to the point of successfully completing the CalTPA training for each task, including the Foundations Day. As part of the successful completion, each retired principal demonstrated initial calibration and provided to the program written evidence of the same.

The program also facilitated assessor training for one member of the full-time faculty, who successfully completed the nine days of training on the four CalTPA tasks, including the Foundations Day, but who has not been an active scorer for several years.

The program periodically reviews the performance of assessors to assure consistency, accuracy, and fairness to candidates within the TPA process, and provides recalibration opportunities for assessors whose performance indicates they are not providing accurate, consistent, and/or fair scores for candidate responses.

Calibration of scorers has been a challenge for Westmont—perhaps compounded by the small number of candidates in each set of data. In any case, the program has monitored periodically inter-rater calibration rates. Thus far, we have responded to discrepancies between scorers primarily by oral review. In one scorer’s case, we have discontinued using the scorer because of continued and inexplicable patterns of scoring. The Institutional TPA Coordinator has access to on-line re-calibration exercises, and can make these available should they ever be needed for other scorers.

Reviewers indicated that the narrative above did not address this component of the Standard:

The program periodically reviews the performance of assessors to assure consistency, accuracy, and fairness to candidates within the TPA process, and provides recalibration opportunities for assessors whose performance indicates they are not providing accurate, consistent, and/or fair scores for candidate responses.

The program has reviewed the performance of assessors with respect to calibration with other scorers from the beginning. As noted above, we had to discontinue using a regular scorer in part because of recurring and inexplicable patterns of non-calibration (in addition to lack of thoroughness in recording evidence on the CalTPA ROE . Record-keeping to assure the consistency, accuracy and fairness of scorers is now part of the form first used during the 2014-15 academic year. Note in particular the extracted portion of the form shown below, which speaks if and when needed to the hypothetical concerns delineated in the component of the Standard above.

The program complies with the assessor recalibration policies and activities specific to each approved TPA model, including but not limited to at least annual recalibration for all assessors, and uses and retains only TPA assessors who consistently maintain their status as qualified, calibrated, program-sponsored assessors. The program monitors score reliability through a double-scoring process applied to at least 15% of TPA candidate responses.

The program maintains a record of annual recalibration for each assessor. In the case of the Lead Assessor, he annually recalibrates himself. We have maintained a double- scoring process from the beginning, in accord with the CTC-developed model, and have applied this to at least 15% of TPA candidate responses. To systematize the record- keeping relevant to re-calibration rates, as well as systematizing and formally documenting our departmental reflection on each set of responses, we have developed this year a pilot form to be completed after each set of candidate responses has been scored and calibrated.

The program establishes and maintains policies and procedures to assure the privacy of assessors as well as of information about assessor scoring reliability. In addition, the program maintains the security of assessor training materials and protocols in the event that the program uses its own assessors (such as, for example, a designated Lead Assessor) to provide local assessor training.

Candidates are in no case informed as to the identity of assessors or given information as to the assessor’s scoring reliability. We refer to these individuals as the “state-certified assessors” or even more simply as “the assessors.” As noted previously, Westmont does not maintain a program of local assessor training.

Standard 19 Appendices

19.1 Job Description
19.2 Aggregate Record Form (Pilot 2014-15)