Interim Report of the Task Force on Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs A Joint Task Force of the CSU Chancellor and the CSU Academic Senate

ATTACHMENT TO AS-2622-03/TEKR - August 14, 2003

AS-2622-03/TEKR

Members of the Task Force

Toni Campbell
Chair, Child and Adolescent Development
San Jose State University

Marshall Cates
Math Faculty and Chair, CSU Academic Senate Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Committee
CSU, Los Angeles

Lynne Cook
Special Education Faculty and CSU Academic Senate Executive Committee
CSU, Northridge

Helen Goldsmith
Interim Associate Dean, Undergraduate Studies
San Francisco State University

Harold Hellenbrand
Dean, Liberal Arts
Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo

Vandana Kohli
Chair, Liberal Studies
CSU, Los Angeles

Michael Lewis (Co-Chair)
Interim Dean, Education
CSU, Sacramento

Dan O'Connor
Coordinator, Liberal Studies
CSU, Long Beach

Marion O'Leary
Dean, Natural Sciences and Mathematics
CSU, Sacramento

Claire Palmerino
Director, Center for Careers in Teaching
CSU, Fullerton

Bob Snyder (Co-Chair)
Philosophy Faculty and CSU Academic Senate Executive Committee
Humboldt State University

Mark Thompson
English Faculty and Chair, CSU Academic Senate Academic Affairs Committee
CSU, Stanislaus

Beverly Young
Assistant Vice Chancellor, Teacher Education and Public School Programs
CSU Office of the Chancellor

Ex-Officio Members

Robert Cherny
History Faculty and Chair, CSU Academic Senate

David Spence
Chief Academic Officer and Executive Vice Chancellor
CSU Office of the Chancellor

Staff to the Task Force

Bob Cichowski
Associate Director, Teacher Education and Public School Programs
CSU Office of the Chancellor

Betsy Kean
Associate Director, Teacher Education and Public School Programs
CSU Office of the Chancellor

Jo Service
Dean, Academic Program Planning
CSU Office of the Chancellor

Background

Over the last decade there has been an increasing realization that California has a significant shortage of fully qualified K-12 teachers. The typical pathway for teacher preparation required that candidates for a teaching credential obtain a bachelor's degree in a subject area prior to beginning a teacher preparation program. Thus, typical candidates for certification could expect to spend a minimum of five years on their undergraduate and credential work.

In 1998, S.B. 2042 passed calling for multiple routes into teaching, including the creation of "blended programs" of subject matter and teacher preparation at the undergraduate level, with the expectation that the time to certification could be decreased.

Since this legislation, the CSU Office of the Chancellor and the Academic Senate of the California State University (ASCSU) have provided leadership to advance the commitment and ability of CSU campus faculty to prepare highly qualified teachers in a timely fashion.

In 2002, S.B. 1646 (Alpert) was introduced; this bill called for the establishment of an undergraduate elementary education major within the CSU. While S.B. 1646 did not become law, it did raise awareness throughout the CSU of the issue of timely completion of undergraduate, subject matter, and teacher preparation requirements for candidates who make early decisions to pursue careers in teaching.

During 2002-03, the Teacher Education and K-12 Relations Committee (TEKR) of ASCSU studied and developed faculty support for increased emphasis on undergraduate level teacher preparation. In March 2003, an Academic Senate Task Force was convened to recommend teacher preparation policy positions to the ASCSU. A bill that would limit the number of units in CSU integrated teacher preparation programs (refer to definition, below) and ensure articulation of appropriate community college courses with CSU programs, S.B. 81, had been introduced in January 2003. This bill addresses the issue of timely completion of undergraduate and teacher preparation requirements by that group of candidates referred to as "early deciders", those who understand very early in their postsecondary education that they wish to become teachers. Hearings and amendments began in April and are continuing at present. (See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov).

The ASCSU objected to legislatively mandated limits on credit units in particular programs and passed at its May 2003 plenary meeting a resolution (AS-2611-03, Support for Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs in the CSU, found in Attachment A), proposing that the CSU Board of Trustees adopt changes to Title 5 language that would call for integrated teacher preparation programs to justify units beyond 135 semester (or 203.5 quarter) units.

The resolution defined integrated teacher preparation programs as

"teacher preparation programs that enable candidates for teaching credentials to engage in subject matter, general education, and professional preparation concurrently thereby completing all requirements for both a preliminary teaching credential and a baccalaureate degree simultaneously".

It is important to understand that teacher preparation programs can be integrated in a variety of ways. For example, the blended programs authorized under S.B. 2042 and designed in relation to standards developed by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) are one type of integrated teacher preparation program in which individual courses may combine professional preparation with subject matter content. Other integrated programs may offer related subject matter and professional preparation in separate courses during the same semester. The important point is that integrated programs allow students to pursue both the baccalaureate and the requirements for a preliminary teaching credential at the same time.

The Board of Trustees received at its July meeting a proposed addition to Title 5 that recognizes and defines these integrated teacher preparation programs, specifies a 120-135 semester unit range, and allows for the Chancellor to grant exceptions to the upper limit of 135 units upon adequate justification by the campus. Procedures for considering these exceptions will be developed by the Chancellor, in consultation with ASCSU. The Board of Trustees is expected to adopt this amendment at its September meeting. If successfully adopted, then the corresponding language would be deleted from S.B. 81.

A significant element in the May 2003 ASCSU resolution, calls for the creation of a task force to recommend a general framework for curriculum in these programs. That element reads as follows:

RESOLVED: That the Academic Senate CSU and the Chancellor create a task force to recommend a general framework, by the September 2003 plenary meeting, for integrated teacher preparation curricula, which will provide guidelines for the identification and integration of lower-division and upper-division subject matter, general education, and professional preparation components within an overall program leading to both a baccalaureate degree and a preliminary teaching credential. The task force will collaborate with campus faculty and academic administrative leaders from education and from arts and science areas with approved subject matter preparation programs.

This Task Force was indeed established jointly by the ASCSU and the Chancellor. The Task Force met in June and July to develop a draft framework for discussion with CSU faculty and administrators as well as with community college partners. That consultation is well underway with community college Senate leadership and representatives from more than 60 community college campuses; this work will continue. The timeline for development and consultation has been extremely short. With the goal of providing a framework to campuses in the fall so that they have adequate time for possible course development, program modifications and preparation for implementation, the Task Force intends that its recommendations and related resolutions are forwarded to the CSU Chancellor and to the ASCSU in advance of its September 2003 plenary meeting.

Introduction to the Framework

In order to make sense of the proposed framework, it is important to identify the set of common understandings and agreements shared by the members of the Task Force. These agreements inform the detail of the framework and point the way to implementation, should the framework be adopted within the CSU.

  • The initial focus should be on integrated programs leading to the Multiple Subject Credential. The Task Force is charged with looking at both multiple subject and single subject integrated programs. Currently, there are 20 approved blended multiple subject programs across the CSU, but only five approved blended single subject programs. Given the time constraints on the initial work of the Task Force, it was agreed to make recommendations first in relation to those integrated programs leading to the Multiple Subject Credential. Consultation and the development of recommendations related to single subject integrated programs will follow. The Task Force intends to share this report with single subject program coordinators and discipline faculty in order to gain a deeper understanding of how these recommendations may need to be amended to fit the realities of single subject programs, including their subject matter standards as issued by CCTC.


  • CSU campuses can create high-quality, integrated multiple subject teacher preparation programs within a 135 semester-unit limit. The Task Force finds the limit reasonable for elementary subject matter and a multiple subject credential. Careful curriculum design should allow programs to meet G.E., major, subject matter and teacher preparation requirements within this limit. The proposed Title 5 language allows the Chancellor to make individual exceptions to this limit through procedures established in consultation with the ASCSU.


  • The framework should incorporate state, regional and local transfer patterns for integrated multiple subject teacher preparation programs. The goal of this framework is to provide transfer students with:
    1. 30 lower-division semester units that count toward the total unit requirements in any integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program in the CSU;


    2. at least 15 additional lower-division semester units that count toward the total unit requirements of any integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program within a region; and


    3. a total of 60 semester units that count toward the total unit requirements of an integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program at a designated CSU.


  • It is important to identify a 30-unit block of lower division units that will be portable across the entire CSU for integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program candidates and that will reduce, unit for unit, the number of units remaining for program completion at each campus. This principle allows eligible early deciders to begin at the community college of choice and bring those units into any CSU integrated program with a guarantee that the units completed "count" toward the unit total of the individual integrated program. This helps ensure that those transfer students who are preparing for careers as teachers and who have not identified during their first year/30 units of study the CSU campus to which they will transfer, will not have to take a greater number of units than native CSU students completing requirements in an integrated teacher preparation program.


  • The framework should constitute a partnership-a mutual commitment-between students and CSU campuses in a region. If implemented, the framework will make explicit how early deciders may begin at the CCC, eventually transfer into the CSU and complete all requirements for the degree and the teaching credential within a cap of 135 units. To achieve this compact with transfer students, the students must make a commitment by the second year first to a region and then in some cases to a particular CSU campus. The maximum portability of transfer units (up to 60 units) can be achieved if candidates make informed decisions about committing to a CSU region and, in time, to a specific CSU integrated teacher preparation program.


  • The framework will depend on a partnership with community colleges, in the identification and offering of coursework that meets state standards for the subject matter and pedagogical preparation of teacher candidates. In order to achieve the maximum number of transfer units, willing community college faculty and CSU faculty need to work together, using standards developed by CCTC, to review, revise and/or develop courses that meet the standards and can fit the transfer pattern. This is extremely important in light of recent public policy that will require all candidates to pass a test of subject matter competency prior to employment as a teacher of multiple subjects. This is an opportunity to enhance partnerships with our colleagues in the community colleges.


  • The success of the framework will depend on close advising. The Task Force recognizes that the goal of preparing teachers within 135 semester units of community college and CSU course work will, in practice, be achieved only with strong and careful advising-advising that is both accurate and accessible. Care will need to be taken to identify early deciders at entry to ensure that the proper transfer pattern is followed.


  • It will be important to provide assistance to campuses in meeting the 135 semester unit limit as well as the transfer pattern recommended within the framework: Should the framework be adopted in the CSU, it is the intent of the Task Force to collect and make available to campuses examples of practices that might assist in implementing the framework.

A Proposed Framework: A Transfer Pattern for Multiple Subject Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs
  • The CSU, in collaboration with the CCC, shall identify a common core of 30 lower-division semester units that all CSU integrated multiple subject programs will accept as a transfer pattern. Upon completion of the common core, a student transferring into a CSU integrated multiple subject program will require no more than 105 additional semester units to complete the program. The CSU Elementary Subject Matter Coordinators have been working to accomplish this task for one to two years. A summary of the current status of this work appears in Attachment B.


  • On a regional basis, a CSU campus or campuses, in collaboration with the community colleges that transfer significant numbers of students to their teacher preparation programs, shall identify between 15 and 30 additional lower-division semester units common to all integrated multiple subject teacher preparation programs in that region. Upon completion of these units, a student transferring into a CSU integrated multiple subject program will require no more than 75 to 90 additional semester units, for a maximum of 135 semester units, to complete the program.


  • In cases where the statewide and regional agreements constitute fewer than 60 lower-division semester units but more than 45, individual campuses, in consultation with the community colleges that transfer significant numbers of students to their teacher preparation programs, should identify all additional lower-division semester units that can transfer into its integrated multiple subject program. Upon completion of these 60 lower-division semester units, a student transferring into the CSU integrated multiple subject program will require no more than 75 additional units to complete the program.


  • In cases where an individual CSU campus cannot identify 60 lower-division semester units in its integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program or a CCC cannot offer the courses in that program, the campus must identify ways to allow students to make progress in the integrated multiple subject program through such options as:


    • Working with community colleges to identify and develop courses at the lower-division level that satisfy the content standards of courses required in the program at the upper-division level.


    • Allowing early transfer of students as upper-division transfer into the CSU integrated multiple subject program according to the provisions of section 40805 of Title 5.


    • Encouraging such practices as cross enrollment, dual admission or offering upper-division courses on the community college campus.

  • 30 lower-division semester units form the common core of the integrated multiple subject teacher preparation programs systemwide. For units beyond those, students must commit first to a region and then a specific campus to guarantee that the units are fully transferable to the requirements of a specific integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program.
Definitions

Integrated multiple subject preparation program: a curriculum (a) that incorporates general education, a major, subject matter preparation for teaching in schools, professional preparation for teaching in schools, and any other graduation requirements, and (b) in which students make progress concurrently toward a baccalaureate degree and a recommendation for a preliminary basic teaching credential, given satisfactory completion of the requirements for each. The components of an integrated teacher preparation program (i.e., general education, a major, subject matter preparation for teaching in schools, professional preparation for teaching in schools, and any other graduation requirements) need not be mutually exclusive. An individual course within an integrated teacher preparation program may contribute to completion of more than one of these components.

For completion of an integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program, at least 120 semester units but no more than 135 semester units shall be required. The Chancellor may grant exceptions to the upper limit of 135 units on requirements for completion of an integrated multiple subject teacher preparation program, if the campus that will offer the program requests the exception and provides an adequate justification.

Blended program of teacher preparation: Blended programs are approved programs of subject matter preparation and teacher preparation that have identified to the Committee on Accreditation (COA) via a separate set of program standards those places where subject matter preparation and teacher preparation are linked. COA accredited blended programs have greater flexibility than traditional fifth-year teacher preparation programs in integrating subject matter and teacher preparation at the undergraduate level. Blended programs are one type of integrated multiple subject preparation program.


Attachment A

AS-2611-03/AA/TEKR
May 8-9, 2003

Support for Integrated Teacher Preparation Programs in the
California State University

RESOLVED:

That the Academic Senate of the California State University (CSU) request the CSU Board of Trustees to formulate and adopt policy that would incorporate the following provisions into Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations to take effect for students entering during the Academic Year 2005-2006:

  • Implementation of integrated teacher preparation programs, that is, teacher preparation programs that enable candidates for teaching credentials to engage in subject matter, general education, and professional preparation concurrently thereby completing all requirements for both a preliminary teaching credential and a baccalaureate degree simultaneously;


  • Integrated teacher preparation programs offered by CSU campuses may not be comprised of less than 120 semester (180 quarter) units; and


  • Integrated teacher preparation programs requiring more than 135 semester (203 quarter) units must justify units beyond the 135 semester (203 quarter) units; and be it further


RESOLVED:

That the Academic Senate CSU and the Chancellor create a task force to recommend a general framework, by the September 2003 plenary meeting, for integrated teacher preparation curricula, which will provide guidelines for the identification and integration of lower-division and upper-division subject matter, general education, and professional preparation components within an overall program leading to both a baccalaureate degree and a preliminary teaching credential. The task force will collaborate with campus faculty and academic administrative leaders from education and from arts and science areas with approved subject matter preparation programs; and be it further

RESOLVED:

That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that the CSU work with the California Community Colleges to ensure that students transferring from a community college into a CSU integrated teacher preparation program are able to identify the articulated coursework which, if completed, would guarantee the student had preparation equivalent to that of a native student. In cases where articulated course work in an integrated teacher preparation program is not available at the community college, students should be allowed to transfer to a CSU campus early according to the provisions of section 40805 of Title 5; and be it further

RESOLVED:

That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that each campus of the CSU enter into articulation agreements for the lower-division components of its integrated teacher preparation programs with those community colleges from which the campus receives a significant number of transfer students in relevant majors; and be it further

RESOLVED:

That the Academic Senate CSU recommend that in cases where community colleges supply significant numbers of transfer students to more than one CSU, the CSU campuses involved in articulation agreements should work on a common agreement with the community colleges; and be it further

RESOLVED:

That the Academic Senate CSU request the Chancellor to seek an extension of the authority for campuses to admit students to currently approved integrated teacher preparation programs to January 2005 in order to comply with SB 2042 standards; and be it further

RESOLVED:

That the Chancellor and the Academic Senate CSU work with both the legislature and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) to ensure greater flexibility on the part of the CCTC in interpreting SB 2042 requirements and related accreditation standards thereby enabling the CSU to realize the 120-135 semester (180-203 quarter) unit goal.

RATIONALE: California is one of the states with the greatest shortages of appropriately credentialed teachers. It is also one of only 13 states that do not offer an undergraduate degree in education. The "blended program," as described by California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) and encouraged under SB 2042 in 1998, was designed to provide concurrent undergraduate subject matter and pedagogical teacher preparation. A 2003 report of the CSU Subject Matter Studies indicates that the blended programs offered by 20 CSU campuses currently range from 124-167 semester units. Those with the higher unit requirements are not viewed by the legislature or by the public as meeting the intent of promoting undergraduate teacher preparation.

Highly qualified teachers have solid content knowledge, pedagogical skills and pedagogical content knowledge. National standards have long recognized that effective teachers are strong in both subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills. Recent research and practice reveal that pedagogical content knowledge is equally critical. National standards now call for programs to ensure that candidates learn to present the content to students in challenging, clear, and compelling ways. Curriculum is needed that facilitates candidates' ability to connect the pedagogy and subject matter knowledge in order to produce teachers with content, pedagogy and pedagogical content knowledge.

CSU faculty have developed many effective integrated teacher preparation programs, and faculty on several campuses have revised programs to meet new standards for blended programs of undergraduate teacher preparation adopted in September 2001. Many of the newly revised multiple-subject programs can be completed within 135 or fewer semester units. The Academic Senate of the California State University has repeatedly recognized that curriculum development is properly the responsibility of faculty and of the academic senates on campus. The noteworthy reduction in size of major degree programs over the past few years has been accomplished by faculty members in degree programs and through campus-level program review processes. The CSU is committed to working on articulation and transfer issues with the California Community Colleges (CCC), and the Academic Senate CSU has repeatedly demonstrated that commitment by its support for the intersegmental general education transfer curriculum, lower-division core projects for a number of majors, systemwide standards for admission into programs of teacher education, and in other ways. However, the Senate has also recognized that the expediting of student transfers from CCC to CSU involves complex and multi-layered issues, and many of those issues link directly to faculty responsibilities for curriculum, academic advising, and assessment of student performance in both systems. Therefore faculty leadership and cooperation will be required for the success of any effort to facilitate transfer and articulation.

The need for collaboration and articulation between the CSU and community colleges within the context of teacher recruitment and preparation is clear, urgent, and compelling. There is widespread national recognition of the need to encourage promising students to pursue careers in teaching during their secondary school and community college experiences. The development of critical partnerships between community colleges and the CSU, the two institutions that prepare more than 60 percent of California's teachers, are essential in any effort to increase the availability of highly qualified teachers in our state. The vast majority of community college students who are interested in teaching will complete their program of study in the CSU.

SB 2042 was omnibus legislation that called for a complete overhaul of the credentialing system. To implement these changes the CCTC facilitated the development of Standards for Program Quality and Effectiveness that were adopted in 2001-2002. Teacher preparation programs were afforded approximately two years to transition to new standards. A significant majority of the CSU programs that would be affected by the proposed frameworks and articulation guidelines have not yet been reviewed and most are still under development. It is critical that the Chancellor and Senate seek an extension of deadlines for submission of new program proposals to January 2005. Such an extension will permit campuses to develop programs that comply both with SB 2042 and the guidelines to be developed rather than expecting them to comply first with one and then immediately to make changes to comply with the other.



APPROVED - May 8-9, 2003



Attachment B

Regional Articulation Efforts for
Elementary Subject Matter Programs
and Associated
Blended/Integrated Elementary Teacher Preparation Programs

Background:

The CSU system shoulders the primary responsibility for the preparation of teachers in California. Undergraduate preparation for prospective elementary teachers has undergone (and continues to undergo) substantial changes. One of the requirements for a multiple subject (elementary) teaching credential is demonstration of knowledge and competence in the subject areas relevant to the elementary classroom. Currently, individuals have two means by which they can document subject matter competency: 1) Pass the state-approved subject matter examination, or 2) Complete a state-approved Elementary Subject Matter (ESM) Program. Senate Bill 2042, passed in 1998, required the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) to establish new standards for the examination and for the programs of study so as to align each with the California Student Academic Content Standards and State Curriculum Frameworks. The CCTC approved the new standards for ESM programs in fall 2001.

During this time of transition from old to new standards, ESM program directors in the southern California region recognized that this was a golden opportunity to attempt to align the lower division requirements for their programs. ESM program directors from approximately ten CSUs met throughout the 2001-02 academic year to discuss curricular requirements in light of the SB 2042 standards and work toward a common interpretation of them. A small grant from the Institute for Teaching and Learning allowed the work in southern California to continue and for similar work to be accomplished in the central and northern regions of the state. The meetings in academic year 2002-03 focused on reaching tentative CSU to CSU regional agreements about common transfer courses. The agreements established were always labeled as "draft" as the ESM program directors acknowledged that they were subject to confirmation by the individual campuses.

After meeting in geographical regions (north, central and south) throughout academic year 2002-03, ESM Directors gathered for a state-wide meeting in June. Twenty-three representatives of ESM programs from 18 CSU campuses attended. During this meeting, members of the Task Force on Integrated Teacher Preparation (ITP) introduced the preliminary draft of the guidelines for integrated programs, including the proposed 30-unit statewide agreement. By the end of the meeting, the ESM program directors had developed a list of "nominated" courses to be considered for this package. The ITP Task Force members indicated that it was not imperative to identify the specific 30 units at this meeting; rather, the ESM program directors undertook the exercise as a measure of the feasibility of this plan.

The group generated a list of 12 nominated courses. Of these 12 courses, the group identified 6 courses (18 units) that could be agreed upon with almost 100% agreement. Only one or two campus representatives reported that their ESM programs would have to be adjusted to incorporate these classes. The group identified another 4 classes (12 units) that a substantial majority of campuses already accept; however, campus representatives from 3-6 campuses reported that they would have to adjust their ESM programs to include these courses in their integrated programs. Finally, the group identified an additional 6 units that could potentially be part of the 30-unit state-wide agreement. It will take further discussion and additional consultation with individual campus program stakeholders to identify the final package of courses that will constitute the 30-unit statewide agreement.

The following courses were nominated by the ESM Program directors with almost 100% agreement:

(3) Any A.1 Oral Communication course
(3) Any A.2 Written Communication course
(3) Any A.3 Critical Thinking course
(3) Survey of U.S. History course that meets American History objectives in EO 405 or CAN HIST 8 (must cover the colonial period through reconstruction)
(3) CAN GOV 2 or equivalent that meets Government US Constitution and state and local government objectives of EO 405
(3) CAN HIST 14 or equivalent (History of World Civilizations, part I)

The following courses were nominated by the ESM Program directors with approximately 85% agreement:

(3) World/Global Geography
(3) Human Development*
(3) CAN MATH 4 or equivalent
(3) Introduction to biology
*We discussed developing criteria for eligible classes.

The following classes were nominated by the ESM Program directors with approximately 75% agreement:

(3) Survey of literature
(3) Field Experience

1 The Task Force has not yet decided on the definition of "region". At the August meeting of the Task Force, the Chancellor's Office will present a list of proposed regions along with the data underlying the proposal. The data will reflect historical transfer patterns from a community college to a CSU campus into teacher preparation programs and possibly all majors. If a significant number of students transfer from a community college to more than one CSU campus, then those receiving CSU campuses and that community college will be identified as belonging to a region. Once the Task Force has recommended a draft proposed regional structure, that structure along with the data prepared by the Chancellor's Office will be widely distributed with the framework-to all CSU campuses, the Academic Senates, community colleges, and other appropriate faculty members for their feedback.

2These additional units may be specific to different majors within the multiple subject program.

August 14, 2003



 
Academic Senate Home | Calendar | Search Resolutions | Contact Us | Helpful Links