Action Plan to Strengthen Teacher Education in the Undergraduate Years
California State University, Fullerton
December 12, 1997

The challenges facing the strengthening of teacher education in the undergraduate years at CSU, Fullerton parallel the themes as outlined in the Executive Summary of the Subcommittee Reports of the CSU Presidents Group on Teacher Preparation and K-18 Education. Thus, our action plan is organized according to those categories that we deem most relevant and urgent.

1. Do our structures promote, support and sustain the all-university responsibility for teacher education?

Action: Following the San Diego Conference, the Vice President for Academic Affairs met with key deans to address this question and it was the consensus of the group that we continue to use AURTEC as the primary group to set the overall directions and policies necessary to implement the recommendations of the Presidents Group.

2. Will these structures promote, support and sustain the goal of integrated undergraduate academic programs that are interdisciplinary, linking subject matter content with professional preparation, including multiple clinical experiences?

Problem Statement: It is the consensus of those who attended the San Diego Conference and other key campus faculty and administrators that we do not have a structure in place that facilitates communication among key departments that have the responsibility for achieving the goals stated above. There is a need for enhanced communication among Liberal Studies, Child and Adolescent Studies, Elementary and Bilingual Education, relevant academic departments and our Multiple Subject Matter Preparation Program Advisory Group.

Action: Review our current committees and to establish a structure that will enhance communication and enable the relevant faculty members to implement a program that links content, pedagogy and multiple clinical experiences. It has been proposed that we model this committee after our successful campus wide committee, SECTEP. This committee focuses on secondary school teaching and monitors undergraduate subject matter preparation programs.

Identify faculty who can (or are) implement new ideas and programs that will lead to an integrated program. We need broader discussion about what integration means and how to operationalize it. For example, we say there needs to be an earlier field experience, but how is that experience linked to the classroom and what are the parameters and the "lens" by which the students go into the field? Appropriate support needs to be allocated for this initiative, for example, for retreats, assigned time, consultants, preparation of external grants.

Review our existing requirements to see if they serve the goals of the Presidents Group and propose curricular changes as appropriate that will serve our students well and be in compliance with CTC regulations.

3. Are our undergraduate academic majors and teacher certification programs staffed by core faculty committed to excellence in teaching and learning?

Action: Overall our majors and programs are staffed by core faculty committed to excellence. However, there is a particular need to review our Liberal Studies program for sufficient administrative time, core faculty, and student support mechanisms.

4. Do we have sufficient resources to achieve restructured teacher preparation programs to meet the current demands for new teachers, as well as the estimated demand in the foreseeable future?

Action: Review resources in light of the new Economic Improvement Initiative Funds and allocate resources to achieve restructured teacher preparation programs and to meet demand. Review the resource implications of our current program and determine if our Increasing Student Learning Initiatives could be used to encourage innovation or if Cornerstones offers fresh perspectives that promote quality but have the potential to increase our resource capacities.

5. How can we agree on common exit standards that assures that each candidate possesses the desired characteristics upon completion of a CSU program?

Action: Review the Characteristics of a Well Prepared Teacher that were developed by the Presidents Group and determine how they fit with current campus standards and revise ours where appropriate. Review our assessment mechanisms to ensure that we appropriately evaluate our candidates.

6. How can we support regional approaches to teacher preparation that include common entry and exit standards and an articulated curriculum that provides for easy transfer among campuses in both integrated undergraduate programs and teacher preparation programs?

Action: Work through the Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs who are charged with implementing this provision and participate in activities and committees as appropriate.

7. How can we further our partnerships with community colleges and school districts in this approach to teacher education?

Action: Review what is currently being done and seek further partnerships to achieve our goals. Recent discussions with advisory boards to our credential program, who have been informed of our charge and our interest in developing more integrated programs, have revealed that there is enthusiasm for this integrated approach. There is a need to involve both these key constituencies in campus efforts early on in the process.

8. What other good ideas have we missed?

It was proposed that we develop a Fullerton First Year program for prospective teachers as part of the goal of the early identification of teachers. It was also proposed that we revise the catalog so that it is clear to students what to do if you want to be an elementary teacher. Finally, some believe that, to quote Chancellor Munitz, we need to get to the root of the problem by deconstructing the dichotomies that shape teacher education: the dichotomies of content and pedagogy, subject-centered versus student-centered model of teaching, and theory and practice.