Background: All of the CSU campuses were invited to send representative teams to a meeting called by Gary Hart from the CSU Institute for Education Reform. CSUSB's team consisted of: Jerry Pritchard, Patricia Arlin, John Conley, Dan Whittaker, Laura Kamptner, Esteban Diaz, Jan Woener and Pat Mullen. The campus team was expected to have a preparatory meeting, to meet as a group in San Diego to consider a number of new state policy initiatives to improve the undergraduate education of teachers and to develop a campus action plan. Finally the campus team was expected to meet with the Academic Affairs Council and other interested parties to discuss the next steps in the development of a plan of action for implementation of those policies which are relevant to CSUSB's culture and diverse student community.

The Advisory Panel to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing identified a number of desirable qualities and attributes of undergraduate teacher education. One "Attribute" was a "blended curriculum of subject matter and professional preparation." The Panel's discussion of the desirable attributes of such a curriculum resulted in the "three C's: concurrent and connected but not compromised". Of particular concern was the ability to provide for "early deciders" an integrated four or five year program leading to the B.A. and to the basic CLAD credential. One means to achieve this integration was the development of "minors but not majors in education." This particular option was not well received by many of the campuses.

The Panel stressed the need for early advisement and career exploration in order to create "pathways into teaching." Collaboration that is "intra-institutional and inter-institutional" was stressed. The panel strongly recommended the intensive involvement of K-12 educators in all phases of undergraduate teacher preparation as well as the introduction as early as possible of multiple field experiences with children and adolescents in educational and related settings.

The Action Plan: The campus team was expected to develop a set of answers to the following questions:

1A. What problems need to be overcome on your campus in order to strengthen undergraduate teacher education?

2A. What solutions seem most promising in overcoming these problems?

3A. What are your top three short-term goals?

4A. What do you need most to solve these problems?

5A. How would you use additional resources if they became available?

6A. How would you proceed if no additional resources were available? Are there ways to re-allocate existing resources?

The Underlying question: At the heart of the discussion was the underlying question of how we can reconfigure our idea of quality undergraduate and teacher education to include the disciplines, education and inter-disciplinary or liberal studies. The necessity for dialogue on the place of education in the "Academy" was stressed as was the need to change the image of the liberal studies major on most campuses.

The CSUSB Team's thinking about the integration of liberal studies and the multiple subjects credential in the undergraduate years: It was clear from the start that the team represented a group of people who cared about these issues and who sought ways to open up communication and discussion on campus on the restructuring of the preparation of elementary school teachers. The team spent considerable time discussing the issue of status for liberal studies and the role that joint advisement (liberal studies and education) might play in strengthening the image of the liberal studies major. It was suggested that liberal studies should be protected as integral to more than one school and as critical to the realization of our mission statement. The newly Child Development option in the liberal studies program as a pathway to teacher education was viewed by the team as an important step toward potential integration.

There was common agreement that we need improved communication at all levels -- across programs, departments and schools. There should be a focused message from the President and other senior administrators to support efforts to bring about this integration in a manner best suited for the particular culture and clientele of our campus. The issue of student characteristics and transfer numbers at the third year as well as the issue of delay in completing the B.A. because of family and work responsibilities complicates program integration, revision and development. Conversations need to occur with respect to: (1) the structure of liberal studies, (2) the revision of curriculum to integrate content and pedagogy, (3) the timing of course offerings in the schedule, and (4) the improvement of advisement. One strategy might be to use the five year review as an opportunity and mechanism for addressing the issues and beginning substantial program reform.

In the short term the Campus Team agreed to continue our current discussion on campus. We also agreed to share with and brief the leadership on the directions we wish to go. We wish to identify more key faculty to participate in this process as well as identify those efforts at the integration of content and pedagogy which already exist or are currently planned. Our greatest need is for a committed corps of faculty, administrators and school people to address the issue of program reform.

Ultimately the issues of space , time, money and rewards (RPT process etc.) for faculty participation in this process as well as strong leadership of the President and his administrators will be critical to successful reform of teacher education on campus.

5

4

3

2

1

Each of the above concentric circles is keyed to a proposed timeline for the increasing involvement of the faculty, departments and schools of CSUSB in the improvement of teacher education on this campus. Major objectives include: (a) articulation and integration (where possible) of liberal studies with the multiple subjects credential program; (b) curriculum review, revision and redesign (where required) to bring content and pedagogy closer together; (c) the development and provision of early multiple field experiences relevant to the new curriculum; (d) the increased involvement of the K-12 community and community colleges in the planning process; (e) the potential review of the reward system to support faculty who engage in this process and center their efforts on this integration of content, pedagogy and field experience.

Timeline:

Circle 1. (September, 1997 - present). SB 1422 is approved by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC). CSUSB president's report on the reform of teacher education is released. Gary Hart (CSU Institute for Educational Reform) system wide conference on the integration of liberal studies with the multiple subject credential program.

(October, 1997 - present). CSUSB campus team (P. Arlin, J. Conley, E. Diaz, L. Kamptner, P. Mullen, J. Pritchard, D. Whitaker and J. Woerner) formed by Vice-President Fernandez. Team held pre-conference meeting and discussed objectives for the conference. Team participated in the Hart conference and prepared a post conference summary. Began to discuss a campus wide plan for discussion, consultation and involvement in the reform of teacher education.

Circle 2. (December, 1997 - present). Campus team continues to explore relationships with faculty, departments and schools to identify those interested in participating in discussions and the development of an action plan for teacher education reform on this campus. Conversations held with department chairs in the School of Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Circle 3. (January, 1998 --). Discussions are broadened to engage those faculty with identified interests and/or on ongoing work with schools and with faculty in the School of Education (examples: Jenny Zorn (Geography); Cheryl Riggs (History); Laura Kamptner (Child Development in Psychology); Bob Stine (Mathematics)). Campus team is increased to include Senate representation and those non-School of Education faculty with clearly identified interests in teacher education. Meeting scheduled for Dan Whitaker (Director of Liberal Studies), and Patricia Arlin to meet with the Chairs of the School of Humanities. Survey of faculty interests proposed.

(Mid-February, 1998). Begin systematic curriculum review of current offerings in relation to statewide curriculum standards and frameworks. Consider the state professional standards in teaching in relation to the definition of teaching quality at CSUSB.

Circle 4. (March - May, 1998). Involve the whole university in meetings and forum to discuss teacher education reform and proposed actions to bring about the reform. Actions might include a commitment across the schools to hire new faculty with professional as well as strong discipline interests; opportunities for faculty to visit and interact in K-12 classrooms; development of new courses and methods of delivery of instruction that bring School of Education faculty and other discipline-based backing into partnerships. Begin to involve K-12 leadership in the discussions.

Circle 5. (April, 1998 - ongoing). Develop multiple models of campus implementation of reforms. Further involvement of K-12 community and Community Colleges for feedback.