STANDARD 5

Download a Printable PDF File


Standard 5: Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development

Faculty are qualified and model best professional practices in scholarship, service, and teaching, including the assessment of their own effectiveness as related to candidate performance; they also collaborate with colleagues in the disciplines and schools. The unit systematically evaluates faculty performance and facilitates professional development.

5.1 Statement about the evidence

Based on the review of Exhibit 5.1, ten (10) of 14 full-time faculty have earned doctorates and exceptional expertise. Four (4) have masters’ degrees, and the IR indicates they are on the tenure track. All university supervisors and clinical faculty have licensure; however, no further individual qualifications were provided (e.g. contemporary work experience). By state regulation, clinical faculty must have three years teaching experience, a relevant teaching license, and the master’s degree.

The unit adopts the Boyer model of scholarship of the professoriate. Exhibit 5.1 indicates extensive faculty involvement in scholarship, leadership in professional associations, and service. The majority of faculty has made state and national presentations (7), many are published (5), and all are engaged in service, ranging from leadership roles in professional associations to consultative/technical assistance roles in public schools. Also, the majority have extensive involvement with the professional development school in JCPS, Maupin Elementary School. Though The “University Approved Curriculum Vitae Format” was provided in Exhibit 5.6, no faculty vitae were available to provide further evidence of scholarship.

A review of course syllabi from recently approved program submissions reveals a presence of the conceptual framework, Educator as Leader, throughout program courses. Faculty model best practices as indicated in course syllabi and the description in the IR, particularly in regards to fluency in the Internet, assessment practices, use of LiveText, engagement in reflection, critical thinking, and utilization of a variety of instructional techniques. Approved program submissions indicate that faculty helps candidates develop the proficiencies outlined in professional and state standards. Faculty evaluates candidate performances and utilizes the unit’s assessment system at both undergraduate and graduate levels.

Exhibit 5.7 documents faculty participation in professional development activities from 2008 to 2011. The chart indicates that faculty members have consistently provided their own funds for participation in these activities although the unit/university funds activities (from 53% in 2008 to 86% in 2009). The chart further reveals active engagement of faculty in professional development particularly at the local and state levels. Since 2008, faculty has participated in 39 activities at the national/international levels.

The IR (p.31) states that faculty must be successful in three areas: effective teaching/fulfillment of professional responsibilities, continuing scholarly growth, and service to university/community. Evidence was found to support systematic and comprehensive evaluations of faculty in Exhibit 5.6, the “Narrative Outline of the Faculty Annual Evaluation.” The evaluation cycle begins annually with faculty self-evaluation and includes development of a growth plan and revision of vita. Combined with the evaluation summary, which incorporates aggregated course evaluations every semester, faculty meets with the immediate supervisor before documentation goes to the dean for final review and approval. Reference is made in the IR to a unit “Score Card” (p.31) that is developed by the dean and used in her own evaluation by the provost. No evidence of the card was provided (except a template in Standard 6).

5.2 Progress toward meeting the target level on this standard. Not applicable to this standard.

5.3 Feedback on correcting previous areas for improvement (AFIs). No areas for improvement were cited at the previous visit.

5.4 Areas of concern related to continuing to meet the standard. None

5.5 Evidence for the Onsite BOE Team to validate during the onsite visit


Return to referring page.