Download
teac internal audit report n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
TEAC: Internal Audit Report PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
TEAC: Internal Audit Report

TEAC: Internal Audit Report

335 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

TEAC: Internal Audit Report

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. TEAC:Internal Audit Report September 14, 2011

  2. Overview • Purpose of the Audit • Selection of Candidates • Targets • Probes for each Target • Findings for each Targets • Recommendations for Targets

  3. Purpose of the Internal Audit • Commitment and Capacity for Program Quality

  4. Selection of Initial Certification Candidates • A random sample of 50/304 of candidates student teaching in either fall 2010 or winter 2011. • Size was selected to ensure 99% confidence that the proportion of complete candidate records is between 80% and 100%. • A numbered alphabetical list of the initial certification candidates was prepared, and a computer program was used to generate 50 different numbers between 1 and 304. The candidates matching those random numbers were the ones selected for audit.

  5. Candidate Selection: • Of the 50 files: • 35 undergraduate • 14 MAT • 1 Post bachelors • Subset of Alternative Pathways candidates: 2 UG, 6 MAT • A wide variety of programs represented. • Elementary (general) • Secondary (various subject areas) • K-12

  6. Targets for Each Candidate: • For each candidate, • Two courses were audited • Which led to two faculty for each candidate • Two classrooms from the courses • Through this audit there were: • 50 candidates • 45 courses • 216 faculty • 37 rooms

  7. Entering the QCS: The Audit Trail • Auditors worked in 4 teams. • 3 teams of Auditors examined the first 3 target areas of at least 16 files each: • Candidates • Curriculum • Faculty • 1 team of auditors examined facility targets only • Auditors gathered information on probe sheets and met together to discuss

  8. Candidate Targets The 3 Areas Probed were: • Admission to COE • Student Teaching Requirements • Certification Requirements

  9. Findings for Candidate Targets: • Most files were complete. • Undergraduate: Out of 35 files, 3 (8.6%) were missing student teaching applications; 1 file (2.9%) was without documentation for 53 credit hours prior to admission to Level 2; 6 (17%) were without student teaching eligibility sheets. • MAT: Out of 14 files, 2 (14.9%) results of Basic Skills Test were not found; 6 (42.8%) transcript reviews were not found, and 4 (28.5%) files did not have a student teaching application. • Candidate Summary Report

  10. Recommendations • Develop a summative checklist (or 3 separate) for all initial certification files that includes admissions, student teaching, and certification requirements. • Alternative Pathways student files should be clearly indicated and exceptions to requirements should be noted. • Consolidate student teaching requirement data onto one form. • Support the university initiative for full use of a comprehensive electronic record-keeping database (STARS) because it will coordinate student records from different aspects of their programs and therefore make them more easily accessible to auditors and advisers.

  11. Program Targets • The 5 areas probed were: • Program approval • Performance assignments • Capstone conversation • Syllabi • Course evaluations

  12. Findings for Programs • Program Approval • All of the program majors and minors sampled are currently approved by the Michigan Department of Education. • The exception, SECE, Learning Disabilities, is an approved experimental Pathways program.

  13. Performance Assessments • Only 6 students out of the 50 students sampled turned in every assignment, had every assignment evaluated, and every evaluation completed using the established protocol. • Reasons for the low completion rate include: • Newness of LiveText and the associated learning curve for both candidates and instructors. • Many of the sampled students having completed pre-student teaching before the current protocol was established. • Pathway Students were not using LiveText, and had alternative approval.

  14. Capstone Conversation • No records for 7 of the 50 sampled (14%). • Of the remaining 43, 29 (67%) were rated by two reviewers, the other 14 (33%) by only one. • Inter-rater reliability varied greatly across the three items (0.89, 0.72, and 0.29) even though there was a workshop before the Winter CC.

  15. Course Syllabi • Two of the professional sequence courses in the sampled candidates’ programs were audited (46 different courses total). • 10 syllabi unavailable. • Missing information on: Course Description, Outcomes, Text or Other Readings, Assignments Described, Grading System and Class Schedule. • Of the four policy statements, all 4 were present in 39% of the syllabi, 3 were present in 33%, 2 were present in 17%, and 1 or none were each present in 6%. • Clearly, we have some work to do in this area. • COE Website

  16. Course Evaluations-SET • We did not have SETs from the Winter Semester. • We only had a few available from the Fall. • We discussed issues of confidentiality. • We need to agree on a process for collecting all of the SETs for all of the courses in the professional sequences, as well as for which semesters to collect them.

  17. Program Overview Data Report

  18. Recommendations for Program • LiveText assessment system needs to be closely monitored until the process works flawlessly, both for faculty and students. • Rater Reliability training needs to occur for all assignments. • Two reviewers need to be in place for Capstone Conversation. • Monitoring of syllabi collection, as well as use of COE designated format. • SET scores need to be sent to TEAC coordinator when they are received.

  19. Faculty Targets • The 3 Areas probed: • Hiring procedures • Promotion procedures • Quality • Faculty Levels • Tenured/Tenure Line • Clinical • Lecturer • Adjunct

  20. Hiring Process for T/TT, Clinical, Lecturers • The Tenure/Tenured Track, Clinical and Lecturers hiring process begins with an advertised posting on the Wayne State University job posting website. • The posting includes a job description (essential duties), qualifications, and other details about the position. • The audit showed no issues in hiring for these three classifications of faculty.

  21. Part-Time Faculty Hiring Process Hiring Part Time Faculty is not as clear-cut, due to the variable nature of the need for part-time faculty. • Program coordinators recommend faculty for these positions, in most cases verbally to the Assistant Dean of the Division. • It was noted that there was no written documentation of this recommendation. • No official documentation was noted for degrees or specialized certificates that qualify the candidates to teach the particular content area (transcripts, credentials, licenses, diplomas). • Most part time faculty personnel files included resumes as documentation, but were very outdated.

  22. Promotion/Productivity • 2006-2010 Promotion (T/TL) • 90% that went up received tenure • 88% that went up were promoted to Associate Prof • 100% that went up were promoted to Prof • 84.3% (43/50 ) of the TT/T and Clinical Faculty hold Graduate Faculty Status (2 are new faculty and do qualify now). • 94.5% of the faculty document that they hold a Doctorate, Educational Specialist or Master’s degree. • 98.6% correlation of the area of specialization and experience as related to the courses teaching for the Lecturers and Adjuncts. • Website profiles were out of date/or no details for many faculty

  23. Productivity/Promotion • 12 part time faculty folders did not include degree information. It is not assumed these faculty members do not have advanced degrees; it is noted the evidence was not available. • 17 part time faculty files were incomplete, did not respond to program coordinators, did not respond to personal emails or phone calls from Asst. Dean of Curriculum, or did not respond to self-reporting documentation. • A summary of productivity for each faculty member is listed in Appendix C.

  24. Recommendations for T/TL, Clinical, & Lectures • New TL faculty should apply for Graduate Faculty Status as soon as they qualify. Administrators/Program Coordinators need to encourage this. • Website Profiles need annual updating. • TEAC requires profiles include key information: • Degree, degree date, institution • Courses taught • Scholarly information (pubs, grants, research) • Service to the field • Updated vita (yearly)

  25. PT Faculty Recommendations • It is highly recommended that a new monitoring system be put into place for part time faculty during the hiring process to ensure highly qualified candidates. • Posting of positions needs to follow the PT faculty contract. Information on part time position should be posted annually on our website, along with minimum qualifications in order to maintain pools of candidates. • Hiring documentation to be entered on the hiring website should include resume/vita, application, transcripts, credentials, letter of recommendation from program coordinators or other faculty. • These applications should be able to be sorted by specializations so program coordinators can have easy access to candidates applying to their area of specialization. • Program coordinators should submit any new PT hiring recommendations in writing to the Assistant Dean of their Division. Common form should be considered. • Part-time faculty should be chosen from the pool.

  26. PT Faculty Recommendations • Required updated documentation for “Quality of PT faculty” needs to be obtained and monitored. • Consider PT faculty meetings 1-2 times a semester for all programs to deliver important information (web profiles, syllabus discussions) and then break off into program area meetings. • Monitoring of the documentation of PT faculty should be done administratively.

  27. Facilities Targets • The final audit targets examined facilities across campus classrooms. • Classrooms • Equipment • Accessibility

  28. Findings: • Classrooms are well equipped for their intended use, well maintained, with appropriate lighting and temperature control and with opportunities for technology integration. • Some rooms were well supplied with electrical outlets, but some had too few to accommodate the student use of laptop computers. • Most classrooms in buildings were accessible, but a few, for example the dance studio that was used as a classroom, were not accessible to students with limited mobility.

  29. Recommendations for Facilities • Due to the change in how instruction is delivered, rooms need to consider electronically friendly environments that include ample electronic outlets. • Designate more rooms in COE as COE controlled rooms.

  30. Overall Implications • Program Faculty need to own and address issues of curriculum as it relates to accreditation. Accreditation comes from the candidate’s entire program of study. • Record Keeping needs to be modified to address missing documents. • Programs need to be proactive in terms of updating the COE Website information, especially in terms of recruitment and retention concerns. COE Website. • Need to examine accessibility issues at the university and what is being addressed at the university level.

  31. What’s Next? • Advisory Committee will continue to convene • Regular meetings with Divisions/Program Areas for internal audit of their own students • Monitoring of Missing pieces • Inquiry Brief Proposal • Preparation for External Audit April 1-4, 2012

  32. Audit Team: Janet Andrews Donna Carroll Tom Edwards Nancy Engels Mariane Fahlman Chavon Jackson Rodney Jhons Sharon Sellers-Clark Jo-Ann Snyder David Whitin Phyllis Whitin Kathleen Crawford-McKinney