NDE Report Home

University of Nebraska-Lincoln State Approval Process
Off –Campus Review – Instruction for Reviewers
June 20, 2017 

Let me begin by thanking you to serve as a reviewer for state approval for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.  As you go through the website, please notice that there are five main groupings of folios and they are organized into the following folders: 

Mini-folios:  Supplemental endorsements and programs with five or fewer program completers during the two-year review period;

Regular folios:  Undergraduate programs for subject or field endorsements with more than 5 program completers during the two-year review period; 

Advanced folios:  These are Graduate programs with more than 5 program completers during the two-year review period; and 

Rule 20 matrix/folio

Programs that have National Recognition.

 

In order to open the folio for which you are responsible, go to the regular folios or advanced folio folders, locate the folio and select it.  In order to facilitate the process for you, here are some suggestions:

For Regular Folio reviews:

Almost all of the folios will follow the same format, and you should feel free to use the folio to which you have been assigned as an example. In all cases, you will find three sections in each folio, as determined by the Nebraska Department of Education.  Section one consists of information on the university, the college and the teacher education program.  For the report that you need to complete, Section 1 of the folio provides information for Question 1a-1f.  Links/websites are provided at the beginning of this section which contain additional information that may help in the review process.  

Section 2 consists of 39 tables that provide information on the remaining 7 questions that you need to address.  The data sources for these tables are:  

  1.  Grade Point Averages;
  2. Praxis II scores;
  3. Results from the Student Teacher survey that was completed by cooperating teachers/ supervisors;
  4. Results completed by the administrators for first-year teachers; and
  5. Responses from the first-year teacher candidates themselves.

Section 2 is divided up into 7 areas – one area for each question on the program evaluation sheet.  Multiple sources are used to provide data in order to address each question.   At the end of the area you will find a one-paragraph narrative that provides a mini-summary of what is presented in the preceding group of tables.  The purpose of these narratives is to make your life easier as a reviewer. Faculty were requested to write these paragraphs in layman’s terms (most succeeded in doing so).  If you believe that the combination of the data presented and the summary paragraphs support the fact that the standard has been satisfied, feel free to use any/all of the narrative as a response in the evaluation you complete or you can write your own response.  If you do not believe the standard has been met, then you will have to provide you own response.

 The formatting of the tables need some explanation.  Table 1 presents information on GPA’s and Table 2 provides data on Praxis II scores.  Unfortunately, tables presenting information from the student teaching instrument (Tables 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 27, 28, 29,32, and 33) all have a part A for the 2014-15 academic year and a part B for 2015-16.   The student teaching instrument was modified in between these two years where the questions and the response options were changed.  The questions asked are similar to each other, as are the response scales/items. The first line in each table will show the subject area that is the focus of the folio and it will be followed by the responses for each response item.  This line will be in regular text (it will not be in bold). This information is what the reviewer will look at first.  It is the primary data source for this folio. Each table provides the descriptive statistics for the programs completers for that particular year, grade level and specific subject area and what the scores are for that particular item.   In the majority of the folios (some faculty elected to remove this section from the folio for which they were responsible), aggregated data will then be presented for the primary areas of our teacher education program -- early childhood, elementary, special education and secondary education/ content area/subject area endorsements. This information will be in bold.  These results are for program completers who student taught in one of these areas.   The tables are organized in this manner so that summative data could be presented on the program completers as a whole and would allow for individual comparisons to a larger reference group. 

The other instruments used are the two first year follow–up instruments; one completed by administrators on our program completers (Tables 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 30, 34, 35, and 38), and the other completed by the candidates themselves (Tables, 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 36, 37, and 39).  The instruments were basically the same over the two-year data collection period. However, NDE took over the administration of the first-year administrator follow-up survey and the data was organized in a different way between years 1 and 2.  We administered the first-year candidate survey and it was the same instrument both years.

Finally, Section III is a summative narrative that presents the strength and weaknesses of the program, provides direction as to how weaknesses will be addressed in the near future and describes what new initiatives will be implemented.

For Advanced Folio reviews:

Advanced folios are graduate level folios where there were 6 or more program completers during the 2014-15 and 2015-16 academic years.  If there were fewer that 6 program completers, then this program was re-categorized as a mini-folio (see below). The primary difference between the Advanced and Regular folio is that different standards are applied and that there is no Section 2 in the advanced folio.   However, data are reported in the folio along with a five-page summative narrative at the end.  This information is specific to a particular endorsement area. Table 5 presents all of the information required to answer the four key questions tied to the folio as identified by the Nebraska Department of Education.  It is followed by a summative narrative that addresses strengths, weaknesses and future directions of the program.

For Mini-folio Reviews:

Mini-folios are used for supplemental endorsements and those programs with fewer that 6 program completers over the two-year review period.  These reports consist of Section 1 of the regular folio and Section III which is a 3 to 5-page narrative at the end of the folio.  It is my understanding that personnel from the Nebraska Department of Education will be responsible for reviewing these materials.

For the Rule 20 folio review:

Reviewers of these materials are referred to the Rule 20 matrix as found below in the Rule 20 folder.  Each standard in Rule 20 is addressed with UN-L providing a narrative and documentation.  The narrative is usually a few sentences to a few paragraphs.  Its purpose is to provide information in response to how the standard is met. Documentation gives the location as to where specific support information provided in the narrative can be found.  Either a website will be listed (just click in the link) or the name of a specific file will be presented.  The file will be located in the Rule 20 Support materials folder found in our website. 

Reviewers are also urged to go to the Nebraska State Program Approval Manual as a point of reference in case there are any questions about procedures.  The website is:

https://www.education.ne.gov/EducatorPrep/IHE/ProgramApproval/StateReview-Folio/StateReviewManual.pdf.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact Tom Wandzilak at:
402-472-8626 or at  twandzilak1@unl.edu

Again, thanks you for your willingness to serve as a reviewer for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln State Approval Process.