Dean of Education Listserv

From: Zionts, Paul [mailto:PZIONTS@depaul.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 4:46 PM To: Nancy Mundschenk; Crowley, Paula

Cc: spedpro@virginia.edu Subject: RE: NCTQ, USN&WR, DEANS Nancy, Among my favorite conversations with NCTQ was when they pointed out that we didn't cover a standard in a particular class. When we pointed them to the required class where it was covered, they commented that "we didn't look at that class." So, the ranking remained. Or, we had a lower ranking after they decided that we used the wrong text for a particular class (when the other 6 sections, not chosen by them for review)used their "approved texts").

Ironically, as accreditation agencies are FINALLY moving away from syllabi, etc., as outcomes, NCTQ goes back to the future.

NCTQ has indicated that if we don't cooperate, they will still rank "us." Cool! Sounds like somebody I used to date.

Julie Greenberg <jgreenberg@nctq.org> Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:46 PM To: pzionts@depaul.edu Dear Dr. Zionts, To follow-up on our 10/11 phone call...

1) Std. 8: I have reviewed the template sent and made appropriate changes in ratings, indicated on the attached sheets.

2) Std. 9: Again, having reviewed the template, I have made appropriate changes in ratings that are indicated on the attached sheets.

3) Std. 18 (graduate elementary): I have reviewed our findings and your response and find that SCG 410 and TL 411 are the two courses addressing assessment; a third course is not involved. A revised rating sheet is attached.

4) Std. 27A: I apologize for our mistake in not categorizing your coursework as representing eight semester hours.

A revised rating sheet is attached.

You mentioned in the email to which you attached the template that the Miller is only used in one reading course.

That is indeed what our database indicates -- its use in EE 324.

I appreciated the opportunity to review these issues with you so as to have our evaluation more accurately reflect DePaul's preparation programs.

Sincerely, Julie -Zionts, Paul <PZIONTS@depaul.edu> To: Julie Greenberg <jgreenberg@nctq.org>

Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Hi, Thanksâ&#x20AC;Ś Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m sorry, I meant to say that the Miller text was used by only one of the 4 faculty (an occasional adjunct, at that) who teach the course.

Paul Paul Zionts, Ph.D. Dean, School of Education DePaul University 2320 N. Kenmore Ave 467H Chicago, IL 60614 Julie Greenberg <jgreenberg@nctq.org> To: "Zionts, Paul" <PZIONTS@depaul.edu>

Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:13 AM

Paul, In the case of multiple sections, we randomly select one for analysis. We have assumed that institutions, DePaul and all others, select faculty who will teach coursework that meets the institution's standards and is consistent with instruction offered by other faculty. (We will present more information in this report on that issue.) If you wish to have me comment on the rating for this course that it is partially based on the evaluation of coursework taught by an adjunct whose instruction is not aligned with the institution's standards, I would be happy to do so.

Thinking back to our phone conversation, I believe we discussed the issue of adjuncts in the context of other standards and the fact that they introduced the possibility of instruction that is not aligned to the institution's program. (I had conversations with 28 institutions, so my recollection may be faulty.) In any case, if we did discuss it, I believe that you indicated that all your coursework is taught by full-time faculty who carefully coordinate their instruction and this was not an issue.

Julie [Quoted text hidden]

Zionts, Paul <PZIONTS@depaul.edu> To: Julie Greenberg <jgreenberg@nctq.org>

Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Julie, With all due respect, we had four instructors.. what possible (statistically valid) form of random selection could you have possibly used? As you are most likely aware, the consequences of such methodological flaws have the potential to weigh heavily on the reputation of schools who are, in fact, doing good work.

Paul

Paul Zionts, Ph.D. Dean, School of Education DePaul University 2320 N. Kenmore Ave 467H Chicago, IL 60614

Paul Zionts, Ph.D. Dean, School of Education DePaul University 2320 N. Kenmore Ave 467H Chicago, IL 60614

Julie Greenberg <jgreenberg@nctq.org> To: "Zionts, Paul" <PZIONTS@depaul.edu>

Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Paul, It is not our intention to impugn the reputations of schools who are, in fact, doing good work.

Assuming that the most fundamental concepts presented in coursework across sections of the same course are uniform, the random selection of one of them for examination should be valid methodologically. If random selection does not provide a representative evaluation of the course because the fundamental concepts presented are not uniform across sections, does the problem lies in the institution's control over the design of its coursework or in the the methodology?

Julie [Quoted text hidden]

Zionts, Paul <PZIONTS@depaul.edu> To: Julie Greenberg <jgreenberg@nctq.org>

Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Julie, It has been brought to my attention that there were 6 sections of said course and only 1 used the miller book (ther remainder used a book "approved' by you).

Can you share how you applied random selection across the courses?

Thanks, Paul Paul Zionts, Ph.D. Dean, School of Education DePaul University 2320 N. Kenmore Ave 467H Chicago, IL 60614

Julie Greenberg <jgreenberg@nctq.org> To: "Zionts, Paul" <PZIONTS@depaul.edu>

Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Paul, We chose the instructors by a random number generator implemented in Excel (it took the number of instructors for a course, N, and then provided a number selection [1, N].) All such selection was obviously

completed before we had the syllabi (which includes the textbook information) because we sent the request for a syllabus from a specific instructor's section in the syllabus request.

Julie [Quoted text hidden]