REPORT BY THE REAUTHORIZATION TEAM OF
EDUCATOR PREPARATION AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO

REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO
FEBRUARY 11, 2019

 Part I. Introduction
This report summarizes the findings of the state reauthorization team for the University of Northern
Colorado’s (UNC) educator preparation programs by the Colorado Department of Education (CDE)
and the Colorado Department of Higher Education (DHE).
A. Introduction and Background
The educator preparation unit and programs at UNC were reviewed for reauthorization in fall 2018 with a
site visit on November 5-7, 2018, and subsequent stakeholder conversations through December 5, 2018. The
previous reauthorization review at the UNC took place on March 13, 2013. Pursuant to Colorado Revised
Statute §23-1-121, institutions of higher education with approved educator preparation programs must be
evaluated not more frequently than once every five years. As UNC had planned to pursue national
accreditation by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), this visit was scheduled
to align with the CAEP site visit. UNC has since withdrawn from CAEP; therefore, the reauthorization team
conducted the current review independently.
Educator Preparation Program Reauthorization Process
The following delineates the path of an educator preparation program submitted for reauthorization to CDE
and DHE:
• Endorsement matrices, syllabi, and accompanying documentation are due to CDE June 30 for fall
reauthorization visits and October 31 for spring reauthorization visits. Content reviews are
completed months prior to the visit and provide focus areas for site visit team.
• Institutional reports are submitted to CDE and DHE 60 days prior to the scheduled site visit. If the
institution is pursuing national accreditation through a recognized accrediting agency, report
submission for national accreditation may be substituted for state institutional reports.
• DHE reviews the submitted evidence prior to the site visit to identify the unit and programs
strengths and areas for improvement.
• DHE compiles a list of missing information needed to document the performance criteria listed
above and specific questions to clarify information submitted in the proposal.
• Reauthorization site visits are jointly conducted by CDE and DHE. The site visit consists of an
entrance interview, unit and program review including conversations with stakeholders, and an
exit interview.
• CDE and DHE jointly compile information from the institutional report and site visit reviews,
including content review information from the educator quality standards. CDE and DHE submit
the draft report to the IHE within 60 days of the site visit.
• The IHE shall respond to the draft report in a rejoinder and provide additional information or
address any concerns within 30 days of receiving the draft report.
• DHE and CDE finalize the reauthorization report.
• CDE forwards the report and a recommendation to the State Board of Education (SBE) for their
consideration.
• SBE forwards their recommendation on program content to the DHE, which then forwards the
recommendation to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) for their final
determination of reauthorization. Please note: Pursuant to C.R.S. §23-1-121, if the state board of
education recommends that a program not be approved, the commission shall follow said
recommendation by refusing initial approval of said program or placing said program on probation.
• The CCHE determines reauthorization of educator preparation programs.

2

 Reauthorization Site Team Members
The reauthorization site review team consisted of representatives from DHE, CDE, one representative from
the Colorado Council of Deans of Education, one instructional coach, and one representative from a local
school district. The members included:
Brittany Lane, Ph.D., Director of Educator Preparation, Colorado Department of Higher Education;
Mary Bivens, M.A., Director of Educator Development, Colorado Department of Education;
Jennifer Kral, Educator Preparation Principal Consultant, Colorado Department of Education;
Robert Nava, Ph.D., Associate Dean, School of Education, Metropolitan State University;
Katie Mauro, Instructional Coach, Jefferson County School District;
Stacie Datteri, Assistant Superintendent for Academic Achievement, Weld County School District 6;
Ellen Hunter, Literacy Specialist with ESSU, Colorado Department of Education; and
Alex Frazier, Principal Literacy Consultant P-3 Office, Colorado Department of Education.
Site Visit Meetings and Protocol
The reauthorization review team received the institutional report in advance, prepared and submitted by the
UNC. The site review occurred November 5-7, 2018, during which time the team members met with the
following:
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

College of Education and Behavioral Sciences (CEBS) Leadership:
• Eugene Sheehan, Ph.D., Dean
• Corey Pierce, Ph.D., Associate Dean
• Jingzi Huang, Ph.D., Associate Dean and Director – School of Teacher Education
• Charlie Warren, University Licensure Officer
• Brian Rose Ph.D., Faculty, School of Teacher Education
Nancy Sileo, Ph.D., Associate Provost for Academic Affairs
Linda Black, Ph.D., Associate Provost, Dean, Graduate School
Advising and Admissions Staff
Chairs, faculty, and field supervisors across all educator preparation programs in the Colleges of
Education and Behavioral Sciences, Natural and Health Sciences, Performing and Visual Arts, and
Humanities and Social Sciences
Current candidates and alumni in early childhood, elementary, K-12, secondary, educational
leadership, and special education, as well as pre-service special service providers
Cooperating teachers and principals.

The team reviewed UNC’s institutional report, course syllabi, student records, field placement locations and
operations, and a wide range of other data prior to, over the course of, and subsequent to the site visit.
During the on-site visit, current students and alumni were interviewed regarding their experience within the
educator preparation program at UNC. Resulting comments and feedback have been incorporated into this
report.
Historical Context: University of Denver Educator Preparation Program
The following description is taken from UNC’s institutional report:
UNC began as a State Normal School in 1889 and has prepared teachers to work in schools since its
inception. UNC is a comprehensive baccalaureate and specialized graduate research university with

3

 a continuing commitment to its historical role in the preparation of educators. This focus is indeed
ingrained in UNC’s historical practice. In fact, during the tenure of George W. Frasier, UNC president
from 1924 to 1948, it was said that “ …faculty members were not only expected to make professional
contributions but were to concentrate on their teaching responsibilities as well; everyone taught
classes, including Frasier, his administrative staff, and the chairs of the departments.”
UNC continues this commitment to the preparation of educators through a teacher-scholar model, in
which faculty are encouraged to use their scholarship to inform their teaching and vice versa.
Additionally, particularly in the College of education and Behavioral Sciences, faculty are expected to
demonstrate high quality pedagogy. Faculty across campus are reminded of the need for excellence in
teaching because so many of our undergraduates are in educator preparation programs.
While UNC offers programs of study on the main campus in Greeley, there are also branch campuses
in Colorado Springs, Denver, and Loveland. In addition, UNC offers a variety of online programs
focused on educator preparation and development.
The Colorado Springs campus offers programs in counseling and psychology and teaching. More
specifically, this campus offers degrees in Elementary Education with licensure and School
Counseling. The Denver campus offers graduate degrees in Counseling and School Psychology,
Special Education, and Educational Leadership, along with undergraduate initial licensure programs
in Early Childhood, Elementary, and Special Education. The Loveland campus offers an M.A. degree
in Elementary Education.
UNC also offers many online programs. These programs include an online program for rural
leadership and an ongoing online program as well as four hybrid programs that include face to- face
classes at Northwest BOCES, Eagle, Denver, and Longmont. UNC has used online programs to reach
students for high-need programs. For example, the School of Special Education has online Master’s
Degree programs in Special Education-Generalist and Early Childhood Special Education so students
around the state can earn their teaching license without having to travel to campus.
Part II. Reauthorization Findings:
A. Introduction
The reauthorization team was impressed overall, with:
• The pride in the institution. From university administration to new students, all are very proud of
UNC’s legacy of commitment to preparing teachers and other educators.
• The expansion of the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies program. The strength of the
program was valued amongst all stakeholders for growing leaders in the region and across the state.
• Responsiveness to the needs of the state. UNC is committed to address hard-to-fill positions and
program needs across the state.
• The quality of field supervisors. Field supervisors collectively come with hundreds of years of
experience, passion for aspiring teachers, and commitment to overall program improvement.
Alumni and current students told the reauthorization team they appreciated:
• The strength of faculty and student relationships. Many students and outside-district staff remarked
on how connected faculty are to their students and how evident that is in their relationships.
• The quality of the faculty. Students mentioned how thankful they were to learn from faculty with such
depth in their fields. From seeing their names on research to serving national organizations, students
are impressed with faculty and eager to learn from them.
• Observing faculty model strategies, skills, and techniques the students are being taught to use in their

4

 own classrooms. When asked about the strengths of their programs, several students discussed how
faculty post learning targets, have clear and high expectations, and are open to students directing their
own learning.
• Lowry campus. Lowry campus faculty and program offerings were highly valued by candidates as
they rated their experiences on this extended campus to be of high quality overall.
• Theory into Practice. Candidates valued the efforts to balance and integrate theory into practice
throughout the programs.
Few faculty members mentioned university-wide strengths however, faculty appreciated the following
practices in the College of Education and Behavioral Sciences (CEBS):
• Undergrads come back. Related to the mission and reputation of the college, faculty are very proud
that candidates return to UNC for further coursework in endorsements and advanced degrees.
• Connectedness with each other. Faculty suggest positive collegiality is a significant strength of the
department to include their ability to reach out to each other for support, conduct research together,
and consistency; for example, knowing what field supervisors will be looking for during
observations.
B. Level of Proficiency
The following table is a summary of each indicator the site review team uses to review educator preparation
programs, pursuant to C.R.S. §23-1-121(2). Based on the site review findings outlined in the following
report, each measure is given an overall rating of: proficient, partially proficient, or not proficient. Table 1
shows the level of proficiency for each performance-based measure.
Table 1: UNC’s Level of Proficiency
Educator Preparation Performance Measures
A. Admissions Systems: The unit maintains a comprehensive
admissions system that includes screening of a candidate’s
dispositions for the field in which he or she is seeking
licensure, consideration of a candidate’s academic
preparation for entry into his or her desired endorsement area
or areas, and preadmission advising for students who are
considering becoming candidates.
B. Ongoing Advising and Screening of Candidates: The
unit provides ongoing advising and screening of candidates
by practicing educators or college and university faculty
members.
C. Coursework and Field-Based Training Integrate
Theory and Practice: The coursework and field-based
training integrates theory and practice and educates
candidates in methodologies, practices, and procedures of
teaching standards-based education, specifically in teaching
the content and skills defined in the Colorado Academic
Standards.

5

Proficient

X

X

X

Partially
Proficient

Not
Proficient

 D. Supervised Field-Based Experience: Each teacher
candidate in an initial licensure program completes a
minimum of 800 hours; each principal and administrator
candidate completes a minimum of 300 hours; and each
candidate for other advanced degrees or add-on
endorsements completes appropriate supervised field-based
experience that relates to predetermined learning standards
and includes best practices and national norms. related to
E. Content and skills required for licensure:
Demonstrate content skills required for licensure, as
determined by the State Board of Education.
F Comprehensive, Ongoing Assessment: There is
comprehensive and ongoing evaluation of each candidate’s
subject matter and professional knowledge and ability to
demonstrate skill in applying the professional knowledge.

X

X
X

C. Recommendation
The reauthorization team recommends reauthorization of the educator preparation programs at the
University of Northern Colorado contingent upon successful implementation of the Areas for
Improvement (AFI) highlighted in this report. Evidence of implementation of the AFIs must be
demonstrated by February 2020 on which date members of the reauthorization site visit review team will
conduct a follow-up visit. Full reauthorization is granted through fall 2023 and applies to the following
endorsement areas listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Approved Endorsement Areas for UNC
Administrator (3.04)
Audiologist (7.01)
Business (4.05)
Counselor (7.09)
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (4.22)
CLD Bilingual Ed Specialist (4.23)
Dance (4.20)
Drama Theatre Arts (4.07)
Early Childhood Education (4.01)
Early Childhood Special Education (5.09)
Early Childhood Special Education, Specialist (5.05)
Elementary Education (4.02)
English Language Arts (4.09)
Gifted Education Core (5.06)
Gifted Education Specialist (5.07)
Gifted Education, Director (6.06)
Mathematics (4.14)

6

Music (4.15)
Nurse (7.05)
Orientation and Mobility Specialist (7.03)
Physical Education (4.16)
Principal (3.03)
Psychologist (7.06)
Reading Teacher (6.03)
Science (4.17)
Social Studies (4.18)
Special Education, Director (6.05)
Special Education, Generalist (5.08)
Special Education, Specialist (5.02)
Special Ed Specialist – Visually Impaired (5.03)
Special Ed Specialist – Deaf/Hard of Hearing (5.04)
Speech – Language Pathologist (7.08)
Visual Arts (4.04)
World Language (4.10)

 Part III. Report by Reauthorization Site Review Team
A. Statutory Performance Measures
Statutory Performance Measure A: Admissions Systems: The unit maintains a comprehensive
admissions system that includes screening of a candidate’s dispositions for the field in which he or she is
seeking licensure, consideration of a candidate’s academic preparation for entry into his or her desired
endorsement area or areas, and preadmission advising for students who are considering becoming
candidates.
Summary finding: The reauthorization team finds UNC’s educator preparation programs are
proficient on Performance Measure A. Performance indicators: A1, A2, A3; C.R.S. 23-1-121(a).
The reauthorization team appreciates the use of the Professional Dispositions Qualities (PDQ) rubric early
and often to assess the personal and professional characteristics of candidates to ensure they are suited to
working with K-12 students. Candidates appear to be responding based off feedback from faculty,
supervisor, cooperating teacher, and self-assessment.
The CEBS admissions process is clear to those seeking enrollment. The review team recognizes that
admission requirements to the program, to include GPA, are flexible, thus creating an opportunity to attract
diverse candidates into the field.
It appears, however, that the recruitment strategy of the CEBS is very passive and relies heavily on the
reputation of the institution. Efforts to include those intended to attract students to the Future Teacher
Conference and the Center for Urban Education are promising; however, others–Holmes Scholar Program
and Cumbres—lack support or evidence that they are effective. Furthermore, the reauthorization team is
concerned about the lack of diversity among faculty and lack of a concrete plan to address it. An increase in
efforts to recruit more diverse faculty could lead to more student diversity. The reauthorization team also
found little or no evidence showing candidates are being specifically recruited for high needs areas like
math, science, special education, and school counseling.
The reauthorization team found insufficient evidence to demonstrate adequate supports are being provided
to retain current candidates. Though several institutional level services are offered, the review team was
unable to ascertain the existence and effectiveness of college or program level support provided to ensure
candidate success, with the exception of Praxis practice seminars.
Data must be readily available at the program level so that faculty and staff can use it to identify areas
where candidates may be struggling with or leaving from the program. Limited evidence is shown for the
use of data to identify stumbling-block courses and to track struggling candidates. The reauthorization team
is concerned about the retention rate of candidates, to include those selected for Project Teach Find.
Recommendations and Areas for Improvement for A: Admissions Systems:
Recommendation: The reauthorization team would like to reengage the University in their role and mission
to prepare educators. The team recommends more intentional efforts to recruit and retain diverse
candidates and faculty.
Recommendation: Consider examining additional supports to offer current students to promote retention.
Recommendation: Ensure CEBS has access to data so that faculty and staff can readily examine it to make
programmatic changes to include data from education programs in other colleges. Also consider using a
common completer survey to aid in improving response rates, as well, for program comparison.

7

 Statutory Performance Measure B: Ongoing Advising and Screening of Candidates: The unit
provides ongoing advising and screening of candidates by practicing educators or college and university
faculty members.
Summary finding: The reauthorization team finds UNC’s educator preparation programs proficient
on Performance Measure B. Performance indicators: B1; C.R.S. 23-1-121(b)
The CEBS has multiple systems to advise candidates. Student-level course data is kept and used by
faculty to identify when students might drop below expectations. This data, in addition to that obtained
from the PDQ, is used to give candidates feedback and counsel them out of the program when
necessary.
The secondary/K-12 students say that their advising is adequate; however, survey data suggest
students do not feel supported. Special service provider (SSP) and ECE candidates report that they
receive inconsistent information from faculty and staff and largely rely on peers who work with faculty
to learn about decisions being made. Multiple students requested more time to meet with advisors as
both advising staff and elementary education students report there is not enough time for the current
approach. New initiatives to convene a student success task force to address different advising
philosophies sound promising. Candidates reported they must sign up in pairs for advising time each
semester, thus, between the two of them, they have only 15 minutes to meet with their advisor.
Recommendations and Areas for Improvement for B: Advising, Ongoing Screening and Counseling:
Recommendation: The reauthorization review team recommends support for a more robust system for
advising education candidates, so they have sufficient access to adequate, clear, and consistent advising.
Recommendation: Create a schedule that allows elementary candidates sufficient time to meet with
advisors individually during peak advising times.
Statutory Performance Measure C: Coursework and Field-Based Training Integrate Theory and
Practice: Coursework and field-based training integrates theory and practice and educates candidates in
methodologies, practices, and procedures of teaching standards-based education, specifically in teaching
the content and skills defined in the Colorado Academic Standards.
Summary finding: The reauthorization team finds UNC proficient on Performance Measure C:
Coursework and Field-Based Training Integrates Theory and Practice. Performance indicators: C1, C2,
C.R.S. 23-1-121(c),
The integration of theory into practice and responsiveness to the state’s needs are strengths of many of
UNC’s educator preparation programs. Candidates demonstrate a good understanding of the Teacher and
Principal Quality Standards, as well as Colorado Academic Standards. Additionally, candidates and
cooperating teachers remarked on how relevant they feel candidates’ coursework is.
Candidates report they are being taught the right content but wish they had more depth in a few areas,
namely, cultural responsiveness, assessment, and what we will herein refer to as “school systems.” The
reauthorization team understands that faculty weave CLD throughout each class in some fashion, yet
candidates request there be more explicit instruction on appropriate strategies and opportunities to practice
applying them. Stakeholders recognize that candidates have instruction in assessment, which includes
learning how to give different assessments. There seems to be consensus that candidates should have more
practice interpreting the results and knowing how to adjust instruction based on those results.

8

 Interestingly, several candidates, mentors, and district supervisors request that candidates be taught more
about “school systems.” These stakeholders called for courses to cover topics that will better prepare
candidates to understand–as one principal put it– “how schools work.” For example, candidates should be
led through the processes of co-teaching and collaborating across content areas, having difficult
conversations with parents and families, and understanding the different roles of other educators and
personnel in the building. Surprisingly, both special education and special service provider alumni lamented
that others in K-12 schools do not seem to understand their part in a student’s education. They went on to
suggest that more classes be combined on like topics–perhaps even special assignments. For example, both
groups discussed how valuable it would be to examine IEPs together.
Recommendations and Areas for Improvement for C: Coursework and Field-Based Training
Integrate Theory and Practice:
Recommendation: Examine data regarding courses that address CLD, assessment, and school systems to
determine in which areas more depth can be explored.
Statutory Performance Measure D: Supervised Field-Based Experience: Each teacher candidate in
an initial licensure program completes a minimum of 800 hours; each principal and administrator
candidate complete a minimum of 300 hours; and each other advanced degree or add-on endorsement
candidate completes appropriate supervised field-based experience that relates to predetermined
learning standards and includes best practices and national norms related to the candidate’s
endorsement.
Summary finding: The reauthorization team finds UNC proficient on Performance Measure D.
Performance Indicators: D1, C.R.S. 23-1-121(d).
Students, alumni, and school district personnel alike are thankful for the field experiences candidates get to
experience as pre-service educators. Across the programs the team heard from, field experiences are offered
in a thoughtful way and aligned to course content and sequencing. While opportunities exist for students to
apply theory into practice in field experiences, candidates report that additional and/or deeper experiences
would be beneficial. For example, K-12/secondary candidates mentioned they did not feel like they have
had enough experience with ELLs and students in special education, and special education candidates fear
they have insufficient experience in diverse settings, being prepared to write IEPs, and feeling confident on
how to support students who have behavior disabilities. The State appreciates UNCs commitment to
participate in statewide initiatives to examine yearlong residency models of preparation for candidates’
student teaching.
The reauthorization team probed faculty, students, and staff for evidence of a cohesive vision for the
preparation of education candidates from the many colleges across the university that prepares them. For
example, there is inconsistency in and outside the CEBS for finding placements for both early field
experiences and student teaching. Some candidates report that they are required to choose practicum settings
from a printed matrix that works to ensure candidates gain experience with diverse learners in diverse school
settings; others leave it to the candidates’ discretion. Similarly, elementary undergraduate candidates report
feeling very supported in their placements; however, K-12/secondary candidates do not receive that same
level of feedback.
Recommendations and Areas for Improvement for D: Supervised Field-Based Experience
Recommendation: Due to the lack of consistency between educator preparation programs, the CEBS
requires more oversight of educator preparation programs across the university. Consider examining
different organizational structures that would allow UNC to consolidate decision making in order to align
policies and practices.
Recommendation: Consider more in-depth field experiences including yearlong residency for student
teachers.

9

 Statutory Performance Measure E: Content and Skills Required for Licensure: Each candidate,
prior to graduation, must demonstrate the skills required for licensure, as determined by the State Board
of Education.
Summary finding: The reauthorization team finds the educator preparation programs at UNC
partially proficient on Performance Measure E. Performance Indicators: E1, C.R.S. 23-1-121(e),
All program endorsement matrices, syllabi and accompanying documentation was due to CDE prior to
June 30, 2018. A bulk of the submission was provided by the deadline, although some of those
submissions were incomplete or documents were provided. However, the CDE team was unable to
access the documents. Work back and forth from July through November ensued with the CDE and
UNC to get complete submissions. The final piece of documentation was received in late November
2018. The CDE had all materials submitted for a peer review process in late summer of 2018 through
early winter 2018. This peer review process helped determine areas of focus during the site visit, as
well as providing feedback for the institution. The CEBS identified an approved syllabi template for
the School of Education; however, there was inconsistency seen on submitted documentation with very
few instruments aligned to the comprehensive template.
As a result of the peer reviews several items needed clarification, so a meeting between CDE and UNC
was held on October 2, 2018. During this meeting one area of concern was the ECE/ECE SPED/ECE
SPED Specialist master’s program. From this discussion it was determined that a two-year program
leading to three endorsement areas, including the specialist designation, seemed to be an insufficient
time, and there was limited access to alignment to all the endorsement standards found in those three
areas.
The CDE’s commitment to ensuring quality preparation for reading instruction, as well as the feedback
from the peer reviews, resulted in a revision to the site visit schedule. An additional focus for review of
Special Education, Early Childhood Education, and Elementary Education’s literacy courses and
instruction were added to the site visit schedule. In addition to the six site team members, there were
two reading specialists from the CDE, Ellen Hunter and Alex Frazier, who joined to meet with literacy
faculty members and candidates from the three identified endorsement areas. During visits with
stakeholders, all members of the state review team asked intentional questions to gauge depth and
quality of readiness for candidates in the area of reading instruction.
There were numerous areas of concerns regarding the alignment to the literacy standards, both on the
submission from the university as well as from stakeholder meetings centered around reading
instruction. First, the syllabi were inconsistently aligned to the Colorado Academic Standards, course
objections, and/or inappropriately identified course outcomes. Also, on the endorsement matrices and
syllabi there appeared to be a lack of sufficient time to provide depth around research-based reading
instruction. An example of that would be a single course meeting numerous/most of the reading
instruction endorsement standards. Another area of concern arose during conversations with current
candidates, alumni, and faculty about the shared understanding of what research-based reading
instruction is and how it is being delivered in the three identified endorsement programs. Stakeholders
also had limited ability to identify and address reading assessment for students. Running records and
interest surveys were the only reading assessments identified by current candidates and recent
graduates.
A more detailed finding of the peer review and site visit summary can be found in Appendix A.

10

 Recommendations and Areas for Improvement for E: Content and Skills Required for Licensure
Areas for Improvement:
•

Use of approved syllabi template for all programs ensuring alignment to Colorado Academic
Standards and endorsement standards, meaningful course objectives, and outcomes.

•

Creation of a process for CEBS to have routine annual updating, approval, and submission of
syllabi, including schools outside of CEBS

•

Resubmission of course sequencing schedules and syllabi for Elementary, Early Childhood,
and Special Education on approved UNC template for reauthorization follow-up visit

•

Reevaluate the ability to offer candidates a pathway to have three endorsements in the ECE
program which was identified as a concern on October 2, 2018. Resubmit to CDE for approval
as part of reauthorization follow-up visit.

•

Increase time and depth of teaching on research-based reading instruction for candidates.
Further detail can be found in Appendix A.

UNC’s reauthorization is contingent on implementation of the previous areas for improvement which will
be assessed at a February 2020 follow-up reauthorization visit.
Statutory Performance Measure F: Comprehensive, Ongoing Assessment: Comprehensive and
ongoing evaluation of each candidate’s subject matter and professional knowledge and ability to
demonstrate skill in applying the professional knowledge base.
Summary finding: The reauthorization team finds the educator preparation programs at UNC
partially proficient on Performance Measure F. Performance Indicators: F1, F2, F3, C.R.S. 23-1121(f).
Overall, there was insufficient evidence of the use data to assess and evaluate candidates and
programs. Current candidates were asked, “Other than grades, how are you evaluated throughout your
program, and how do you know how you are doing?” Some candidates still talked about grades and
some referenced Degree Works and plans of study to indicate they were on track. And though all
candidates reported they had received feedback on teaching demonstrations, none of them could
describe how they are assessed or how they are doing. Similarly, faculty were asked how they use data
to plan instruction. Secondary math and elementary education faculty were responsive and had some
good examples, but others were inconsistent. The review team did not see any expectations from
CEBS regarding the use of data to drive program improvements. There was no evidence that CEBS
seeks information on how each program uses student data or how data is used to track recruitment,
advising, and retention efforts. Difficulties accessing data were reported by faculty and staff,
indicating some data requires compilation from another department.
Data analysis used for continuous improvement is important to evaluate candidates, as well as the
programs that prepare them. How does UNC know that they are preparing effective teachers?
Recommendations and Areas for Improvement for F: Comprehensive, Ongoing Assessment:
Area for improvement: Data must be accessible at the program level and used for planning and
continuous program improvement.
Action needed: The CEBS of UNC must have demonstrable systems in place for accessing, analyzing,
and using data to inform program improvement at the classroom, program, and school levels. Please
submit a plan to CDHE by August 1, 2019.

11

 Part IV: Rejoinder and Next Steps
•

•
•
•

•

University of Northern Colorado shall note any errors of fact in this report and respond in a
rejoinder with any supplemental information requested within 30 days, pursuant to Colorado
Department of Higher Education Policy I-P: Educator Preparation, subsection 6.01.05.01.
o Please send all correspondence regarding areas A, B, C, D, and F to Dr. Brittany Lane, Director
of Educator Preparation, DHE, Brittany.lane@dhe.state.co.us.
o Materials and questions related to the CDE content review (Performance Measure E) should be
sent to Mary Bivens, Director of Educator Development, CDE, bivens_m@cde.state.co.us.
DHE and CDE will finalize the reauthorization report.
CDE will forward the report and a recommendation to the State Board of Education (SBE) for their
consideration.
SBE will decide upon a recommendation and forward that recommendation to the DHE, which will
then forward the recommendation to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) for
their final determination of reauthorization. Please note: Pursuant to C.R.S. §23-1-121, if the state
board of education recommends that a program not be approved, the commission shall follow such
recommendation by refusing initial approval of said program or placing said program on probation.
The CCHE will determine reauthorization of educator preparation programs.

The reauthorization team thanks UNC, the administration, faculty, staff, and students for participating in
the reauthorization review and site visit. We look forward to working with the university to address the
needs of the educator preparation programs now and in the future.

12

 Appendix A
Literacy Summary Findings
Details and examples are provided to support UNC as they work to meet areas of improvement identified in
Measure E of this report. These details and examples were compiled after review of all submitted syllabi,
course schedules, and accompanying material provided by UNC prior to and during the November 2018 site
visit. It also contains findings from interviews and time spent with teacher candidates, program faculty and
UNC leadership.
Strengths:
• Faculty has an awareness of literacy content gaps and have identified limitations in the continuum of
literacy coursework for elementary teachers.
• SPED literacy coursework by Urbach is clearly aligned with research and evidence-based literacy
instruction.
• Teacher candidates share faculty is approachable and willing to support them.
Concerns:
• There is a lack of consistent philosophy regarding reading development, reading pedagogy, and reading
assessment among faculty. Evidence of majority of faculty having contradictory philosophy to what is
established in Colorado’s Academic Standards, Elementary Teacher, and Reading Teacher Standards.
• Significant difference in the quality of evidence and transparency of quality for those enrolled in
Urbach’s courses around performance assessment vs. the others shared. When thinking of current
practices in the field around Hattie’s work for example – this is a missed opportunity to model good
“end in mind” instruction practice. Demonstration of performance in most syllabi is vague and difficult
to link to tangible mastery of actual course content.
o Big emphasis on “beliefs” of students vs. defending their knowledge with science/research –
this is misaligned to what we are asking of elementary students in CAS. A lower bar for
education prep versus the students they’ll be teaching is concerning.
o

Elementary education – both undergraduate and graduate syllabi, staff interviews, student interviews,
and course observation all indicate a misalignment to research and evidence-based literacy instruction.
o Consistent four course for all Elementary Education - 320, 455, 314, & 350 – after these courses
any remaining literacy courses align to their chosen program of study; New literacies (technology),
Science, Mathematics, Social Studies, CLD, Special Education, Performing and Visual Arts
 While interviewing faculty, the CDE discovered 3/4 literacy courses required for all elementary
teacher candidates – students spend time on interest inventories and how to give them. There is
no research to support this assessment practice. It was shared this is their major assessment
emphasis in partnership with running records.
 When only having four anchor courses, those courses must address all the standards to ensure
students are ready for the field. There is a lot of overlap and emphasis on less urgent content to
actually have candidates leave with a foundation to support then actual teaching of reading.
 Example – 314 Literature for Children, Adolescents and Young Adults though interesting, and
informational and helpful to beginning teachers in understanding how to select and utilize
authentic text. However, there is no corresponding course that actually talks about how to teach
students to read – especially at the primary level. In addition a similar course is offered for the
MA Reading Teacher and again no equal emphasis on the actual “learning to read” teaching.
o

13

At the graduate level – limited depth of science of reading, limited exposure to diagnostic
assessment of reading challenges, repetition of some undergraduate coursework (i.e. children’s lit.).
There was nothing found to demonstrate Reading Teacher (MA in literacy) would be able to

 successfully produce experts in literacy or differentiate within a general education classroom at the
level being asked of educators today.
o

Interviewed teacher candidates from the beginning of the teacher prep through 3rd year and not one
candidate had heard of the READ Act. Only a few could identify the 5 components of literacy and
only with prompting from state review team members, and none could identify a researcher, journal,
or professional network to deepen their own literacy knowledge.
 Another example, “Names test” was given consistently as an example of the test utilized for
a “phonics” test example – this is a surface level, not widely respected informal measure.
This is a missed opportunity to use assessments teachers will be seeing when entering
Colorado classrooms (i.e. any READ Act assessments which several are open source).

Wonderings:
• General education literacy faculty are teaching required literacy courses within special education.
o Misalignment between general education literacy pedagogy and special education literacy
pedagogy.
o Candidates in SPED program appear to receive more literacy content from general education
team vs. SPED team. SPED team is in clear alignment with evidence-based literacy instruction
for both general and special education in literacy.
• Undergraduate Elementary Education -- There are 7 paths to select from, including literacy technology
– could UNC consider an emphasis on primary K-2 literacy or literacy differentiation? Though many of
the areas of specialization will support intermediate level teachers, these areas of specialization do not
necessarily serve the needs of primary teachers. In addition, very few educators are entering primary or
intermediate and remaining in those positions permanently. There needs to be a better utilization of the
four anchor courses to ensure foundational knowledge is adequate and there needs to be a specialization
in primary literacy instruction as an option for candidates wishing to teach in K-2 as well as those
earning the Early Childhood Endorsement.
o Faculty acknowledged there is no time to prepare teachers entering K-2 well.
o It was also shared, they receive more letters about lack of preparedness from graduates who
enter K-2 classrooms, than any other placements.
Syllabus Summary
• Originally provided access to syllabi through share point. At that time only three courses throughout all
literacy programs (both undergraduate and graduate) were aligned to SBRR, with two of those three
with only minimal alignment. We learned during site visit that one of those two is a course no longer
offered.
• State review team received 11 additional syllabi after the site visit because many of the initial syllabi
that were shared were outdated and/or no longer in use.
• Not one of the 4 required literacy course for general education separately or combined, provide
adequate understanding in the science of reading instruction to be prepared for the workforce. General
education is not aligned to SBRR.
• Several syllabi minimally referred to some scientifically-based reading research (SBRR) resources –
however no evidence was found that they were actually utilized.
o Disclaimer Urbach’s courses in literacy were 100% aligned to SBRR
o Emergent Literacy (350) had a mix of both aligned and misaligned. After interviewing the
adjunct professor teaching this course. She admitted she has had to bring in additional text and
materials knowing what was outlined to be taught wouldn’t prepare them to implement literacy
instruction and assessment to level needed in schools today.
o 455 replaced 445, 445’s syllabi was more aligned with CAS and Elementary Teaching
Standards than what appears in their new version.

14

 •

Below are examples of misaligned syllabi/pedagogy to demonstrate stark contrast between
SPED and Gen Ed., (this is not an exhaustive list):
• 410 Achieving Effective Instruction in Developmental Reading – assigned faculty not
from SPED department Only SPED undergraduate are required to take this course – yet
not aligned to what SPED faculty are teaching in courses being taught by SPED faculty
o Text being required is from 2004 – with the vast amount of research and
publications in literacy over the last decade, this is a cause for concern
o Vague evidence of performance
o Leveled passages
o no evidence of helping beginning teachers understand the appropriate use
of varied texts (controlled text, decodable, predictable, and leveled –
authentic)
o with strong mention of leveled text – no documentation candidates are
explained the research and limitations of the leveling systems for text
o No alignment to the caliber being asked of Colorado educators as established by
our Elementary Teacher Standards or the READ Act.
•

411 Elementary Reading Diagnosis and Individualization – assigned faculty not from
SPED department Only SPED undergraduate are required to take this course - yet not
aligned to what SPED faculty are teaching in courses being taught by SPED faculty
o Miscue Analysis – aligned to 3 cueing system – no evidence in research to support
this practice (for context – anything submitted to the CDE for review to date
utilizing the 3 cueing system has not approved).
o There is very little about the developmental process of learning to read. If teacher
candidates do not understand the continuum of each literacy component, then
there is no way to assess and support closing gaps in reading instruction.
o Very concerned that there is no assessment for phonological awareness, and this
is the number one indicator for later reading challenges.

o 442 Language and Literacy for Students with Severe Delays – taught by SPED faculty
Fully aligned to SBRR, CAS, and Elementary Teacher, Reading Teacher, Sped
Generalist standards.
o Only offered to SPED undergraduate teachers.
o Very dense in content – perhaps to over compensate for what is not being covered,
but critical in other courses.
o

15