Chair:

Bonita Butner, Ph.D.
(816) 235-2325

• M.A. Educational Administration; Emphasis Areas: Administration (Building-Level), Higher Education Administration
• Ed.S. Educational Administration; Emphasis Areas: Administration (Building-Level, Advanced Principal, District-Level)
• Ed.D. Educational Administration; Emphasis Areas: K-12 Administration; Higher Education Administration
• Ph.D. Interdisciplinary (Educational Leadership, Policy and Foundations with other disciplines) (See School of Graduate Studies)

The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, the accreditation body for the School of Education, has standards which require that candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills and professional dispositions necessary for educators and educational leaders. The academic assessment of a student in the School of Education is a significant event for both the student and the faculty. It represents an evaluation by the faculty of student competency in academic skills and/or in other critical areas of professional conduct.

At any point during the student's matriculation through the program, the faculty retains the right to review any student behavior that may affect the welfare of the student or others. Such a review may result in the student being encouraged to receive additional support and assistance or possibly not being permitted to continue in the program. The following are offered as examples of behaviors that are the basis for evaluation of student progress:

1. Failure to maintain academic standards (e.g., 3.0 GPA).
2. Academic dishonesty (e.g., cheating, plagiarism).
3. Unethical or unprofessional behavior which could include but is not limited to, dishonesty; lack of collegiality, cooperation, or responsibility; inability to handle stress; abrasiveness; lack of timeliness; to name a few.
4. Behaviors that obstruct the leadership process and/or threaten the welfare of the student or others (e.g., verbal abuse, physical abuse, active substance abuse).
5. Failure to comply with established University or Program timetables, requirements, and policies (e.g., failure to meet time limits for completion of degree program).
6. Violation of federal, state, or local laws on UMKC premises or at UMKC sponsored or supervised activities.
7. Consideration may be given to other circumstances as they arise.

Procedures for Student Evaluation

To protect student interests as well as the rights of faculty to uphold the academic and professional standards of the academic program, the following steps may be taken as part of the academic review process.

1. If a concern about student behavior develops within the context of a course or at a field experience, the course instructor and/or field supervisor documents concerns and notifies the student’s faculty adviser. The instructor meets with the student (and the faculty adviser if needed) to outline deficiencies and establish a remedial course of action (if appropriate). Chronological time frames may be established to evaluate performance. Others (i.e., program faculty or professionals and agents outside the university) who have university- related concerns about a student outside of the context of a course may communicate their concerns directly to the appropriate division chair or the Dean’s Office. (Such discussions are governed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.)
2. If the instructor(s) has made a reasonable determination with adequate documentation that a pattern of severe problems exists, he or she warrants additional action beyond that already taken. Then the instructor will communicate the concerns, actions taken and their outcomes to the faculty adviser and Division Chair and request a hearing panel be assembled to review the student’s status.
3. The student will be informed in writing by the Division Chair of the concerns and a hearing will be set by the Dean’s Office with the program faculty (at least three faculty, in addition to the faculty member filing the complaint, must be present) and the student. An Associate Dean will present the scenario(s) and the student will have a right to respond to the allegations. The hearing panel may ask questions of both parties. The student may bring another person of support to the hearing but this individual may not speak on behalf of the student. The student will receive copies of all written documentation related to the allegations in advance of the hearing. This hearing will determine the student’s status in the program.
4. The program faculty will notify the student in writing of the outcome of the hearing and make a recommendation to the Dean.
5. The student has a right to appeal the decision of the program faculty and must notify the Dean in writing within ten business days of the faculty decision. Another hearing will take place between the student and the Dean or his/her designee. The Dean reviews the recommendation and conveys a decision to the respective faculty group and the student.
6. Students who have been declared ineligible due to unsatisfactory progress or performance may appeal such decisions to the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, as designee of the Chancellor. This appeal must be made in writing within 14 consecutive days after receipt of the registrar’s notification to the student of the decision. The Dean of the School of Graduate Studies will review the full record of the case and the appeal document.
7. The decision of the Graduate Dean, as the Chancellor’s designated representative in such cases, is final and will be communicated in writing to:
   1. The student
   2. The graduate faculty review group(s)
   3. The academic dean
   4. The registrar

Faculty in Educational Leadership, Policy and Foundations have a wide variety of experiences and interests. Faculty members engage in research and consult on education-related issues in both public and higher education. The faculty are committed to multiculturalism and the importance of diversity in education settings. They advise students in research and administrative endeavors, and help them achieve their professional career goals.