at the end of the clinical experience - college of … folio... · web viewincluding at least 2...

Nebraska Department of Education Rule 24 ReportSPECIAL EDUCATION, GRADES K-6

(Content Area)Educator Preparation Content Program Review

Name of institution University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Date Submitted 3.20.2017

Contact Person Thomas Wandzilak

Phone/Fax 402-472-8626

Email [email protected]

Folio type: X Regular Mini Advanced Program

Program(s) Covered by this Folio Press tab in last column to add rows

Endorsement(s) Type Grade Level Program Level

List Endorsements Subject K-6 BaccalaureateMaster’s

Special Education, Grades K-6

Is the endorsement offered at more than one site? Yes X NoIf yes, list additional sites where endorsement is offered:

Institution Accreditation Status: X National X StateIs this a Nationally Accredited Program? X Yes No

If Yes, list Accrediting Organization: CAEP Attach National Letter to Cover Sheet

Report to the Nebraska Department of Education

University of Nebraska – Lincoln Folio Initial Level -- June 2017

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOMEThe purpose of this section is to provide general background information on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the College of Education and Human Sciences. In addition, information is provided on the teacher education program, admission and retention standards the field experiences in which student participate, and information on the key assessments used in Section 2 concerning data that h been collected in support of our programs.

Here is a list of websites that can provide some additional information on the university, the college, and our teacher education program:

http://www.unl.edu/This is the University of Nebraska-Lincoln website.

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/This is the link for the undergraduate bulletin.

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/college/Education+%26+Human+SciencesThis is the link for the College of Education and Human Sciences section in the Undergraduate Bulletin.

http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/bulletinThis is the link for the Graduate Bulletin.

http://cehs.unl.edu/The is the link for the website for the College of Education and Human Sciences

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising/

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising/

http://cehs.unl.edu/

http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/bulletin

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/college/Education+%26+Human+Sciences

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/

http://www.unl.edu/

This is the link for our program sheets for all of the programs offered through the College of Education and Human Sciences. Program sheets will also be available for multiple years.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact Tom Wandzilak, Certification Officer, College of Education and Human Sciences at:

402-472-8626 or [email protected]

SECTION 1: CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION NARRATIVE

SECTION 1A: ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM/CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION

The link to the Rule 20 Folio is:http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

Mission Statement ion StatementThe University of Nebraska-Lincoln, chartered by the Legislature in 1869, is that part of the University of Nebraska system which serves as both the land-grant and the comprehensive public University for the State of Nebraska.

Through its three primary missions of teaching, research, and service, UNL is the state's primary intellectual center providing leadership throughout the state through quality education and the generation of new knowledge. UNL's graduates and its faculty and staff are major contributors to the economic and cultural development of the state. UNL attracts a high percentage of the most

http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

academically talented Nebraskans, and the graduates of the University form a significant portion of the business, cultural, and professional resources of the State. The quality of primary, secondary, and other post-secondary educational programs in the state depends in part on the resources of UNL for curricular development, teacher training, professional advancement, and enrichment activities involving the University's faculty, museums, galleries, libraries, and other facilities. UNL provides for the people of the state unique opportunities to fulfill their highest ambitions and aspirations, thereby helping the state retain its most talented youth, attract talented young people from elsewhere, and address the educational needs of the nontraditional learner.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has been recognized by the Legislature as the primary research and doctoral degree granting institution in the state for fields outside the health professions. Through its service and outreach efforts the University extends its educational responsibilities directly to the people of Nebraska on a state-wide basis.

The College of Education and Human SciencesThe College of Education and Human Sciences was founded on August 18, 2004 by Teachers College and The College of Human Resources and Family Sciences with each founding college contributing extensive history and tradition. The College of Education and Human Sciences offers excellent educational advancement to both undergraduate and graduate students, serving approximately 2,800 undergraduates and 1,000 graduate students each year.

Education courses first became a part of the University curriculum in 1895 with the organization of a Department of Education designed to prepare students for teaching careers. On Valentine’s Day, 1908, the board of Regents established a Teachers College. Since that time, the College has been highly respected for its programs preparing teachers, administrators, and specialists for the education of children, youth, and adults. The quality of these programs is reflected in outstanding educational leadership in communities across the state and in the nation in teaching, administration, communication disorders, special education and educational psychology.

Teacher Education programs

Teacher education programs are found in five departments in CEHS as well as in two other colleges on campus. The College of Fine and Performing Arts (CFPA) oversees Music Education while Agriculture Education, Horticulture Education and Industrial Technology are located in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Even though these programs are housed outside of CEHS, they must comply with state rules and regulations tied to teacher education. The majority of the teacher education programs are located in the Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education (TLTE). There are currently 40 endorsement areas offered at the undergraduate and graduate levels through the University. Options exist for students to complete initial teacher certification and teaching endorsements at the undergraduate and graduate levels. All programs leading to an initial teaching certificate will also require the completion of an undergraduate or graduate degree. Individuals interested in adding one or more teaching endorsements may do so without pursuing a degree.

1B. STANDARDS OF ADMISSION, RETENTION, TRANSITION AND COMPLETION

Admission to the University of Nebraska-LincolnAdmission to the University is based on a student’s demonstrated academic preparation for University-level work (see Appendix -- Table 1). Admission standards to the University are established by the University of Nebraska Board of Regents and apply to all new, first time degree seeking students. This includes freshman as well as transfer students. The admission standards apply to general admission to the University as well as admission to the College of Education and Human Sciences.

Admission to the Teacher Education Program (TEP)Admission to the College of Education and Human Sciences does not guarantee admission to a teacher education program. Admission to the advanced phases of teacher education is selective and, in some endorsements, highly competitive. Selection to a TEP is based upon the following criteria:

1. Completion of at least 30 credit hours (Elementary Education) or 42 credit hours (Secondary Education) with a minimum 2.5 GPA.

2. Completion of TEAC 331 or 430 or 431 or 434 or 437 or 496 (3 hrs.) or approved course, and EDPS 250 or 251 with a 2.5 cumulative average in the two classes, no grade lower than a C.

3. Documentation of proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics through successful completion of a basic skills examination that meets the Nebraska Department of Education competency requirement.

4. Completion of one course in communication studies selected from COMM 109, 205, 209, 210, or 341, or an approved substitute.

5. Faculty recommendations.6. Demonstration of attaining particular learning outcomes in the program.7. Completion of a personal and professional fitness self-disclosure form.

Admission to Student TeachingAll students who are candidates for an appropriately endorsed Nebraska Teacher’s certificate are required to student teach. Students who plan to student teach in the fall semester must complete the student teaching application form and submit it by the preceding March 1 to the Director of Field Experiences in 104 Henzlik Hall; students planning to student teach in the spring semester must apply by the preceding October 1. The basic program for student teaching provides for a full-day experience on a semester basis. Students enrolled in an elementary education dual major will compete requirements for student teaching in both majors. Admission to student teaching requires the following:

1. Matriculation in a teacher education program in the College of Education and Human Sciences, the Graduate College, or dual matriculation in the College of Education and Human Sciences and another college.

2. Admission to a teacher education program.3. Senior standing (89 hours or more) with a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75.4. Application for and completion of a senior check.5. Minimum average of 2.5 in each endorsement area (in the case of Middle Grades Endorsement, a

2.5 in each academic area) with no grade below C.

6. A minimum grade point average of 2.5 in pre-professional and professional education courses with no grade below a C in pre-professional education courses and no grade below a C+ in professional education courses.

7. Completion of a criminal history check that will be conducted by an independent party (lab fee required).

Retention1. Must maintain a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.752. Must maintain a minimum average of 2.5 in each endorsement area (in the case of Middle Grades

Endorsement, a 2.5 in each academic area) with no grade below C3. Must maintain a minimum grade point average of 2.5 in pre-professional and professional

education courses with no grade below a C in pre-professional education courses and no grade below a C+ in professional education courses.

4. Must meet student teaching application deadlines5. Must meet criminal history requirements at all times.

Transition PointsA summary of the transition points can be found in the Appendix in Table 2.

Requirements to Complete the Teacher Education Program1. Successful completion of student teaching.2. Successful completion of all remaining courses as identified in the senior check with grades

meeting the minimum requirements as identified in the “Admission to Student Teaching” section as described above.

3. Satisfy any additional requirements as described under teacher education in the undergraduate bulletin.

4. Address all financial obligations tied to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.5. Apply for the degree.

The Student Advising Sheet for the program(s) associated with this Folio can be found at:http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising

1C. FIELD EXPERIENCES

The link to the Rule 20 Folio is:http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

Field experience “courses” can be divided into the following areas:Early Childhood, Inclusive, Elementary Education, Elementary Education/Mild Moderate Disabilities, and Secondary Education. Practicum experiences at the 200 level are initial experiences in the schools for our students. They can be placed in a classroom with a teacher at the appropriate grade level for their respective content area. Secondary students are placed individually in middle grades or secondary classrooms while elementary students are placed in pairs in elementary classrooms. In all instances university students have opportunities to work with K-12 learners individually or in small groups. In some instances, they may be given full-class opportunities to work with learners. Students completing 397 level practica have expanded responsibilities where they will have greater classroom responsibilities that will include the teaching of multiple lessons as a requirement for the experience as well as teacher assistant roles during each day. The 497 experience is student teaching where the university student takes on more and more responsibilities that would be equivalent to those taken on by the classroom teacher. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the preparation of lesson plans and materials for teaching and assessment, the teaching of classes, grading formative and summative materials, working with students after class, attending staff/faculty meetings, and speaking with parents where necessary, all under the guidance of a cooperating teacher. Please see Table 3 in the Appendices for a summary of the Field Experience hour requirements associated with each practicum course and the related endorsements.

http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising

1D. PROGRAM COMPLETERS

Table 4 – Program Completers

Program Completers and Level – Content AreaAcademic Year Number of Endorsement Program Completers

Bac Post BacAlternate

Route Masters

Ed. Specialis

t PhD

2014 to 20 15 37 2

2015 to 20 16 34 5

SECTION 2: ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM KEY ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED DATA

ARTIFACT 1Table 5

Summary Table of Endorsement Program Key AssessmentsREGULAR FOLIOS

Name of Assessmentused for the following areas:

Type or Form of Assessment

Brief Description of Assessment, including indicated information obtained from Assessment

When Assessment is Administered

Specific Items

1Content-Praxis II or GPA

Cumulative GPASummative

Numerical computation of grades based onquality points earned divided by credithours completed

Ongoing—throughout one’s college career. Cumulative GPA is what is reported.

Specific to content area

Praxis II Comparison to a Standard

For elementary students, this test has been used todocument one being highly qualified (minimumscore of 159) for No Child Left Behind.For secondary students, we piloted results for the2014-2015 academic year.

Just before or during clinical practicum (student teaching)


Results will be used as a requirement fro teacher certification at all levelsstarting September 1, 2015.

CEHS Student Teaching Instrument

Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperatingteacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic orunsatisfactory on each item.

At the end of the Clinical Experience

Item 1

Administrator Survey Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first year of teaching

Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

Candidate Teacher Survey

Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is completed byprogram completers at the end of the first year ofteaching. It is administered by the College ofEducation and Human Sciences at UN-L.


Items 1 & 2

2 Content - Knowledge

Cumulative GPA Summative Numerical computation of grades based onquality points earned divided by credithours completed

Ongoing—throughout one’s college career. Cumulative GPA is what is reported.


Praxis II Comparison to a Standard

For elementary students, this test has been used todocument one being highly qualified (minimumscore of 159) for No Child

Just before or during clinical practicum (student teaching)


Left Behind.For secondary students, we piloted results for the2014-2015 academic year. Results will be used as a requirement fro teacher certification at all levelsstarting September 1, 2015.




Item 1



Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2




Item 14

3 Learner/Learning Environments


Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completedby the student teacher supervisor and cooperatingteacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic or


Items 2 & 3

unsatisfactory on each item. Administrator Survey Summative This is a 21-item instrument

that is completed byschool administrators at the end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.


Standards 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3




Items 3 & 4

4 Instructional Practices - Knowledge




Items 2, 3, & 6



Standards 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3


Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is completed byprogram completers at the end of the first year ofteaching. It is administered by the College of


Items 7, 8, 9, 16, 17 & 20

Education and Human Sciences at UN-L.

5 Instructional Practices - Effectiveness




Items 2, 3, & 5



Standards 6.1, 6.2




Item 10

6 Professional Responsibility




Items 12 & 14

Administrator Survey Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed byschool administrators at the

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s

Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, 10.2

end of a candidate’sfirst year of teaching. It is now administered bythe Nebraska Department of Education.

first year of teaching




Items 12 & 15

7 Overall Proficiency



Standard 11.1




Item 23

8 Optional Assessment

RULE 24 FOLIO APPENDICES

Table 1UN-L Admission Requirements

English 4 units of EnglishAll units must include intensive reading and writing experience

Mathematics 4 units of mathematicsMust include Algebra I, II. Geometry and one additional unit that builds on a knowledge of algebra or geometry.

Natural Science 3 units of natural sciencesIncluding at least 2 units selected from biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences. One of the units must include laboratory instruction.

Social Studies 3 units of social studiesAt least one unit of American and/or world history and one additional unit of history, American government and/or geography

Foreign Language

2 units of foreign languageMust include 2 units of the same foreign language. Students who are unable to take two years of foreign language in high school may still qualify for admission. Such students will be required to take two semesters of foreign language at the University of Nebraska. These students are required to complete 16 units of academic courses for admission.

Class Rank or ACT/SAT

For assured admission you must also graduate in the upper half of your class, or have an ACT composite score of 20 or higher, or an SAT combined score of 950. All freshman applicants under the age of 23 are required to submit an official ACT or SAT score.

Transfer For assured admission, in addition to completion of core course requirements, you must also show a C average (2.0 on a 4.0 scale) for your cumulative grade point average and a C average on your most recent term of college enrollment

Table 2Major Transition Points

Acceptance into University(Prior to Freshman year)

Acceptance into Teacher Education program(Sophomore year)

Acceptance into Student Teaching(Semester before Student Teaching)

Program Completion/Graduation(After Student Teaching)

-- Completion of specific number of high school units.-- Appropriate ACT /SAT score

--Credit hour minimum--Minimum grades in specific courses-- PPST-- Faculty recommendations-- Completion of Prof. & Personal Fitness Form-- Criminal History check

-- Admission to TEP-- Credit Hour /overall 2.75 GPA minimum-- 2.5 GPA in content areacourses, no grade below a C--2.5 GPA in Prof. ed – specific grade requirements for methods courses-- Criminal History check

-- 120 + credit hours-- successful completion of Student Teaching-- Maintain GPA minimum requirements-- Completion of a senior check--Met all financial obligations-- Apply for degree

Table 3Summary Table of Practicum Experiences

Course

Cr

Days/Wk

Hrs/Day

Weeks

Total Hrs

ELED

Sec. Ed.

ELED/SPED

ECE Unif

ELED/ECE

TEAC 297A

1 2 3 14 84 84 84 84 84

297B 2 2 7 14 140 140 140 140EDPS 297

1 2 1 14 25

397A 3 2 7 14 196 196 196 196497A 1

25 8 16 640 640 640 640

297 1 2 1 10 20 20397 3 5 2 12 120 12

0397D 3 2 8 15 240 240497 1

25 8 16 640 64

0497A 6 5 8 40 400 400SPED 397

3 3 4 12 144 120

SPED 496Y

1 2 4 14 56 56

497M 9 5 8 10 400 400CYAF 270L

2 1 4 14 52 52 52

271L 1 1 3 12 36 36 36

374L 1 1 3 15 45 45 45497A 9 5 4 16 320 320 320Total -- ----- -------

---------- ------- 106

0780

1340 1473

1513

Instruments Used in Key Assessments:

In order to view the instruments used for the different surveys the provided data for this report, go to the “Instruments” folder at the State Approval website and select each of the following:

Student Teaching Final Evaluation used in Fall 2014–Spring 2015—All Program Completers

Student Teaching Final Evaluation used in Fall 2015–Spring 2016—All Program Completers

NDE First-Year Administrator Survey

First-Year Teacher Survey

SECTION 2: KEY ASSESSMENTS AND FINDINGS – Artifact 2

1. Content KnowledgeBelow are the measures used specifically for addressing the content knowledge or teacher candidates at the University of Nebraska –Lincoln.

Table 1AGrade Point Average in the Content Area and Cumulative GPA

Year Endorsement Subject Area/Content GPA Cumulative GPA Total Students

2014-2015 Secondary Education 3.49 3.56 95Elementary Education 3.43 3.57 125Special Education 3.82 3.68 59Early Childhood 3.81 3.70 25

2015-2016 Secondary Education 3.54 3.56 108Elementary Education 3.37 3.56 153Special Education 3.80 3.65 72Early Childhood Education 3.75 3.58 40

Table 1BGrade Point Average in the Content Area and Cumulative GPA

Year Code Subject Area/Content GPA

Cumulative GPA

Total Students

Notes

2014-2015 BECE 3.21 2.79 1 Business & Cooperative EducationBMIT 3.35 3.32 6 Business, Marketing & Information EducationCYEC 3.85 3.74 18 Inclusive Early Childhood EducationCYFC 3.37 3.24 4 Family & Consumer Science Education 6-12ECED 3.57 3.65 6 Elementary Education & Early Childhood EducationELED 3.43 3.52 83 Elementary Education K-6EMATH 3.25 3.61 13 Mathematics 7-12

ENGL 3.79 3.78 15 EnglishESPAN 3.67 3.58 9 SpanishLART 3.63 3.67 4 Language ArtsNTSC 3.50 3.64 12 Science (Field endorsement)PHSC 3.67 3.78 1 PhysicsSPEN ( 3.44 3.54 1 English and Speech ( old program)SPM7 3.29 3.68 37 Elementary & Special Education K-6SPM8 3.65 3.47 4 Special Education 7-12SSCI 3.40 3.49 27 Social Science Education 7-12

2015-16AEDU 3.45 3.43 10 Agriculture EducationCYEC 3.77 3.62 24 Inclusive Early Childhood EducationCYFC 3.64 3.60 7 Family & Consumer Science, 6-12ECED 3.58 9 Elementary Education & Early Childhood EducationELAT 3.80 3.68 1 English/language ArtsELED 3.37 3.55 103 Elementary EducationENGL 3.66 3.65 12 EnglishERSS 3.13 3.10 1 Earth and space ScienceMATH 3.25 3.48 15 MathMUED 3.58 3.54 21 Music EducationNTSC 3.14 3.41 4 Science (formerly natural science)(old endorsement)SCIE 3.39 3.53 2 Science (new science endorsement)SENG 4.00 3.99 1 Secondary EnglishSPAN 3.77 3.61 7 SpanishSPM7 3.63 37 Elementary and Special Education, K-6SPM8 3.87 3.76 11 Special Education, 7-12SSCI 3.57 3.60 12 Social Science

Table 2APraxis II – September 2014 – August 2015

Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut Score

Praxis II – September 2014 – August 2015Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut Score

Endrsmnt Test # Cut Score

UN-L N

UN-L # Passing

UN-L # Failing

UN-L %age Pass

UN-L Mean

State N

State %age Pass

StateMean

National N National

%ageNational

MeanCurr Sup. NonePrincipal 5411 145 1 1 0 100 123 93.5 163.8

52778 83.59 164.95

Supt 6021 152 1 1 0 100 163 26 96.15 167.23

637 96.39 168.15

Unified 5024 160 17 16 1 94.2 174.47

101 77.23 168.15

1917 78.87 167.57

Agric Ed 5701 147 19 18 1 94.74 166.53

20 95 166.65

436 95.64 167.52

BMIT 5101 154 8 8 0 100 174.25

36 100 174.64

1848 89.72 170.45

ELED 5017 153 151 142 9 94.04 170.66

803 90.78 167.94

4491 91.27 168.74

FACS 5122 153 12 7 5 58.33 158.42

17 58.82 160.00

630 77.46 160.21

ITE NoneMath 5161 146 30 26 4 86.67 163.8

7101 77.23 158.1

28090 65.7 153.20

Music 5114 152 20 20 0 100 173.90

61 88.52 164.28

1178 85.48 164.50

Science 5435 148 12 12 0 100 176.25

53 94.34 173.00

3091 81.11 163.75

Biology 5235 148 3 3 0 100 160.67

21 80.95 159.62

3910 83.43 162.16

Chemistry 5245 140 1 1 0 100 176.00

7 100 161.57

1582 84.39 159.79

Earth & Space Sc

5571 147 2 2 0 100 162.00

3 67 157 816 84.44 164.48

Physics 5265 131 1 1 0 100 169 6 83.33 147.50

951 80.34 150.34

LA & Sec. English

5039 168 22 18 4 81.82 175.86

109 76.15 173.33

2831 75.27 173.28

Soc. Sci. 5081 154 27 23 4 85.19 168 88 77.27 165.02

6037 79.41 165.57

SPED 5354 151 42 42 0 100 175.40

239 98.33

172.08

5825 95.91 171.85

SPED HH 5272 160 10 10 0 100 173.9 11 100 173.45

125 70.40 163.72

ECSE 5691 159 1 1 0 100 191 1 100 191 761 91.33 173.71

SPED V I 5282 163 1 1 0 100 167 1 100 167 169 73.96 167.24

SLPA 5331 162 13 11 2 84.62 173 35 91.43 174.51

8384 92.20 176.41

French 5174 162 1 1 0 100 168 5 80 175.20

482 69.92 169.59

German 5183 163 1 1 0 100 183 2 100 182 122 70.49 170.50

Latin 5601 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 84.62 175.30Russian NoneSpanish 5195 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 178School Counslr

5421 156 0 0 0 0 0 31 96.76 169.97

3196 90.18 168.57

School Psychlgst

5402 147 7 7 0 100 175.29

23 100 170.83

2633 97.27 169.02

TOTAL 403 373 30 92.6%

Table 2BPraxis II – September 2015 – August 2016

Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut ScoreEndrsmnt Test

#Cut Score

UN-L N

UN-L # Passing

UN-L # Failing

UN-L %age Pass

UN-L Mean

State N

State %age Pass

StateMean

National N National

%ageNational Mean

Curr Sup. NonePrincipal 5411 145 21 20 1 95.24 171.33 286 98.25 166.3

33070 94.40 164.17

Supt 6021 152 3 3 0 100.00 171.67 27 100 169.59

658 94.68 168.32

Unified 5024 160 27 26 1 96.30 173.93 110 84.55 167.56

2450 79.63 167.25

Agric Ed 5701 147 5 5 0 100.00 170.00 7 100.00 167.29

398 96.98 168.69

BMIT 5101 154 6 5 1 83.33 172.33 35 97.14 174.31

1821 88.69 169.89

ELED 5017 153 197 190 7 96.45 171.98 849 94.35 168.85

4996 92.77 169.15

FACS 5122 153 20 19 1 95.00 165.65 31 96.77 164.48

1049 80.46 160.84

ITE NoneMath 5161 146 25 22 3 88.00 166.32 102 86.27 159.6

37961 66.66 153.77

Music 5114 152 27 26 1 96.30 175.41 92 92.39 167.29

1191 85.14 164.58

Science 5435 148 15 15 0 100.00 175.87 53 98.11 175.34

2848 81.85 164.12

Biology 5235 148 13 12 1 92.31 165.23 31 93.55 164.65

3556 85.18 163.10

Chemistry 5245 140 3 2 1 66.67 159.67 6 83.33 165.33

1545 84.53 158.76

Earth & Space Sc

5571 147 3 2 1 66.67 156 4 75.00 156.00

721 84.60 164.47

Physics 5265 131 2 2 0 100.00 167 9 100.00 165.1 844 81.52 150.77

1LA & Sec. English

5039 168 24 23 1 95.83 177.58 130 89.23 176.12

2943 76.79 173.51

Soc. Sci. 5081 154 18 18 0 100.00 170.06 90 90.00 169.38

5599 80.62 165.76

SPED 5354 151 52 52 0 100.00 176.49 316 99.68 173.80

5977 96.29 171.97

SPED HH 5272 160 2 2 0 100.00 176.00 7 100.00 170.14

136 88.97 168.82

ECSE 5691 159 7 7 0 100.00 184.29 8 100.00 182.85

816 93.01 173.88

SPED VI 5282 163 4 3 1 75.00 168.75 4 75.00 168.75

142 71.13 166.97

SLPA 5331 162 4 3 1 75.00 173.25 9 77.78 167.89

9013 93.38 176.21

French 5174 162 1 0 1 0 159.00 4 50.00 168.00

407 67.57 168.57

German 5183 163 2 2 0 100.00 197.5 3 100.00 186.33

116 66.38 171.88

Latin 5601 155 - - - - - 2 100.00 174.5 52 84.62 176.02Russian NoneSpanish 5195 156 9 6 3 66.67 161.89 36 72.22 166 1842 73.13 167.22School Counselor

5421 156 2 2 0 100.00 177.00 66 96.97 171.39

3327 89.93 168.90

School Psychlgst

5402 147 11 11 0 100.00 178.00 38 100.00 170.66

2586 97.56 169.36

TOTAL 503 478 25 95.03%

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Subject Matter Knowledge for the 2014-15 Academic Year for Teaching in General (Item 1).

Table 3AItem 1: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in General

2014-2015Subject Area Scoring

Year # Item Endorsement Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Grand Total

2014- 2015

1 Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in general. Demonstrates capacity to make content knowledge accessible to students.

Special Educ. K-6 & Elementary Education (SPM7)

0 0.00% 3 7.89% 35 92.11% 38

Special Education 0 0% 5 10.2% 44 89.8% 49

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-16 Academic Year on Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching (Item 3 – Table 3B) -- LIVETEXT version.

Table 3BItem 3: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in General


Year # Item Endorsement Unacceptable Emergent Sufficient Advanced Grand Total

2015- 2016

3 Subject matter Knowledge for Teaching. Make content knowledge accessible for students

Elementary & Special Education

0 0.00% 1 2.00% 12 24.00% 37 74.00% 50

Special Education

0 0.00% 2 2.35% 29

34.12% 54 63.53% 85

Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Preparation of Candidate to Teach Content Area.

Table 4Standards 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 – Content Knowledge

Indicator EndorsementRare Occasional Frequent Consistent

Grand Total

4.1 --Theteacher understands thecentral concepts, tools of

2014-2015Special Education 1 5.88% 1 5.88% 6 35.29% 9 52.94% 17

inquiry, and structuresof the discipline(s) s/he teaches.

2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalSpecial Education, Elementary

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 40.00% 12 60.00% 20

4.2 Theteacher creates learningexperiences that make these aspects of thediscipline accessible and meaningful for studentsto assure mastery of content.

2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalSpecial Education 0 0.00% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 45.00% 11 55.00% 20

4.3 Theteacher integrates NebraskaContent Standards and/or professional standardswithin instruction.

2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalSpecial Education 1 5.88% 1 5.88% 6 35.29% 8 47.06% 172015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalSpecial Education, Elementary

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 35.00% 13 65.00% 20

Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Preparation to Teach Content Knowledge (Item 1) and prepared to Teach Content Area (Item 2).

Table 5Item 1: Prepared to Teach Content Area

Year # Item Endorsement Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

Grand Total

2014 - 2015

1 I am well prepared to teach in my content area.

Special Education, K-6/ELED (SPED7)

0 0.00%

1

10.00%

1 10.00% 5 50.00% 3 30.00% 10

Special Education

0 0% 2 9.5% 2 9.5% 11 52.4% 6 28.6% 21

2015 - 2016

1 I am well prepared to teach in my content area.

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 80.00% 1 20.00% 5

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 15 68.18% 7 31.82% 22



Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree


Grand Total

2014 - 2015

2 I am confident in my level of subject matter knowledge.

Special Education, K-6 & ELED K-6 (SPED7)

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 10.00% 5 50.00%

4 40.00%

10

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 3 14.3% 11

52.4%

7 33.3% 21

2015-2016

2 I am confident in my subject matter knowledge.

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 3 60.00%

2 40.00%

5

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 4.55% 14

63.64%

7 31.82%

22

Narrative:

Enrollment. The data in this section show that our K-6 dual majors had above average GPA’s in both their subject classes and cumulatively across all classes, indicating that we attract high-quality students (Table 1).

Program Performance. 100% percent of all graduating students passed the Praxis II exam (Table 2), suggesting mastery of content knowledge required to obtain a Nebraska teaching certificate in special education and be hired into instructional positions.

Post-graduate Performance. Administrators indicated teachers demonstrated strong content knowledge; 83-98% of teachers scored frequently of consistently across items in 2014-15, and 98-100%at frequently or consistently across items in 2015-16 (Tables 3A-4).

Our students also indicated that they believed they were confident and well prepared; 80-90% across items in 2014-2015 and 100% across items in 2015-16 (Tables 5 & 6).

2. Content Area See Tables 1-6 from Content Area #1 above (first 8 tables in that section)

Table 7Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Application of content

Indicator Endorsement Information Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent

Grand Total

5.1 The teacher candidate understands how to

2014-15Special Education

0 0.00% 4 23.53% 4 23.53% 9 52.94% 17

connect concepts across disciplines

Total1 0.67% 22

14.77% 58 38.93% 68

45.64% 149


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 10 50.00% 10 50.00% 20

5.2 The teacher candidate uses differing perspectives to engage students in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 40.00% 12 60.00% 20

Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Teaching Subject Matter Materials in Ways Meaningful to Learners (Item 14).


Year # Item Endorsement Strongly

DisagreeDisagre

eNeither

Agree nor Disagree


Grand Total

2014 - 2015

14

I teach subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners.

Special Education, K-6/ELED, K-6 (SPED7)

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 10.00% 4 40.00%

5 50.00%

10

Special 0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 1 47.6 9 42.9% 21

Education 0 %2015-2016

14

I teach subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners.

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 20.00% 2 40.00%

2 40.00%

5

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

2 9.09% 13

59.09%

7 31.82%

22

Narrative:

Post-Graduation PerformanceIn addition to the data provided in section 1, the data in this section provide additional information on post-graduation performance on content area. Administrators indicated teachers demonstrated they understood how to connect complex concepts across disciplines and meaningfully engage their students in content; 76% scored teachers at frequently or consistently across items in 2014-15, and 100% at frequently or consistently across items in 2015-16 (Table 7). Students self-rating of their content knowledge teaching skills indicated 90% agreed or strongly agreed that they were teaching in ways that were meaningful to their students in 2014-14, and 80% agreed or strongly agreed in 2015-2016 (Table 8).

3. Learner/Learning Environments

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2014-15 Academic Year (Item 2 -- Table 9A).

Table 9AItem 2: Subject Planning for Learning



2014- 2015

2 Demonstrates capacity to create useable lesson and unit plans that are based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals

Special Education, K-6/ ELED, K-6 (SPM7)

1 2.56% 5 12.82% 33 84.62% 39

Special Education 1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-16 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4 -- Table 9B) -- LIVETEXT version.

Table 9BItem 4: Planning for Learning



2015- 2016

4 Planning for learning:Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 12 23.53% 39 76.47% 51

goalsSpecial Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

24 27.91%

62 72.09%

86

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-15 Academic Year on Instructional Enactment (Item 3 – Table 10A).

Table 10AItem 3: Instructional Enactment



2014- 2015

3 Demonstrates Capacity to implement, modify, and adapt plans that are responsive to students and curricular goals

Special Education, K-6/ELED, K-6 (SPM7)

0 0.00% 4 10.26% 35 89.74% 39

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-16 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5 – Table 10B). LIVETEXT version.

Table 10BItem 5: Responsive Teaching


Year # Item Endorsement Unacceptable Emergent Sufficient Advanced Grand

Total2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs


0 0.00% 1 1.96% 15 29.41% 35 68.63% 51

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16%

24 27.91% 61

70.93% 86

Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Items related to Student Development, Learning Differences and Learning Environments: Student Development (Standards 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3); Learning Differences (Standards 2.1 and 2.2); Learning Environments (Standards 3.1 and 3.2).

Table 11Standards 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3: Student Development


Grand Total

1.1 The teacher understands how students grow and develop.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 25.00% 15 75.00% 20

1.2 The teacher recognizes that patterns of learning and development vary


individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas.


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 6 30.00% 14 70.00% 20

1.3 The teacher implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 40.00% 12 60.00% 20

Table 12Standards 2.1 and 2.2: Learning Differences


Grand Total

2.1 The teacher understands individual differences and diverse cultures and communities



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 25.00% 15 75.00% 20

2.2 The teacher ensures inclusive learning environments that enable each student to meet high demands



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 20.00% 16 80.00% 20

Table 13

Standards 3.1 and 3.2: Learning Environments


Grand Total

3.1 The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative learning.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 20.00% 16 80.00% 20

3.2 The teacher creates environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 15.00% 17 85.00% 20

3.3 The teacher manages student behavior to promote a positive learning environment.



0 0.00% 1 5.00% 5 25.00% 14 70.00% 20

Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Student Learning: Understands How Learners Learn (Item 3), and Adapts to Developmental Strategies of Learners (Item 4).

Table 14Item 3: Understands How Learners Learn




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

3 I positively impact the learning and development of all students.

Special Education K-6 & ELED K-6 (SPED7)

0 0.00%

0

0.00%

0

0.00%

5

50.00%

5

50.00%

10

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 10

47.6% 11

52.4% 21

2015-2016

3 I positively impact the learning and development of all students.

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 60.00% 2 40.00% 5

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 4.55% 11 50.00% 10 45.45% 22

Table 15Item 4: Adapts to Developmental Strategies of Learners




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

4 I adapt to different developmental stages of learners.

Special Education K-6 & ELED K-6 (SPED7) 0

0.00% 0

0.00%

0

0.00%

550.00%

550.00%

10

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 10

47.6%

9 42.9% 21

2015-2016

4 I adapt to different developmental stages of learners

SPM7 0 0.00%

0 0.00%

0 0.00% 3 60.00%

2 40.00%

5

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 4.55% 10

45.45%

11

50.00%

22

Narrative:Program Performance.In the area of learner and learning environment, our students demonstrated that they were adept at creating lessons and implementing them flexibly; 85%-90% were scored proficient across items in 2014-15, and 98-100% were scored sufficient or advanced across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 9A – 10B).

Post-graduation Performance.Administrators indicated teachers demonstrated they understood diverse learners and learning environments; 81-100% of teachers scored frequently or consistently across items in 2014-2015, and 95-100% were rated as frequently or consistently demonstrating this across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 11-13).

The new teachers also overwhelmingly agree or strongly agree (100%) that they positively impact student learning and adapt to different developmental stages of learners (Tables 14 & 15).

Our performance was lower than we would have liked in 2014-15, but higher in 2015-16. We’ll continue to monitor this to ensure that our new teachers are well trained in this area.

4. Instructional Practices –Candidate Knowledge and skillsResponse from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-15 Academic Year on Planning for Learning, Instructional Enactment (Item 2 – Table 16A)

Table 16AItem 2: Subject Planning for Learning



2014- 2015



1 2.56% 5 12.82% 33 84.62% 39

Special Education

1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-16 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4 – Table 16B) -- LIVETEXT version.

Table 16BItem 4: Planning for Learning

2015-16

Subject Area ScoringYear # Item Endorsement Unacceptable Emergent Sufficient Advanced Grand

Total2015- 2016

4 Planning for learning:Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 12 23.53% 39 76.47% 51

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

24 27.91% 62 72.09%

86

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-15 Academic Year on the Learning Environment (Item 3)




2014- 2015



0 0.00% 4 10.26% 35 89.74% 39

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-16 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5 – Table 17B) -- LIVETEXT version.




2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:

Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs


0 0.00% 1 1.96% 15 29.41% 35 68.63% 51

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16%

24 27.91% 61 70.93% 86

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-15 Academic Year on the Learning Environment (Item 6 - Table 18A).

Table 18AItem 6: Learning Environment



2014- 2015

6 Learning Environment. Demonstrates capacity to create classroom communities that invite students’ engagement and learning, encourages positive social interaction and self-motivation.


0 0.00% 3 7.69% 36 92.31% 39

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-16 Academic Year on Learning Culture (Item 10 – Table 18B) -- LIVETEXT version.

Table 18B -- Item 10: Learning Culture2015-16

Subject Area ScoringYear # Item Endorsemen

tUnacceptable

Emergent Sufficient Advanced Grand Total

2015- 2016

10

Learning Culture:Creates classroom communities that invite student engagement and learning and encourage positive social interactions.


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 14.58%

41 85.42%

48

Special 0 0.00% 1 1.20% 19 22.89 63 75.90 83

Education % %

Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Items related to Planning for Instruction (Standards 7.1, 7,2, and 7.3) and Instructional Strategies (Standards 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3)

Table 19Standards 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3: Planning for Instruction


Grand Total

7.1 The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 35.00% 13 65.00% 20

7.2 The teacher candidate draws upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, technology, and pedagogy.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 45.00% 11 55.00% 20

7.3 The teacher draws upon knowledge of students and the community context.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 35.00% 13 65.00% 20

Table 20Standard 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3: Instructional Strategies


Grand Total

8.1 The teacher understands a variety of instructional strategies.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 20.00% 16 80.00% 20

8.2 The teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students to develop deep understanding of content areas and their connection and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 25.00% 15 75.00% 20

8.3 The teacher utilizes available technology for instruction and assessment.



0 0.00% 1 0.00% 4 20.00% 15 75.00% 20

Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Creating Effective instructional Plans (Item 7), Working Effectively as Part of an Instructional Planning Team (Item 8), Classroom Management (Item 9), Instruction Requires Problem solving or Critical Thinking Skills (Item 16), Instruction is Adapted to the Needs of Learners with Special Needs (Item 17), and use of Multiple methods to Teach ( (Item 20).

Table 21Item 7: Create Effective Instructional Plans


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

7 I create effective instructional plans.


0 0.00%

00.00%

1

10.00%

550.00%

440.00%

10

Special Education 0 0% 1 4.8%

1 4.8% 13

61.9%

6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

7 I create effective new lesson plans

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 4 80.00%

1 20.00%

5

Special Education 0 0.00% 2 9.09%

3 13.64% 12

54.55%

5 22.73%

22

Table 22

Item 8: Work Effectively as a Part of an Instructional Team




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

8 I work effectively as part of an instructional planning team.


0 0.00%

110.00%

1

10.00%

220.00%

660.00%

10

Special Education

0 0% 1 4.8% 1 4.8% 9 42.9%

10

47.6% 21

2015-2016

8 I work effectively as part of an instructional team

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 3 60.00%

2 40.00%

5

Special Education

0 0.00%

1 4.55%

4 18.18% 9 40.91%

8 36.36%

22

Table 23Item 9: Manages Classroom Management


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

9 I apply effective methods to manage the classroom environment.

Special Education K-6 & ELED K-6 (SPED7) 0 0.00% 0 0.00

% 2 20.00% 2 20.00% 6 60.00% 10

Special 0 0% 0 0% 1 4.8% 7 33.3 1 61.9% 21

Education % 3

2015-2016

9 I apply effective methods to manage the classroom environment

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 20.00% 2 40.00%

2 40.00% 5

Special Education

0 0.00%

1 4.55%

3 13.64% 8 36.36%

10

45.45% 22

Table 24Item 16: Instruction Requires Student Problem Solving and/or Critical Thinking Skills


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

16

My instruction requires student problem solving and/or critical thinking skills.


0

0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 50.00

% 5 50.00% 10

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 4 19.0% 11

52.4%

6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

16

My instruction requires student problem solving and/or critical thinking skills

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

1 20.00% 3 60.00%

1 20.00%

5

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

2 9.09% 14

63.64%

6 27.27%

22

Table 25

Item 17: Adapt Instruction to Meet needs of Learners With Special Needs


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

17

I adapt my instruction to the needs of learners with special needs.


0

0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 40.00

% 6 60.00% 10

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8 38.1%

13

61.9% 21

2015-2016

17

I adapt my instruction to the needs of learners with special needs.

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 1 20.00%

4 80.00%

5

Special Education

0 0.00%

1 4.55%

1 4.55% 9 40.91%

11

50.00%

22

Table 26Item 20: Use Multiple Methods to Teach




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

20

I use multiple methods to teach.


0 0.00% 00.00%

1

10.00%

770.00%

220.00%

10

Special Education 0 0% 0 0% 4 19.0% 11

52.4%

6 28.6% 21

2015-2016

20

I use multiple methods to teach

SPM7 0 0.00% 1 20.00%

0 0.00% 2 40.00%

2 40.00%

5


1 4.55% 9 40.91%

11

50.00%

22

Narrative:

Program Performance.In the area of Instructional Practices, our students demonstrated adequate knowledge and skills; 85-92% scored proficient across items in 2014-15, and 98-100% were as scored sufficient or advanced across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 16A – 18B).

Post-graduation Performance.Administrators rated the new teachers on their Instructional Practices-Knowledge or skills; 70-82% of teachers scored frequently or consistently across items in 2014-2015, and 100% were rated as frequently or consistently demonstrating this across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 19-20).

Based on the data gathered from the administrative survey in 2014-2015, 3-5 new teachers struggled (ranking consistently in rarely or occasionally) to show their competency in the areas of planning instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals, drawing upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, technology, and pedagogy, and drawing upon knowledge of students and the community context. Despite strong student teaching evaluations, it appears that administrators believed a small group of students were not able to transfer these skills to their first teaching job or the expectations were very different from what they experienced in their student teaching placement. The data in 2015-2016 do not show this same trend as 100% of the students received scores noting that they frequently used these same skills. This is an area we will watch and address.

It should be noted that the new teachers disagreed with their administrators in 2014-15, with 80-100% agreeing or strongly agreeing they are competent in those areas (Tables 21-26). We may want to determine whether there are differences between the expectations of administrators and our program, but we will wait to examine additional data, as the more recent data are more positive.

5. Instructional Practices -- Assessment that Demonstrates Effects or Impact on P-12 Student learning

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-15 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 2 – Table 27A).

Table 27AItem 5: Planning for Learning



2014- 2015



1 2.56% 5 12.82% 33 84.62% 39

Special Education

1 2.0% 7 14.0% 42 84.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-16 Academic Year on Planning for Learning (Item 4 – Table 27B). LIVETEXT version.

Table 27B Item 4: Planning for Learning



2015- 2016

4 Planning for learning:Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 12 23.53% 39 76.47% 51

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 24

27.91% 62 72.09% 86

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-15 Academic Year on Instructional Enactment (Item 3 – Table 28A).




2014- 2015



0 0.00% 4 10.26% 35 89.74% 39

Special Education

1 2.0% 5 10.0% 44 88.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-16 Academic Year on Responsive Teaching (Item 5 – Table 28B) -- LIVETEXT version.




2015- 2016

5 Responsive Teaching:

Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs


0 0.00% 1 1.96% 15 29.41% 35 68.63% 51

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 24

27.91% 61 70.93% 86

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014-15 Academic Year on Classroom Interaction with Students (Item 5 – Table 29A).

Table 29AItem 5: Classroom Interaction With Students



2014- 2015

5 Demonstrates a capacity to interact with learners in supportive and constructive ways.


0 0.00% 0 0.00% 39 100.00% 39


Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for the 2015-16 Academic Year on Relationships with Students (Item 7 – Table 29B) -- LIVETEXT version.

Table 29BItem 7: Relationships With Students



201 7 Relationships with Elementary & 0 0.00% 1 1.96% 3 5.88% 47 92.16% 51

5- 2016

Students:Develops and Maintains rapport with individual and groups of students

Special Education

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 8 9.30% 77 89.53% 86

Responses from First Year Administrator Survey on Assessment (items 6.1 and 6.2)

Table 30Standard 6.1 and 6.2: Assessment


Grand Total

6.1 The teacher understands multiple methods of assessment



0 0.00% 1 0.00% 7 35.00% 12 60.00% 20

6.2 The teacher uses multiple methods of assessment to engage students in their own growth, to monitor student progress, and to guide the teacher candidate’s and



0 0.00% 1 0.00% 7 35.00% 12 60.00% 20

student’s decision making.

Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Assessment: Create Effective Assessments to Measure Learning (Item 10).

Table 31 Standard 10: Creates Effective Assessments to Measure Learning




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

10

I create effective assessments to measure learning.


0.00%

220.00%

0

0.00%

550.00%

330.00%

10

Special Education

0 0% 4 19.0%

2 9.5% 11

52.4%

4 19.0% 21

2015-2016

10

I create effective assessments to measure learning

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 3 60.00%

2 40.00%

5

Special Education

0 0.00% 0 0.00%

2 9.09% 15

68.18%

5 22.73%

22

Narrative:Program Performance.

In the area of Instructional Practices-Assessment, our students demonstrated that they able to modify and adapt plans based on student performance; 85%-100% were scored proficient across items in 2014-15, and 98-100% were scored sufficient or advanced across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 27A-29B).

Post-graduation Performance.Administrators rated our new teachers’ understanding of Assessment Practices; 72% of teachers scored frequently or consistently across items in 2014-2015, and 95% were rated as frequently or consistently demonstrating this across items in 2015-2016 (Table 30).

The data gathered from the first-year candidate shows that the teachers believe they are creating effective assessment to measure student learning, with 80% indicating they do this in 2014-2015 and 100% in 2015-2016 (Table 31).

Although the teachers’ self-evaluations are higher than the evaluations of their administrators in the area of assessment, they do show the same pattern as administrator ratings. The data from 2014-15 are lower than we would like to see on this variable, but it increased for 2015-2016. We will need to continue to monitor the data on this variable in future years.

6. Professional Responsibility

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2014 -15 Academic Year on Collaborative Relationships (Item 12 – Table 32A).

Table 32AItem 12: Collaborative Relationships and Professional Conduct


Year # Item Endorsement Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Grand Total2014- 2015

12

Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct. Demonstrates a capacity to work with other practitioners to improve teaching for the benefit of students’ learning.


0 0.00% 3 7.69% 36 92.31% 39

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation on Planning for Learning for 2015-16 Academic Year on Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct (Item 13– Table 32B). LIVETEXT version.

Table 32BItem 13: Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct



2015- 2016

13

Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct:Uses effective communication and consultation techniques with other professionals and families for the


0 0.00% 1 1.96% 12 23.53% 38 74.51% 51

benefit of student learning

Special Education

0 0.00% 1 1.16% 28

32.56% 57 66.28% 86

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation Relationships for the 2014 -15 Academic Year on Reflection and Professional Growth (Item 14 – Table 33A).

Table 33AItem 14: Reflection and Professional Growth



2014- 2015

14

Reflection and Professional Growth. Demonstrates capacity to continually evaluate how choices and actions affect students and others in the learning community and actively seeks opportunities to grow professionally.


0 0.00% 1 2.56% 38 97.44% 39

Special Education

0 0% 5 10.0% 45 90.0% 50

Response from College of Education & Human Sciences Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation for the 2015-16 Academic Year -- Reflective Practices and Professional Growth (Item 14 – Table 33B) -- LIVETEXT version.

Table 33BItem 14: Reflective Practices and Professional Growth



2015- 2016

14

Reflective Practices and Professional Growth:Continually evaluates how choices and actions affects students and others in the learning community, makes necessary adjustments and actively seeks opportunities to grow professionally


1 1.96% 0 0.00% 12 23.53% 38 74.51% 51

Special Education

1 1.16% 0 0.00%

31

36.05%

54

62.79%

86

Responses from First Year Administrator Survey: Items related to Professional Learning and Ethical Practice (Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4) and Leadership and Collaboration (Standards 10.1 and 10.2)

Table 34Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice


Grand Total

9.1 The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning.



0 0.00% 1 0.00% 3 15.00% 16 80.00% 20

9.2 The teacher models ethical professional practice.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 15.00% 17 85.00% 20

9.3 The teacher uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, families, other professionals, and the community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each student.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 25.00% 14 70.00% 20

9.4 The teacher models professional dispositions for teaching.



0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 25.00% 15 75.00% 20

Table 35Standards 10.1 and 10.2: Leadership and Collaboration

Indicator Endorsement Information Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Total2014-2015

10.1 Special Education 0 0.00% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17


0 0.00% 1 0.00% 4 20.00% 15 75.00% 20

10.2 The teacher seeks opportunities, including appropriate technology, to collaborate with students, families, colleagues, and



0 0.00% 2 0.00% 2 10.00% 16 80.00% 20

other school professionals, and community members to ensure student growth

Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Professional Responsibility: Work Effectively With Parents (Item 12) and Takes Advantage of Opportunities to Grow Professionally (Item 15).

Table 36Item 12: Works Effectively with Parents


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

12

I work effectively with parents


0.00%

00.00%

0

0.00%

440.00%

660.00%

10

Special Education 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 11

52.4%

10

47.6% 21

2015-2016

12

I work effectively with parents

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 3 60.00%

2 40.00%

5


2 9.09% 15

68.18%

5 22.73%

22

Table 37Item 15: Takes Advantage of Opportunities to Grow Professionally


Disagree



Grand Total

2014 - 2015

15

I take advantage of opportunities to grow professionally.


0 0.00% 00.00%

1

10.00%

440.00%

550.00%

10

Special Education

0 0% 0 0% 2 9.5% 8 38.1%

11

52.4% 21

2015-2016

15

I take advantage of opportunities to grow professionally

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

0 0.00% 4 80.00%

1 20.00%

5

Special Education

0 0.00%

0 0.00%

1 4.55% 14

63.64%

7 31.82%

22

Narrative:Program Performance.In the area of Professional Responsibility, our students demonstrated knowledge of issues related to collaborative relations and professional conduct; 92-97% scored proficient across these items in 2014-15, and 98% were scored sufficient or advanced across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 32A-33B). The lowest average was in 2014-2015 with 3 students scoring in the basic area for demonstrating the capacity to work with other practitioners to improve teaching for the benefit of students’ learning. All other areas in these categories ranged between 97%-98%, which indicates that during student teaching they worked very well with the other professionals and were able to demonstrate their ability to be reflective pre-service teachers.

Post-graduation Performance.Administrators rated our new teachers’ understanding of Professional Responsibility; 82% of teachers scored frequently or consistently across items in 2014-2015, and 95-100% were rated as frequently or consistently demonstrating this across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 34 & 35).

The lowest scores (82% at frequently or consistently in 2014-15) were obtained in the areas of “engages in professional development” and “uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her performance. This is an area we may want to watch in the future, although the 2015-16 were much higher. It also may be that lower scores on engaging in professional development represent an artifact of the new teachers not having opportunities to engage in those activities in their school district, yet.

Based on the candidate surveys they overwhelmingly indicated (90 – 100%) that they worked effectively with parents and took advantage of opportunities to grow professionally (Tables 36 & 37).

7. Overall Proficiency

Response to Administrative Survey: Items on Impact of Student Learning and Development (Standard 11.1)

Table 38 Standard 11.1: Impact of Student Learning and Development

Indicator Endorsement Information Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Grand Total

11.1 The teacher positively impacts the


2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Total

learning and development for all students

Special Education, Elementary

0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 10.00% 18 90.00% 20

Responses from First Year Candidate Survey: Items Related to Overall Proficiency: I am an Excellent Teacher (Item 23).

Table 39Item 23: I am an Excellent Teacher




Grand Total

2014 - 2015

23

I am an excellent teacher.


0

0.00%

110.00%

2

20.00%

550.00%

220.00%

10


52.4%

3 14.3% 21

2015-2016

23

I am an excellent teacher

SPM7 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

2 40.00% 1 20.00%

2 40.00%

5


4 18.18% 9 40.91%

7 31.82%

22

Narrative:Post-graduation Performance.

The last area speaks to the overall proficiency of the new teacher, and we present only data from post-graduation performance. Administrators indicated 82% of teachers frequently or consistently positively impacts the learning and development of all students in 2014-15, but rated 100% of the teachers at frequently or consistently in 2015-16 (Table 38). This shows great promise. Three teachers were rated as only occasionally positively impacting the learning and development of all students, but they are in their first year of teaching, and we are hopeful that we have given them the tools they need to make more consistent impacts as they grow into their careers.

When the new teachers were asked if they were an excellent teacher, only 70% indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with this statement in 2014-15 and only 60% in 2015-16 (Table 39). This is not surprising since most first year teachers are not going to say they are excellent in their job since they have so much to learn and are often overwhelmed by completing the basic job responsibilities. However, it is interesting to note that the teachers in 2015-16 were less likely to rate themselves as excellent, despite receiving consistently higher scores from their administrators than teachers in the previous year.

SECTION 3: USE OF RELATED DATA AND INFORMATION FOR CONTINUOUS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT OF ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM – Artifact 3

Narrative:

The analysis of our program performance is illuminating. The data is overwhelmingly positive, although we note some minor trouble areas that we will need to keep an eye on in upcoming years and potentially address. Primarily, these trouble areas were in 2014-15, and did not show up in the 2015-16 years. This may indicate an anomaly, and examination across all of the years suggests this may be an artifact of 1-3 new teachers, rather than the program as a whole.

In providing this summary, we address three overarching categories of data. That is across the seven areas of performance, we have data that represents the following categories:

1. Enrollment2. Program Performance, and3. Post-graduation performance

a. Administrator Surveyb. First-year teacher survey

We first present a summary of each category, then conclude with a synthesis of the findings.

EnrollmentEnrollment is an important consideration for every program. Our ability to attract strong students

is a key marker of the success of our program. Higher quality students often show a higher level of commitment, receive higher grades, make better connections across content from multiple courses, and are more likely to be able to apply the content in their future careers. The data we have on enrollment comes from the first key assessment area: Content Knowledge.

The cumulative and subject area GPAs are both very high, indicating that students in our program receive high grades before they enter our program, as well as during our program. This indicates that we do very well with recruiting new teachers to the field, which should lead to future successes in their career.

Program PerformanceWhen we accept students into our program, we do so with the expectation that the students will be

able to handle the coursework by showing an understanding of the content and putting it into practice. There are various evaluation points in the program to ensure students being to translate content knowledge into practice. For example, student learn how to plan lessons, then learn to monitor progress and use student performance to write a series lessons that build skills, and finally implement the lessons in practicum and student teaching experiences. This requires students to learn and integrate related skills across areas.

To evaluate our program, we examine students’ performance across five of the key areas, including: 1) Content Knowledge, 3) Learners and Learning Environments, 4) Instructional Practices-Candidate

Knowledge and Skills, 5) Instructional Practices-Assessment that demonstrates an impact on student learning, and 6) Professional Responsibility.

Our data for students who began their teaching careers in the 2014-15 and 2015-2016 school years indicate that students did very well in our program. All of the students passed the Praxis 2 exam to demonstrate their content knowledge; 85-100% were proficient (or sufficient and advanced) on measures related to the learner and learning environment; 90-100% consistently and frequently create, implement, and adapt lesson plans responsively; and 92-98% scored proficient (or sufficient and advanced) on items related to collaborative relations.

One of the lower areas in our assessments was in 2014-2015, although we would not classify it as a problem, was that only 85% of student were proficient lesson planners in the 2014-2015 group. This might be an indicator of their post-graduation performance.

Post-graduation PerformanceAt the end of the day, Post-graduation performance is the most important measure of the success of

our program. If students do very well in our coursework, but fail to translate that into strong responsive teaching and assessment practices, we will have missed the mark on our mission.

We evaluated post-graduation performance in all seven areas: 1) Content Knowledge, 2) Content Area, 3) Learners and Learning Environments, 4) Instructional Practices-Candidate Knowledge and Skills, 5) Instructional Practices-Assessment that demonstrates an impact on student learning, and 6) Professional Responsibility, 7) Overall proficiency. Our data reflects the opinions of administrators working with our new teachers, as well as our new teachers’ opinions of their own knowledge and performance.

Overall, the data indicate that our teachers performed very well in their first teaching positions (especially for teachers in 2015-16), although the data for teachers in 2014-15 are lower than our expectations. For example, 90% to 100% teachers in 2015-16 scored proficient (or sufficient and advanced) on administrator responses. Despite that, only 60% of them indicated that they agreed they are excellent teachers. This may indicate a healthy self-knowledge that they are still fairly inexperienced.

On the other hand, the number of teachers in the 2014-15 school year scoring proficient (or sufficient and advanced) often dipped to between 75% and 85% across the variables. This may indicate there are some areas of the program we need to monitor more closely, such as how we are teaching

students to better recognizing patterns of learning and development, connecting concepts across disciplines, instructional strategies and instructional technology, planning for instruction, and multiple methods of assessment. However, another explanation is that this is not a programmatic issue as much as an issue with a 1-3 students who are underperformed. In other words, it could be that a small number of our students are the same ones that are underperforming across multiple areas. If that is the case, our program (and faculty) need to do a better job of identifying students who are underperforming and provide remediation within the program.

Program ModificationsTo address underperformance in assessment, the program faculty revised the sequence of courses placing the assessment course earlier in the program (first or second year) and behavior management (has a major project that utilizes assessment) later in the program (third or fourth year). This adjustment emphasized mastery of assessment knowledge prior to the professional courses and improved student performance on the behavior management project that requires the student to apply assessment knowledge.

To address underperformance in academic content areas, program faculty are revising a general special education methods course to focus on methods for mathematics instruction. This course will complement an existing methods course in reading disabilities to strengthen content knowledge related to academic learning disabilities and should improve teacher candidate’s toolkits to better prepare lessons for student learning.

Synthesis and ConclusionsOverall, our data matched up pretty well across Enrollment, Program Performance, and Post-

graduation performance. We are enrolling high-quality students, they perform well in our program, and they did very well in evaluations of their first year of teaching. The scores were slightly lower in post-graduation than we would expect based on performance in the program and on the Praxis II. It may be that this reflects some weaknesses in our program that we will need to monitor, but it is more likely to indicate that there were a small number of students who underperformed. We will take action to address

these potential issues by finding ways to communicate about individual student and monitor them more closely before they graduate, as well as monitoring our program performance in future years.

at the end of the clinical experience - college of … folio... · web viewincluding at least 2...

Documents