B.S. in Special Education
Assessment in the Major Report
By Dr. Amy Schlieve, Program Director
2014-15
Submitted: October 2015
Table of Contents
Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................2
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................2
Overview of the Program .........................................................................................................................................................................................2
Previous Goals and Evidence...................................................................................................................................................................................3
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test/CORE Tests ............................................................................................................................................4
PRAXIS II: Middle School Content Test Summary ...............................................................................................................................................6
PPST/CORE/PRAXIS II First Time Test Takers ....................................................................................................................................................8
Foundations of Reading Test .................................................................................................................................................................................10
Summary at Benchmark I, II and III ......................................................................................................................................................................11
Student Teaching Performance Ratings .................................................................................................................................................................17
edTPA ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................18
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) .........................................................................................................................................................20
Graduate Follow-Up Surveys ................................................................................................................................................................................23
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies .........................................................................................................................................23
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program ..................................................................................................................23
2015-16 Goals ........................................................................................................................................................................................................24
Advisory Board Members 2013-14 .......................................................................................................................................................................25
Recruitment Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................................25
Advisement Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................................25
Retention Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................................................26
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 1
Overview
The University of Wisconsin-Stout School of Education (SOE) has gathered assessment data from fall semester 2003 to present. In the School of
Education, data is gathered from several sources to inform unit and program decisions. Data in this report is used to develop program goals, inform
curriculum changes, and enhance course delivery in order to improve teacher education candidate learning. This report contains data from the
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test, PRAXIS II: Middle School Content Test, Benchmark Interviews, Student Teacher Performances, the
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI), and Follow-Up Alumni Surveys. This report also describes how assessment data is used to set
programmatic goals, improve the program, program curriculum, and delivery of courses.
Introduction
The Special Education program embodies the philosophy that every child has value, no matter what his or her ability level. We recognize that each
child in the United States is entitled to an education suited to his or her needs. Whether integrated into general education classrooms, learning in
specialized facilities or a combination of both, candidates in the program learn how to best meet the needs of students based on data driven practices
and instruction. We believe that special educator’s mission is to both advocate for students and their families while providing an appropriate
education for each student.
Overview of the Program
Twenty-one teacher candidates graduated from the Special Education program during the 2014-15 academic year. Fall 2014, the Special Education
program consisted of 78 undergraduate candidates, 15 males and 63 females. This number reflects initial candidates enrolled in the B.S. Special
Education program. It does not include any post baccalaureate educator certification candidates. While demand for special educators is higher than
ever, since 2011 there has been a significant drop in enrollment in teacher preparation programs throughout the state. Parents and prospective
candidates cite the state climate for teachers and the number of tests Wisconsin now requires for initial licensure (compared to other states) as their
reason to choose another major and/or out of state teacher preparation program.
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 2
Previous Goals and Evidence
1
2
3
2014-15 Goals
Monitor candidate performance on the CORE and FoRT exams.
Especially in regards to student numbers in Reading 414.
Revise ECSE certification to a major.
Revise Prestudent teaching worksample to align with edTPA.
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Evidence towards meeting goals or rationale for abandoning:
Continue with goal
Revision is in process
Complete but continuing to best assist candidates
Page 3
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test/CORE Tests
All education majors must pass all three sections of the PRAXIS I: Core Academic Skills for Educators (CORE). The three sections consist of
reading, writing and mathematics. Prior to the fall 2013 semester, candidates would take the Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) which was available
until the end of the 2013-14 academic year. Also, candidates can meet their Benchmark I requirements through scores on their college entrance
exam.
Note that the pass rates in the table reflect attempts by all candidates prior to being accepted into the School of Education. Since all are
required to pass the CORE to be admitted to the School of Education as part of Benchmark I, the actual pass rate is 100%.
PPST Attempts and Pass Rates
Teacher
Education
Program
SPED
SOE
2010
PPST Test
Math
Math
Exemption
Writing
Writing
Exemption
Reading
Reading
Exemption
Math
Math
Exemption
Writing
Writing
Exemption
Reading
Reading
Exemption
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
# test
attempts
32
# (and %)
passed
19 (59%)
# test
attempts
24
# (and %)
passed
14 (58%)
# test
attempts
19
# (and %)
passed
14 (74%)
# test
attempts
13
# (and %)
passed
13 (100%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33
15 (45%)
39
17 (44%)
26
14 (54%)
20
9 (45%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
33
19 (58%)
29
13 (45%)
34
15 (44%)
23
9 (39%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
198
150 (76%)
210
142 (68%)
114
86 (75%)
70
53 (76%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
213
141 (66%)
287
138 (48%)
175
95 (54%)
104
46 (44%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
1
NA
243
138 (57%)
240
135 (56%)
157
86 (55%)
109
48 (44%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
3
NA
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 4
CORE Attempts and Pass Rates
Teacher
Education
Program
SPED
SOE
2013-14
CORE Test
CORE Math
Math
Exemption
CORE Writing
Writing
Exemption
CORE Reading
Reading
Exemption
CORE Math
Math
Exemption
CORE Writing
Writing
Exemption
CORE Reading
Reading
Exemption
2014-15
# test
attempts
NA
# (and %)
passed
NA
# test
attempts
19
# (and %)
passed
11 (58%)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
27
8 (30%)
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
21
12 (57%)
1
NA
NA
NA
15
6 (46%)
122
67 (55%)
NA
NA
1
NA
13
7 (54%)
136
56 (41%)
1
NA
1
NA
14
10 (71%)
113
75 (66%)
3
NA
NA
NA
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 5
PRAXIS II: Middle School Content Test Summary
Candidates in Special Education (SE), as well as those candidates in Vocational Rehabilitation with Certification in Cognitive Disabilities must pass
the PRAXIS II Middle School Content test prior to student teaching. Four areas are covered in the PRAXIS II Middle School Content Test: literature
and language studies, mathematics, history/social studies, and the sciences. The score needed to pass the Content Test is 146. Wisconsin is the only
state to require the Middle School Content test for those seeking licensure in Special Education, therefore, WI scores are not compared to national
data. Unlike other education majors, special education majors are not tested on the content of their major. This exam does not contain any special
education content.
The most recent data (2014/2015) shows the lowest score for SE and VR/SE was 132 and the highest was 175, with a passing rate of 81%. While
tempting to make a statement on the increase in this year’s score, review of data over the years indicates this is a typical trend. No comparisons were
conducted among the UW-Stout teaching majors, as this is the only major required to take this exam. This years’ test takers were slightly more
successfully on the paper based exam. Note that all candidates are required to pass the Praxis II to be admitted to student teaching as part of
Benchmark II, so the pass rate is 100% upon Benchmark II approval.
Content Test from ETS
Content Test from ETS
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
13/14
14/15
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Score Needed to Pass:
Number with Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
27
177
134
146
21/27
78%
34
174
122
146
28/34
82%
28
181
128
146
20/28
71%
28
174
131
146
18/28
64%
24
192
130
146
20/24
83%
23
175
126
146
15/23
65%
37
176
113
146
16/37
43%
23
187
128
146
16/23
70%
16
175
132
146
13/16
81%
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 6
Average Percent Correct on PRAXIS II (number of items answered correctly by area)
Middle School
Content Test
Category
Literature
Mathematics
History / Social
Studies
Science
12/13
(c)
53%
56%
13/14
(c)
63%
61%
14/15
64%
61%
UW-Stout
10/11 11/12
(c)
64%
66%
63%
59%
58%
63%
53%
52%
49%
54%
52%
45%
49%
51%
58%
61%
59%
61%
58%
50%
53%
58%
Points
Available
06/07
07/08
08/09
28-30
28-30
66%
62%
64%
60%
29-30
53%
30
60%
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
09/10
65%
60%
Page 7
PPST/CORE/PRAXIS II First Time Test Takers
Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, all teacher preparation programs in the state of Wisconsin are required to report on “the passage rate on the
first attempt of students and graduates of the program on examinations administered for licensure” (Act 166, section 17). Data provided to the
program indicates varied pass rate (42 -100% for PPST) and 70% (53% for first time testers) for Praxis II Middle School Content. According to the
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction website, individuals who are trained in Middle School education are required to complete the same exam
as special education candidates. It would be assumed that teachers training for Middle School Content would complete with a higher pass rate as
those candidates would be tested on their pedagogy unlike special education candidates.
Teacher
Education
Program
SPED
SOE
Teacher
Education
Program
SPED
SOE
Spring 2013
PPST Test
Math
Writing
Reading
Math
Writing
Reading
# first time
test takers
8
8
8
63
65
63
2013-14
# (and %)
passed
6 (75%)
3 (38%)
3 (38%)
52 (83%)
40 (62%)
40 (63%)
# first time
test takers
12
12
12
56
53
56
2013-14
CORE Test
CORE Math
CORE Writing
CORE Reading
CORE Math
CORE Writing
CORE Reading
# first time
test takers
NA
NA
NA
13
11
13
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
# (and %)
passed
NA
NA
NA
6 (46%)
5 (45%)
9 (69%)
# (and %)
passed
12 (100%)
6 (50%)
5 (42%)
48 (86%)
25 (47%)
28 (50%)
2014-15
# first time
test takers
15
17
17
87
92
97
# (and %)
passed
10 (67%)
5 (29%)
10 (59%)
56 (64%)
41 (45%)
68 (70%)
Page 8
Spring 2013
SPED
Content
Test
2013-14
2014-15
# first time
test takers
# (and %)
passed
# first time
test takers
# (and %)
passed
# first time
test takers
# (and %)
passed
9
5 (56%)
17
9 (53%)
11
6 (55%)
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 9
Foundations of Reading Test
Starting in January 2014 all SPED graduates are required to pass the Foundations of Reading Test in order to be eligible for licensure in the state of
Wisconsin. This exam is required for only two undergraduate programs and one advanced degree/certificate at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. A
review of research revealed (and supported by Jennifer Yaeger) that there has been no research done which supports the use of FoRT and the
correlation with effective teaching. It is important to note that only three states utilize FoRT for initial licensure. Other states recruiting our
candidates state they are not requiring the FoRT for licensure in their state.
RDGD 414 will continue to prepare candidates for this exam.
Spring 2014
2014-15
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
# test
attempts
# (and %)
passed
SPED
27
18 (67%)
26
8 (32%)
All SOE
94
72 (77%)
124
75 (60%)
First time test takers:
Spring 2014
2014-15
# first time
test takers
# (and %)
passed
# first time
test takers
# (and %)
passed
SPED
22
14 (64%)
16
3 (19%)
All SOE
81
63 (78%)
94
62 (66%)
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 10
Summary at Benchmark I, II and III
All candidates must satisfactorily complete BMI to advance to BMII. All candidates must successfully complete BMII to student teach. Each table
reflects the statement. Data for BMII and III reveals that SPED candidates tend to score higher in almost every category over other SOE disciplines.
Data gathered for this report should exclude those individuals in the post-bachelorette add-on certification. Please see below for a summary of the
results.
Benchmark I Applications
Benchmark I Applications
Cleared for Benchmark I Review
Cleared for Benchmark I Review based on score from college entrance
test
Denied: No passing PPST/CORE score
Denied: Low GPA
Denied: Insufficient credits/course work
Denied: Did not receive “C” or higher in English, Speech, Intro, or
Foundation of Education courses
Denied: Missing background check
Denied: Other Reasons
2012-13
17
11
SPED
2013-14
35
23
2014-15
19
10
SOE
2014-15
156
103
N/A
2
3
29
3
2
1
4
1
4
6
1
7
27
5
28
1
2
N/A
2
1
N/A
3
4
1
N/A
8
N/A
*Individual candidates who apply multiple times per academic year are counted twice or more. There might also be multiple reasons for candidates not clearing for Benchmark I
review. Some candidates might also have been cleared for BM I review based on PPST/CORE scores, even though they would have been cleared based on scores from their
college entrance test. Being cleared for Benchmark I review does not necessarily mean that a candidate went through with it.
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 11
Benchmark I Review Results Special Education
Beginning Spring 2015, adjustments were made to the Benchmark I rubric.
Benchmark I Rubric Results (new rubric)
ePortfolio Review Rubric
Foundations of Education (EDUC-326) Final
Project or Program Equivalent
Response
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Dispositional Review Rubric
Response
Commitment to Learning: The candidate will
demonstrate a commitment to his/her own and
his/her students’ continuous learning
Respect for Oneself and Others: The candidate
will demonstrate respect for himself/herself and
others through thoughtful and responsive
communication, showing respect and
collaboration
Commitment to Excellence: The candidate
recognizes his/her professional responsibility for
engaging in and supporting appropriate
professional practices for self and others
Deficiency
Signed Statement of Values and Dispositions
Resume
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Satisfactory
Deficiency
Satisfactory
Deficiency
Satisfactory
SPED
Spring
2015
N=5
0%
100%
0%
100%
%
100%
SOE
Spring
2015
N=40
0%
100%
0%
100%
2%
98%
0%
2%
100%
98%
0%
2%
100%
98%
0%
2%
100%
98%
Page 12
Benchmark I Rubric Results (old rubric)
Artifact Name
N=18
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
6%
94%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
No Deficiency
Deficiency
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
No Deficiency
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Disposition Area
Response
Resume
Philosophy Statement
Commitment to Learning: The candidate will
demonstrate a commitment to their own and their
students continuous learning
Respect for Oneself and Others: The candidate
will demonstrate respect for others through
thoughtful and responsive communication,
showing respect and collaboration
Commitment to Excellence: The candidate
recognizes his/her professional responsibility for
engaging in and supporting appropriate
professional practices for self and others
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
SOE
Fall
2014
N=39
0%
100%
3%
97%
0%
100%
3%
97%
N=9
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
Two (2) artifacts related to the subject matter the
candidate will teach
Signed Statement of Values and Dispositions
SPED
2012-13 2013-14
Fall
2014
N=4
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
Response
Incomplete
Complete
Incomplete
Complete
Incomplete
Complete
Incomplete
Complete
Deficiency
No Deficiency
Deficiency
Spring
2012
N=8
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
Page 13
Benchmark II Interview Results Special Education
SPED
201120122010 2012
2013
20132014
20142015
SOE
20142015
2008
2009
Response
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
N=20
N=17
N=25
0%
35%
60%
5%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
12%
88%
0%
0%
33%
67%
0%
0%
17%
83%
0%
0%
29%
71%
0%
0%
33%
67%
0%
3%
40%
57%
0%
Describe what it means to be a "Reflective
Practitioner"
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
0%
45%
50%
5%
0%
6%
94%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
33%
67%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
0%
14%
86%
0%
0%
6%
94%
0%
2%
33%
65%
0%
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and
Domain you feel most competent in
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
0%
50%
45%
5%
0%
12%
88%
0%
0%
4%
96%
0%
0%
44%
56%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
0%
43%
57%
0%
0%
17%
83%
0%
1%
27%
72%
0%
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and
Domain you have experienced the greatest
growth
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
0%
50%
45%
5%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
4%
96%
0%
0%
44%
56%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
0%
29%
71%
0%
0%
17%
83%
0%
3%
34%
63%
0%
Provide Portfolio evidence (signed copy of
the Instructional Technology Utilization
rubric) of your competence in current
instructional technology
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
NA
NA
NA
NA
0%
4%
96%
0%
0%
11%
89%
0%
0%
17%
83%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
17%
83%
0%
0%
29%
71%
0%
Question
Describe your Philosophy of Education and
how it has evolved
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
NA
NA
NA
NA
N=9
N=12
N=7
N=18
N=103
Page 14
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
Demonstrates your content knowledge.
Demonstrates your ability to create
instructional opportunities adapted to diverse
learners.
Demonstrates your ability to teach effectively.
Demonstrates your ability to assess student
learning.
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
0%
35%
55%
10%
0%
35%
30%
35%
0%
30%
30%
40%
0%
30%
40%
30%
0%
0%
76%
24%
0%
0%
29%
71%
0%
0%
18%
82%
0%
12%
71%
17%
0%
0%
16%
84%
0%
8%
28%
64%
0%
4%
56%
40%
0%
20%
60%
20%
0%
20%
80%
0%
0%
14%
86%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
29%
71%
0%
0%
33%
67%
0%
0%
40%
60%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
40%
60%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
67%
33%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
29%
71%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
29%
71%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
15%
85%
0%
3%
45%
53%
0%
1%
41%
58%
0%
18%
50%
32%
0%
3%
31%
66%
0%
Page 15
Benchmark III Interview Results: Special Education
Question
Artifacts from student teaching, reflection ratings
Final Student Teaching Assessments and
Recommendations from Cooperating Teachers
Disposition ratings from student teaching from
cooperating & University Supervisors
Instructional Technology Utilization Rubric
Alignment Summary of artifacts meeting all 10
Wisconsin Teaching Standards & 4 Domains/
Components & reflections/ reflection ratings
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Response
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
Proficient
n/a
2008 2009 2010
N=15 N=19 N=21
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
27%
5% 10%
73% 95% 90%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
13%
0% 10%
80% 100% 90%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
20%
5% 10%
73% 84% 86%
0% 11%
4%
NA
NA
0%
NA
NA
4%
NA
NA 10%
NA
NA 86%
NA
NA
0%
0%
0%
0%
13%
5%
4%
20%
5% 10%
67% 90% 86%
0%
0%
0%
SPED
SOE
2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 20142012
2013
2014 2015
2015
N=9
N=11 N=15 N=20 N=117
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
22%
27%
7%
5%
9%
78%
73% 93%
95%
91%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
5%
1%
22%
27% 13%
10%
24%
78%
64% 87%
85%
75%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
11%
18% 13%
15%
15%
89%
82% 87%
85%
85%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
0%
22%
9%
0%
0%
4%
78%
91% 93% 100%
96%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
9%
7%
0%
1%
89%
91% 93% 100%
99%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Page 16
Student Teaching Performance Ratings
The table below indicates the final ratings for student teacher competencies in the Wisconsin Teacher Standards. After completion of their student
teaching experience, each candidate should be at the emerging or basic level. Based on the data, all teacher candidates are satisfactorily prepared for
licensure. It is also evident that the Special Education candidates consistently rate above the unit means in almost all areas. See table below.
Student Teacher Evaluations Special Education
Teachers know the subjects they are teaching
Teachers know how children grow
Teachers understand that children learn
differently
Teachers know how to teach
Teachers know how to manage a classroom
Teachers communicate well
Teachers are able to plan different kinds of
lessons
Teachers know how to test for student
progress
Teachers are able to evaluate themselves
Teachers are connected with other teachers
and the community
Teachers make effective use of instructional
technologies to enhance student learning.
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
SPED
20112012201320142008
2009
2010
2012
2013
2014
2015
N=13
N=20
N=21
N=9
N=11
N=15
N=20
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
3.95
3.84
3.93
3.83
3.73
3.86
3.80
3.95
3.70
3.98
3.72
3.73
3.79
3.80
SOE
20142015
N=120
Mean
3.75
3.75
4.00
3.95
3.77
3.70
3.74
3.70
3.70
3.80
3.95
3.98
3.82
3.93
3.83
4.00
3.89
3.83
3.55
3.55
3.55
3.73
3.86
3.79
3.71
3.79
3.75
3.80
3.65
3.85
3.75
3.75
3.58
3.77
3.77
3.67
4.00
3.89
3.64
3.79
3.70
3.73
3.95
3.77
3.34
3.80
3.91
3.93
3.72
3.89
3.64
3.82
3.79
3.93
3.75
3.75
3.69
3.82
3.62
3.74
3.91
3.83
3.82
4.00
3.85
3.77
NA
NA
3.91
4.00
3.64
3.86
3.75
3.76
Page 17
edTPA
The Teacher Performance Assessment or edTPA is an assessment process completed during student teaching. It is designed by educators to answer
the essential question: "Is a new teacher ready for the job?" The edTPA includes a review of teaching strategies such as lesson plans, video clips of
teaching, and assessment strategies used in teaching. The edTPA will measure the new teacher's ability to effectively teach to all students. Starting
in the 2015-16 academic year, all Wisconsin teacher candidates are required to complete the edTPA. Passing the edTPA will be a requirement for a
Wisconsin teacher license staring in 2016-17.
While no data is allowed due to a low N, the following is a report from Dr. Lama Othman, lead faculty for SPED EdTPA.
In the past two semesters we had two teacher candidates submitting their edTPA materials. Fall 2015 we will have all of our SPED cohort submit
edTPA materials for piloting purposes. It is worth mentioning that edTPA results at this point are nonconsequential, hence the purpose is to learn and
reflect on teacher candidates’ experiences. Please see below some of the results and recommendations.
Comparing local evaluation with the state and national averages:
 Correlations between SPED local evaluations, SPED Wisconsin averages, and SPED national averages were insignificant.
 Local evaluation, although insignificant, had a stronger correlation with the national SPED averages compared to Wisconsin SPED averages.
 The insignificant correlation between the local evaluation and SPED Wisconsin averages was positive, meaning that local evaluators gave
higher rating to the candidate than did the evaluators at the state level.
 The insignificant correlation between the local evaluation and SPED the national averages was negative, meaning that local evaluators gave
lower rating to the candidate than did the evaluators at the national level.
 It’s important to keep in mind that we are comparing the results of only one candidate to the Wisconsin and national levels which may explain
the insignificant correlation.
Plans for Improvements:
The following are general recommendations that can share with teacher candidates in the future:
 It’s important to read the requirements prior to answering the question-include only relevant information.
 Include the essential elements inquired in the body of the question.
 Type next to each bullet.
 Use professional language. Example: Instead of writing “students come and go” use “schedule varies”.
 Avoid terms such as “I am not sure”, “catch up”, “fun”, etc.
 Be consistent. Make sure the information you provide doesn’t conflict. Example: if you mentioned that you don’t know what the student’s
intellectual abilities are, avoid making a judgment about her/his intellectual abilities later on.
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 18


For planning commentary make sure to include:
o Learning targets (it has to be specified before you describe the objectives)
o Standards, common core, and benchmarks
o IEP goal(s)
o Lesson objectives
o Learning Tasks
o Material
Make sure to include the required information in either the (planning) commentary and lesson plans or any other supplementary material.
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 19
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI)
Fourteen factors are assessed through the EBI (Scale= 1-7 with 1= not at all, 4= moderately and 7= extremely) at the conclusion of candidates’ student
teaching experiences. The table below reports the data on the 15 factors. The Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) of exiting teacher candidates
is administered via computer at the end of student teaching for the purpose of unit assessment. EBI data cannot be published in public domains and is
available for internal use only. Please note that EBI modified the factors in the 2013-14 academic year. Historical program data can be found in previous
year’s AIM Reports.
While this year’s survey demonstrates some fluctuation from the past year due to small fluctuation in the N none are statistically significant.
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 20
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 21
EBI - Institution Specific Questions
Mean Data; Scale (1-Not at all, 4-Moderately, 7-Extremely)
SPED
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
N=9
N=8
N=7
N=10
13/14
N=10
14/15
N=12
SOE
14/15
N=113
To what degree were you prepared to create meaningful learning experiences for
students based on your content knowledge?
6.12
5.25
6.00
5.60
5.70
5.60
5.86
To what degree were you prepared to provide instruction that fosters student
learning and intellectual, social and personal development?
6.25
5.50
5.86
5.90
5.80
5.40
5.89
To what degree were you prepared to create instructional experiences adapted
for students who learn differently?
6.12
6.38
6.29
6.00
6.33
4.50
5.61
To what degree were you prepared to use a variety of learning strategies
including the use of technology to encourage critical thinking and problem
solving?
5.75
6.25
6.00
5.50
6.00
4.80
5.48
To what degree were you prepared to manage classroom behavior and create a
learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active
engagement in learning and self-motivation?
5.57
5.50
5.43
5.60
5.70
5.30
5.56
To what degree were you prepared to use instructional technology and media to
foster active inquiry, collaboration and interaction in the classroom?
5.38
5.50
5.86
5.80
5.50
5.20
5.43
To what degree were you prepared to plan instruction based on knowledge of
subject matter, students, the community and curriculum goals?
5.75
5.75
5.43
5.70
5.89
5.30
5.72
To what degree were you prepared to use formal and informal assessment
strategies to evaluate student progress?
6.00
5.50
5.71
5.40
5.78
5.40
5.64
To what degree were you prepared to reflect on teaching and evaluate the effects
of choices and actions on pupils, parents and others?
6.29
4.62
5.71
5.80
6.30
5.50
5.88
To what degree were you prepared to foster relationships with colleges, families
and the community to support student learning and well-being?
6.25
5.62
5.29
5.70
6.00
5.40
5.68
*We updated our questions beginning in the 2009-2010 school year
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 22
Graduate Follow-Up Surveys
UW-Stout surveys graduates every two years, one was not completed this year. The 2014 survey was for graduates in 2012 and 2008. The Office of
Planning, Assessment, Research and Quality (PARQ) provided summaries of the reports to the program director. The number of respondents was
extremely low: The 2012 employer respondent was an N of 1: N of 1 for 2008 General Survey; and an N of 3 in the one-year survey: N of 1 Program
Specific five-year survey; and N of 3 for Program Specific one-year survey. The return rate on these surveys was incredibly low such that statistically
meaningful conclusions cannot be drawn. The one employer that responded with high satisfaction, the three alumni expressed general to high
satisfaction with the program and the choice of Stout as their institution.
The 2011 executive summary states on page 65 that graduates of undergrad programs report “Study Abroad Programs” as What you liked best about
UW-Stout. This comment is significant for the special education program as the Program Director has facilitated a summer study abroad for 15
years, providing a global experience for more than 275 candidates.
The executive summary and full report from the Alumni Follow-Up Study are online at the following
site: http://www.uwstout.edu/GSSResults.cfm=graduatesurveys
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies
Data will be communicated to faculty members through informal and formal means. Program faculty meet during scheduled discipline area work
group meetings (DAWG) designed to support ongoing program improvement. Program faculty and staff then discuss ways to better meet the needs of
candidates throughout the program. Action plans for desired change result from work group meetings. Each SPED faculty member is charged to lead
an area of improvement. Program advisory board members also receive a copy of and discuss the assessment in the major report. At the fall meeting
of each year the document is summarized and discussed as to their recommendations for improvement. Supervising teachers are in charge of
informing their cooperating teachers of the document and requesting feedback from them regarding improvements they recommend for the program.
Cooperating teachers are expressing significant concerns in regards to the demands of the EdTPA and the impact on their student teaching.
Cooperating teachers also report that the requirements of the EdTPA are not appropriate for the first quarter of student teaching. This information
has been shared with the Special Education Advisory Board and the EdTPA committee.
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program
With feedback from program faculty and staff, advisory board members, and cooperating teachers, there are continuous improvements being made to
the program. In 2012 the Special Education Program (along with all programs at the university) completed a full program revision to align with 120
credits. For special education majors this revision allowed a GE program redesign to allow more flexibility in the GE category. This redesign was
primarily due to the a review of Praxis II data as the 2004 program plan was very prescriptive in the GE area to better prepare candidates to
successfully complete the Praxis II Middle School Content test. Yearly data indicated that the prescriptive plan did not equate with a higher passing
rate on the exam. The Advisory Board, candidates and faculty concurred a more flexible GE core would better meet the needs of candidates.
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 23
Since the faculty and staff allocations are small some courses are offered once a year. A course rotation was developed several years ago to offer a
minimum of one special education course per semester online. In 2014-15 6 courses were available online with three hybrid. All SPED summer
course offerings are offered online.
The following are changes or improvements planned for the upcoming years:
2015-16 Goals
2015-16 Goals
1
B.S. Special Education Program Revision
2
3
4
Launch of B.S. Special Education online program
Monitor EdTPA for teacher candidates.
Monitor candidate performance on the CORE and FoRT exams.
Especially in regards to student numbers in Reading 414.
Revise ECSE certification to a major.
Revise Prestudent teaching worksample to align with edTPA.
5
6
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Evidence towards meeting goals or rationale for abandoning:
Continue with goal
Revision is in process
Complete but continuing to best assist candidates
Page 24
Advisory Board Members 2013-14
Dr. Kevin McDonald - College of Technology, Engineering, and Management
Stephanie Hotujec- alumni and graduate student in the program. Special Education teacher at Durand High school
Bobby Nyland – alumni – special education teacher Cumberland, WI
Connor Hobart – student ambassador
Anthony Hartung – alumni – Woodbury, MN
Sandy White - Continuing Education
Dr. Laura Schmidt - Mathematics
Dana Maney - Director of Special Education, Glenwood City, WI
Kathy Rogers – Director of Special Education, New Richmond, WI
Dr. Mary Hopkins-Best – Dean of CEHH (ex-officio)
As per recommendations in 2008 – 2014-15, the Advisory Board meets face-to-face one time per year and via electronic communication for other meetings and
issues as necessary.
Recruitment Plan
An update of the glossy fliers will be sent to every school district in the area, as well as to alumni. In 2012 an Autism Certificate program was
developed and continuing to be explored. Working with Dr. Schlieve’ and marketing offices to coordinate efforts will continue. Brochures have been
sent to all of the conferences where faculty members have attended (i.e. WI Indian Education Association, WI School Counselor Association, and
Council for Exception Children national conference). The program also utilizes the SOE SPED Ambassador for school visits and follow-up
correspondence after Preview Days and campus visits
Advisement Plan
Each semester during the scheduled Advisement Day, candidates sign up for an hour block of time to meet with faculty advisors in a group format.
Questions are raised and answered, program plans sheets are updated, candidates are informed of changes in scheduling, offerings, prerequisites, and
program. Candidates can work individually with a faculty advisor during this time or with peers to determine their schedules. Beginning Fall 2011,
candidates meet with Program Faculty individually for a portion of the day if a there is a demonstrated need.
If substitutions and a full evaluation of their program plans are needed, appointments are made with the program director. Candidates are expected to
attend each Advisement Day. Beginning in spring ’07 candidates register for advisement via the internet in class ranking blocks. This method has
increased the number of Advisement Day participants and class rank schedule has allowed Drs Amy Schlieve, Ruth Nyland, and Lama Othman to
directly and effectively deal with class rank specific issues more efficiently and effectively. Beginning in 2012 Dr. Amy Schlieve recruited and
trained four seniors to assist with Advisement Day, this successful venture continues.
Dr. Ruth Nyland, Dr. Amy Schlieve, and Dr. Lama Othman were the program faculty with Bonnie Shaw (retired principal and special education
teacher), Vicki Dowell (retired special education teacher), and Dr. Christine Livingston (special education teacher) serving as adjunct faculty.
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 25
Retention Plan
Through advisement and class interactions, retention should remain high for the major. Due to the requirements of the e-portfolio, the content exam,
and benchmark interviews, there has been some movement away from all teaching majors on campus. Also, the Wisconsin required Middle School
Content test being a broad middle level exam, rather than specific to the major, passing of this exam will continue to be problematic for many of our
candidates as it is for other Special Education majors in the state. The addition of the Foundation of Reading exam in January 2014 has already added
additional retention issues. It will be important for Special Education to advocate for lower class sizes for RDGD 414 (the primary preparation
course) – which has historically had an enrollment over 30 candidates. Candidates will be encourage to take the FoRT exam immediately after
completion of RDGD 414.
Candidates’ program plan sheets are updated each semester to verify their progress toward graduation. When there has been an academic problem,
the candidate has been advised of his/her options for remediation of the problem and how the program faculty has helped. In some instances,
candidates have been counseled out of the program (primarily due to Praxis II M.S. Content test and now the FoRT test) and referred to other majors
and program directors on campus.
Special Education AIM Report 2014-15
Page 26