B.S. in Special Education
Assessment in the Major Report
By Dr. Amy Schlieve, Program Director
2010
Submitted October 2011
Table of Contents
Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................2
Overview of the Program .........................................................................................................................................................................................2
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test .................................................................................................................................................................3
Summary at Benchmark I, II and III ........................................................................................................................................................................7
Student Teaching Performance Ratings .................................................................................................................................................................11
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) .........................................................................................................................................................12
Graduate Follow-Up Surveys ................................................................................................................................................................................15
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies .........................................................................................................................................15
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program ..................................................................................................................15
Advisory Board Members Spring 2011 .................................................................................................................................................................16
Recruitment Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................................17
Advisement Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................................17
Retention Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................................................17
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Page 1
Overview
The University of Wisconsin-Stout School of Education (SOE) has gathered assessment data from fall semester 2003 through December 2010. 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.
Overview of the Program
In 2010, the Special Education program consisted of 78 undergraduate students, 25 male and 53 female. This number reflects initial initial candidate
enrolled in the B.S. Special Education program. It does not include any post baccalaurite educator certification candidates.
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Page 2
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test
Due to a database conversion in 2009, Datatel to Peoplesoft, we are just now able to start generating data by program. In addition, we are able to
disaggregate each test to report data on pen/paper (P) vs. computerized (C) tests. There was a year lapse, 2009, when we were unable to generate any
data. According to the data below, SPED students are more successful when completing PRAXIS I by paper exam versus computer.
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 PPST 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
VR
(SPED
certificate)
Undergraduate
TOTALS
Math
Reading
Writing
Math
Reading
Writing
2006
# test
attempts
15
28
24
6
4
7
2006
# (and %)
passed
12 = 80%
11 = 39%
13 = 54%
5 = 83%
2 = 50%
4 = 57%
2007
# test
attempts
20
23
23
1
3
2
2007
# (and %)
passed
13
10
14
1
2
2
2008
# test
attempts
16
22
18
1
1
--
2008
# (and %)
passed
14 = 88%
18 = 82%
12 = 67%
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Math
Reading
Writing
204
280
296
148 = 72.5%
226
191 = 84.5%
130
145 = 51.8%
161 = 54.4%
243
257
184 = 75.7%
200 = 77.8%
150
138
102 = 78.5%
119 = 79.3%
104 = 75.4%
PPST
Test
Special Education AIM Report 2010
--
Page 3
Teacher
Education
Program
2010
PPST Test
# test
# (and %)
attempts
passed
C-Math
16
7 (44%)
P-Math
16
12 (75%)
B-Math
32
19 (59%)
C-Writing
16
4 (25%)
P-Writing
17
11 (65%)
SPED
B-Writing
33
15 (45%)
C-Reading
13
7 (54%)
P-Reading
20
12 (60%)
B-Reading
33
19 (58%)
C-Math
118
93 (79%)
P-Math
80
57 (71%)
B-Math
198
150 (76%)
C-Writing
116
92 (55%)
P-Writing
97
49 (51%)
SOE
B-Writing
213
141 (66%)
C-Reading
149
88 (59%)
P-Reading
94
50 (53%)
B-Reading
243
138 (57%)
C= Computerized; P= Pen & Paper Tests; B=Both Computerized and Pen & Paper Tests
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Page 4
PRAXIS II: Middle School Content Test Summary
For the students in the Special Education (SE), as well as those students with Vocational Rehabilitation with Special Education Certification in
Cognitive Disabilities must take and pass the PRAXIS II Middle School Content test prior to being allowed to student teach. Four areas are covered
in the PRAXIS II Middle School Content Test: literature and language studies, mathematics, history/social studies, and science. The score needed to
pass the Content Test is 146. Wisconsin is the only state that requires the Middle School Content test for those seeking licensure in Special
Education. This exam does not contain any special education content.
The most recent data (2009/2010) shows the lowest score for SE and VR/SE was 131 and the highest was 174, with a passing rate of 64%. No
comparisons were conducted among the UW-Stout teaching majors, as this is the only major required to take this exam. Most of the other majors are
actually being tested on the content of their major. As with PRAXIS I, the data does not delineate between individuals who are taking the test for the
first time from those who are repeating the test – thus, it is impossible to determine the first time passing rate.
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
Number of Examinees:
Highest Observed Score:
Lowest Observed Score:
Median:
Average Performance Range:
Score Needed to Pass:
Number with Passing Score:
Percent with WI Passing Score:
Special Education AIM Report 2010
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
15
185
128
148
143-159
146
9/15
60%
27
177
134
151
148-162
146
21/27
78%
34
174
122
152
147-158
146
28/34
82%
28
181
128
152
143-162
146
20/28
71%
28
174
131
148.5
139-157
146
18/28
64%
Page 5
Average Percent Correct on PRAXIS II (number of items answered correctly by area)
Middle School
Content Test
Category
UW-Stout
Points
Available
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
09/10
26-30
28-30
65%
58%
66%
62%
64%
60%
64%
61%
64%
59%
28-30
56%
53%
53%
52%
49%
28-30
58%
60%
58%
61%
59%
Literature
Mathematics
History / Social
Studies
Science
PRAXIS II Middle School Content Exam
Detail Score Percent Correct Trends
100
95
90
85
80
Literature
75
Mathematics
70
History / Social Studies
65
Science
60
55
50
05/06
Special Education AIM Report 2010
06/07
07/08
08/09
Page 6
Summary at Benchmark I, II and III
All students must satisfactorily complete BMI to advance to BMII. All students must successfully complete BMII to student teach. While each table
reflects the statement, data gathered for this report are to exclude those individuals in the post-bachelorette add-on certification. However, it was
discovered that these numbers were included this year. Next year they will again be aggregated.
Please see below for a summary of the results.
Benchmark I Interview Results Special Education
Question
Explain personal and professional growth between
your initial resume and updated resume.
Explain your philosophy of education.
Explain three personal characteristics that will
make you an effective teacher.
Describe yourself as a learner and how that will
impact your future teaching.
Describe experiences that have impacted your
understanding of diversity and human relations
and how these might aid you as you work with
students and families
Explain two subject matter/content artifacts and
how these examples illustrate your understanding
of the content you will be teaching
Completed Alignment Summary
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Response
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
2008
N=12
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
SPED
2009
N=11
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
2010
N=14
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
100%
Satisfactory
SOE
2010
N=80
1%
99%
0%
100%
0%
100%
1%
99%
0%
100%
1%
99%
0%
100%
Page 7
Benchmark II Interview Results Special Education
SPED
2008 2009 2010
Question
Response
N=20 N=17 N=25
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
35%
0% 12%
Describe your Philosophy of Education and Emerging
how it has evolved
Basic
60% 100% 88%
n/a
5%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
45%
6%
0%
Describe what it means to be a "Reflective Emerging
Practitioner"
Basic
50% 94% 100%
n/a
5%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
Emerging
50% 12%
4%
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and
Domain you feel most competent in
Basic
45% 88% 96%
n/a
5%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and
Emerging
50%
0%
4%
Domain you have experienced the greatest
Basic
45% 100% 96%
growth
n/a
5%
0%
0%
NA
NA
0%
Provide Portfolio evidence (signed copy of Unsatisfactory
Emerging
NA
NA
4%
the Instructional Technology Utilization
rubric) of your competence in current
Basic
NA
NA
96%
instructional technology
n/a
NA
NA
0%
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
demonstrates your content knowledge
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
0%
35%
55%
10%
0%
0%
76%
24%
0%
0%
16%
84%
SOE
2010
N=80
1%
41%
58%
0%
1%
34%
64%
0%
0%
31%
69%
0%
0%
32%
68%
0%
0%
52%
48%
0%
2%
27%
71%
0%
Page 8
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 2010
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
0%
35%
30%
35%
0%
30%
30%
40%
0%
30%
40%
30%
0%
0%
29%
71%
0%
0%
18%
82%
0%
12%
71%
17%
0%
8%
28%
64%
0%
4%
56%
40%
0%
20%
60%
20%
3%
40%
57%
0%
4%
25%
71%
0%
2%
41%
57%
0%
Page 9
Benchmark III Interview Results: Special Education
SPED
SOE
2008 2009 2010 2010
Question
Response
N=15 N=19 N=21 N=138
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
0%
Emerging
0%
0%
0%
0%
Artifacts from student teaching, reflection ratings
Basic
27%
5% 10%
24%
Proficient
73% 95% 90%
76%
n/a
0%
0%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
1%
Emerging
7%
0%
0%
1%
Final Student Teaching Assessments and
Basic
13%
0% 10%
20%
Recommendations from Cooperating Teachers
Proficient
80% 100% 90%
78%
n/a
0%
0%
0%
0%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
0%
Emerging
7%
0%
0%
1%
Disposition ratings from student teaching from
Basic
20%
5% 10%
20%
cooperating & University Supervisors
Proficient
73% 84% 86%
76%
n/a
0% 11%
4%
3%
Unsatisfactory NA
NA
0%
0%
Emerging
NA
NA
4%
1%
Instructional Technology Utilization Rubric
Basic
NA
NA
10%
19%
Proficient
NA
NA
86%
77%
n/a
NA
NA
0%
3%
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
0%
Emerging
13%
5%
4%
14%
Alignment Summary of artifacts meeting all 10
Wisconsin Teaching Standards & 4 Domains/
Basic
20%
5% 10%
8%
Components & reflections/ reflection ratings
Proficient
67% 90% 86%
75%
n/a
0%
0%
0%
3%
*Numbers were not to include Post-Baccalaureate Candidates but are included in this year’s data.
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Page 10
Student Teaching Performance Ratings
The table below indicates the final ratings for student teacher competencies in the ten Wisconsin Teacher Standards. After completion of their student
teaching experience, each student should be at the emerging or basic level. Based on the data, all student teachers are satisfactorily prepared for
licensure. It is also evident that the Special Education Candidates consistently rate at or above the Unit means. See table below.
Student Teacher Evaluations Special Education
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
SPED
2008
2009
2010
N=13
N=20
N=21
Mean
Mean
Mean
Teachers know the subjects they are teaching
3.95
3.84
3.93
Teachers know how children grow
3.95
3.70
3.98
Teachers understand that children learn
differently
4.00
3.74
3.95
Teachers know how to teach
3.95
3.70
3.98
Teachers know how to manage a classroom
3.77
3.70
3.82
Teachers communicate well
3.70
3.80
3.93
Teachers are able to plan different kinds of
lessons
3.77
3.67
4.00
Teachers know how to test for student
progress
3.95
3.34
3.91
Teachers are able to evaluate themselves
3.77
3.80
3.93
Teachers are connected with other teachers
and the community
3.62
3.74
3.91
Teachers make effective use of instructional
technologies to enhance student learning.
NA
NA
3.91
SOE
2010
N=120
Mean
3.78
3.82
3.73
3.84
3.65
3.78
3.77
3.75
3.78
3.70
3.91
*Numbers were not to include Post-Baccalaureate Candidates but are included in this year’s data.
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Page 11
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 tables below report the data on the 14 factors. The Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) of exiting student teachers 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. While this year’s survey demonstrates some fluctuation from the past year due to low N none are statistically significant.
Additionally, the EBI is to be sent to only program students and were mistakenly sent to the post-bachelorette add-on certification students.
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Page 12
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Page 13
EBI - Institution Specific Questions
Mean Data; Scale (1-Not at all, 4-Moderately, 7-Extremely)
SPED
SOE
09/10 10/11 10/11
N=9
N=8
N=87
To what degree were you prepared to create meaningful learning
experiences for students based on your content knowledge?
To what degree were you prepared to provide instruction that fosters
student learning and intellectual, social and personal development?
To what degree were you prepared to create instructional experiences
adapted for students who learn differently?
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?
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?
To what degree were you prepared to use instructional technology and
media to foster active inquiry, collaboration and interaction in the
classroom?
To what degree were you prepared to plan instruction based on knowledge
of subject matter, students, the community and curriculum goals?
To what degree were you prepared to use formal and informal assessment
strategies to evaluate student progress?
To what degree were you prepared to reflect on teaching and evaluate the
effects of choices and actions on pupils, parents and others?
To what degree were you prepared to foster relationships with colleges,
families and the community to support student learning and well-being?
6.12
5.25
5.48
6.25
5.50
5.37
6.12
6.38
5.48
5.75
6.25
5.51
5.57
5.50
5.08
5.38
5.50
5.21
5.75
5.75
5.43
6.00
5.50
5.14
6.29
4.62
5.47
6.25
5.62
5.38
*We updated our questions beginning in the 2009-2010 school year
*Numbers were not to include Post-Baccalaureate Candidates but are included in this year’s data.
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Page 14
Graduate Follow-Up Surveys
UW-Stout surveys graduates every two years. The next survey will be sent in 2012 for graduates in 2010 and 2006. The executive summary and full report
from the Alumni Follow-Up Study are online at the following site: http://www.uwstout.edu/static/bpa/ir/afu/2010index.html
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
students 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.
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. The program plan sheet for Special Education – Cross-Categorical was again modified to reflect when the courses are offered. Since the
faculty and staff allocations are small (although the program is experiencing steady growth) some courses are offered once a year. A course rotation
was developed several years ago to offer one special education course per semester in evening or online format. Additionally, beginning in fall ’09
two C & I Methods and prestudent teaching experiences are offered online. Students rotate between coursework online and direct teaching in a field
experience. Informal data collected indicated an increase in satisfaction in both the content and more authentic field experiences.
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Page 15
The following are changes or improvements planned for the upcoming years:
2010 Goals
1
2
3
4
5
6
DAWG group and Advisory Board will discuss possible provisions
for Fall 2011
PD will monitor PPST and PRAXIS II test scores to determine the
need for future program revisions
PD will continue to work closely with Minnesota Department of
Education to ensure that Stout SPED graduates are certifiable in
Minnesota
PD will continue to work with SOE in designating a classroom
space in VR that is equipped with up-to-date media and technology
equipment
Continue to recruit quality candidates with an emphasis on
encouraging minorities and high school males to SPED
Continue to foster and improve relationships with partnering schools
primarily through authentic prestudent teaching experiences and
assistance with DIBELS testing
Evidence towards meeting goals or rationale for
abandoning
1. Program revision will occur during the 2011-12 academic
year.
2. Data collected will be utilized during the program revision.
3. In progress - continues
4. In progress - continues
5. In progress - continues
6. In progress - continues
Advisory Board Members Spring 2011
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
Natasha Daniels - student ambassador for special education
Sandy White - Continuing Education
Dr. Laura Schmidt - Mathematics
Sue Curtis, Director of Special Education – New Richmond School District
Dana Maney - Director of Special Education, CESA 11
Melissa Gumness - Undergraduate/Certification/Graduate Alumni. Special Education teacher with Eau Claire Area School District
Dr. Mary Hopkins-Best -Dean of CEHH (ex-officio member)
As per recommendations in 2008, 2009 and 2010, Advisory Board meets face-to-face one time per year and via electronic communication for other meetings and
issues as necessary.
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Page 16
Recruitment Plan
An update of the glossy fliers will be sent to every school district in the area, as well as to alumni. Many alumni have shown interest in coming back
for courses to enhance their degree in Special Education. In fall of 2005 we started a cohort program to directly respond to the alumni by offering
evening and weekend courses to accommodate their full-time working schedules. Working with Dr. Schlieve’ and Celene Fry’s 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, students 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, students are informed of changes in scheduling, offerings, prerequisites, and
program. Students can work individually with a faculty advisor during this time or with peers to determine their schedules. Beginning Fall 2011,
students will 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. Students are expected to
attend each Advisement Day. Beginning in spring ’07 students now 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, Amy Gillett, Ruth Nyland, and Lama
Othman to directly and effectively deal with class rank specific issues more efficiently and effectively. Dr. Ruth Nyland, Dr. Amy Schlieve, Dr.
Amy Gillett, and Dr. Renee Chandler, were the program faculty with Bonnie Shaw (retired principal and special education teacher) and Vicki Dowell
(retired special education teacher) serving as adjunct faculty.
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
students as it is for other Special Education majors in the state.
Students’ program plan sheets are updated each semester to verify their progress toward graduation. When there has been an academic problem, the
student has been advised of his/her options for remediation of the problem and how the program faculty has helped. In some instances, students have
been counseled out of the program and referred to other majors and program directors on campus.
Special Education AIM Report 2010
Page 17
Special Education, B.S.
Minority enrollment
Male
Female
Total enrollment
SCH
Student FTE
New Freshmen
Transfers
Number of graduates by year:
Number of male graduates
Number of female graduates
Number of minority graduates
Number employed in related major:
Number continuing education:
Number employed in major:
Percent employed:
One-Year Rates in Program
One-Year Retention Rates - Any Program
Six-Year Graduation Rates in Program
Six-Year Graduation Rates Any Program
Average High School Percentile
Average ACT Composite of New Freshmen
Average Cumulative GPA
Freshmen: 1-29.5 credits
Sophomore: 30-59.5 credits
Junior: 60-89.5 credits
Senior: 90 or more credits
Honors Program (FA10)
Learning Comm. Partic.
Study Abroad Students
% of grads who participated in Experiential Learning
Salary Average
Salary Low
Salary High
I would attend UW-Stout again
I would enroll in the same academic program
Three-Year Show Rates - New Freshmen
Three-Year Show Rates - New Transfers
10-11
09-10
5
31
62
93
1,295
86
26
10
NA NA
NA
NA
4
25
53
78
1,031
69
17
5
14
2
12
2
52.9%
71.0%
08-09
3
13
58
71
980
65
10
8
12
2
10
6
88.0%
60.0%
60.0%
07-08
3
10
56
66
935
62
11
7
7
1
6
6
100.0%
54.5%
63.6%
06-07
04-'05
2004
NA
NA
51.3%
20.1
NA
34
15
12
32
1
4
100%
NA
NA
NA
57.1%
20.1
2.83
22
12
14
30
NA
NA
NA
50.4%
20.0
2.51
14
15
15
27
69.7%
20.6
2.44
16
16
16
18
2003
2002
2001
2000
2008 Grads
2004 Grads
3
9
44
53
771
51
17
3
2
2
2
100.0%
58.8%
70.6%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
61.6%
19.9
3.20
22
11
8
12
NA
NA
NA
4.00 NA
4.00 NA
66%
70%
Special Education, B.S.
FR High School Percentile Rank
10-11
Enrollment Demographics
93
51.3%
09-10
78
57.1%
08-09
50.4%
07-08
69.7%
06-07
71
Enrollment New FR and Transfer
New FR Enrollment
Transfer Enrollment
66
53
Total
Enrollment
26
10
61.6%
FR ACT Avg. Composite score
10-11
31
20.1
8
25
09-10
20.1
08-09
20.0
Male
13
07-08
10
17
9
7
17
20.6
06-07
62
19.9
53
58
5
56
11
44
10
Female
FR Avg GPA
10-11
3
09-10
2.83
5
3
3
07-08
06-07
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
3.20
09-10
06-07
3
Minority
Enrollment
2.44
10-11
07-08
2.51
08-09
4
08-09
Special Education, B.S. 2
Employment Numbers
Male
graduates
6
-
-
-
-
-
-
08-09
07-08
06-07
-
09-10
10-11
Number
continuing
education
-
2
10-11
09-10
08-09
07-08
06-07
0.0%
Retention
Rates Any
Program
10-11
09-10
08-09
07-08
06-07
0.0%
12
Female
graduates
Experiential Learning
Percent Employed
10
-
1
6
2
-
2
2
Minority
graduates
-
-
-
-
Six Year Graduation Rates
Graduation Rates In Program
Graduation Rates - Any Program
52.9%
60.0%
54.5%
58.8%
71.0%
60.0%
63.6%
70.6%
Employment Percentages
10-11
09-10
08-09
100%
NA
88%
2
-
One Year Retention Rates
Retention
Rates in
Program
7
-
06-07
-
12
07-08
-
14
08-09
-
2
Total
graduates
by year
09-10
Number
employed
in related
major
6
10-11
Number
employed
in major
Graduates in Program
07-08
06-07
100%
100%
For more information on retention/graduation rates go to:
http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/bpa/ir/retention/indexstu.html
2004
0.0%
0.0%
2003
0.0%
0.0%
2002
0.0%
0.0%
2001
0.0%
0.0%
2000
0.0%
0.0%
Special Education, B.S. 3
Other
Three- Year Show Rates
10-11
10-11
70%
Salary Data
Salary
High
08-09
$-
4
Salary
Average
08-09
$-
Salary
Low
08-09
$-
SCH
1,295
66%
1,031
980
935
Student
Credit
Hours
771
1
10-11
09-10
08-09
07-08
06-07
Student FTE
86
69
65
62
51
Honors Learning Study
Program Comm. Abroad
(FA10) Partic. Students
FTE
Three-Year Three-Year
Show Rates - Show Rates New
New
Freshmen
Transfers
10-11
09-10
08-09
07-08
06-07