M.S. in School Counseling
Assessment in the Major Report
By Dr. Denise S. Brouillard, Program Director
2010
Submitted: September 2011
Table of Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Description of Assessment Methods (Methods used) ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Performance Based Assessment System: Benchmarks I-III ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Faculty Selection of Program Applicants: Benchmark I ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Student Dispositions Review: Benchmarks II, III .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Portfolio Assessment: Benchmarks II, III ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Criterion-referenced performance rubric for initial field experience (SCOUN 788, Practicum) and capstone clinical experience (SCOUN 789/90,
Internship) program component: Benchmark III ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Additional Faculty Review of Student Performance ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Findings and Student Learning Outcome Data ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
National Exam for Certification as School Counselor .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Portfolio Review ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Practicum and Internship Performance Ratings .............................................................................................................................................................. 7
Internship ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Disposition Review ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Dissemination ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Program Improvements ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Future Plans for Improvement .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Appendix A: Performance Based Assessment System School Counseling [2010] .......................................................................................................... 14
Appendix B: Disposition Review School Guidance and Counseling UW-Stout School of Education ............................................................................ 15
Appendix C: Portfolio Review Rubric School Counseling University of Wisconsin—Stout .......................................................................................... 17
Appendix D: Internship Evaluation Rubric: Midterm Assessment School Counseling University of Wisconsin—Stout .............................................. 19
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 1
Introduction
Academic year 2010 data represents the successful endorsement of program learning outcome measures by the Council for the Accreditation of
Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). Although eight year accreditation was granted in July of 2011, the endorsement includes
program practices and data dating back to 2010. CACREP has thus determined that the School Counseling program has a well established system for
measuring outcomes for student learning and interpersonal dispositions necessary for preparation as professional counselors.
This report presents findings of assessment of student learning outcomes and progress for the M.S. School Counseling Program. Data was provided
by the School of Education assessment coordinator. It includes the following:
 Methods used:
o Assessment Methods Utilized:
 Descriptions of indirect and direct methods
 Number of students involved
 Level of students involved (mid-program, end-of-program, etc.)
o Results and Interpretation:
 How results were shared with key instructors and other stakeholders
 How results from previous assessments have been used
 Plans for improvements based on results
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 2
Description of Assessment Methods (Methods used)
The M.S. School Counseling program at UW-Stout prepares graduate students for assuming the important role of the school counselor. Because the
program has been reviewed and designated as fully approved by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (most recent review 11/2009) and
national accreditation through CACREP (granted in 2011 and effective until 2019), it provides extensive classroom-based and experiential
instruction, along with continuous assessment of student progress, in accordance with Wisconsin’s Educator Licensing Statutes (PI 34).
Assessment of student progress occurs at several points throughout the program and through a variety of methods. Indirect methods include formal
and informal discussions between faculty about observations of student performance in class. Formal assessment processes are well-developed and
documented. Finally, the most recent culminating curricular-based assessment is the state of Wisconsin implementation of the Praxis II exam-content
area School Guidance and Counseling which began in fall 2010.
Performance-based (formal) assessment system: Benchmarks I-III
o Faculty review/selection of program applicants
o Student dispositions review (reviewed twice during program and at 18 credits and again during internship)
o Student portfolio review (reviewed twice during program and in SCOUN 765 and again during internship)
Performance Based Assessment System: Benchmarks I-III
Student progress is assessed at three critical points in each student’s program: admission to the program, mid-program review at 18 credits and final
review prior to completion of the capstone internship experience. A selection of measures, including transcript review, dispositions ratings, portfolio
review and rubric, and performance rubrics, are used in the process. Appendix A lists, by benchmark, the measures used at each.
Faculty Selection of Program Applicants: Benchmark I
As of fall semester 2010 all program applicants submit the Graduate College application to graduate school and the program. This includes copies of
all academic transcripts and three letters of recommendation. From the initial applicants approximately 10-20 more candidates than the number of
openings are invited to interview for a position in the program. Folio rating scores are used to determine which applicants are selected for an
interview.
Applicants selected for the interview meet with a team of two faculty and respond to a standard set of questions in the following areas: summary of
background and experiences; experience working with children, youth and individuals of diverse (multicultural) background; understanding and view
of the school counselors roles and duties; understanding of the impact of current issues on education and child well-being and candidates plan of
commitment (full or part time) to graduate schooling.
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 3
The review committee reviews and rates all applicants’ written applications and interview responses in the following areas: ability to do graduate
work (based on GPA and courses completed); related undergraduate/graduate preparation; related experience with youth; content and quality of
responses to essay questions; knowledge of the role and function of school counselors; and letters of recommendation. Committee members do not
consult with each other during this blind review process. Combining the folio ratings and the interview ratings yields a ranking of all applicants.
Final selection of admitted candidates is based on this ranked list.
Student Dispositions Review: Benchmarks II, III
As part of the Benchmark System for assessing student progress, student dispositions are reviewed for each student after s/he has earned 18 credits
and again during the semester they are enrolled in internship. The rubric for this review is attached in Appendix B. The eight identified dispositions
areas (attendance, preparedness, continuous learning, positive climate, reflectivity, thoughtful/responsive listener, cooperativeness/collaboration, and
professional (formerly “respectful”)) are consistent with those required of all School of Education students in order to meet state licensing
requirements under PI 34.
Portfolio Assessment: Benchmarks II, III
Students establish components of a portfolio in a core School Counseling course, Professional Orientation (SCOUN 765). Students currently
complete the portfolio over the course of three+ semesters. All 12 DPI established Content Guidelines of competence are measured in the portfolio
(see Appendix C for portfolio review rubric.) The instructor for SCOUN 765 evaluates each of the portfolios initially. The university internship
supervisor evaluates the completed portfolio near the end of internship, immediately prior to graduation (Benchmark III). Results of reviews are
shared in program faculty meetings, and group results are disseminated to the Program Advisory Committee each semester.
Criterion-referenced performance rubric for initial field experience (SCOUN 788, Practicum) and capstone clinical
experience (SCOUN 789/90, Internship) program component: Benchmark III
The 100-hour practicum is taken during the second or third semester in the program, after core prerequisite courses have been completed. The 600hour internship follows the remaining core coursework and serves as the capstone experience for graduate students. Practicum supervision is done by
university faculty in coordination with licensed educators in the field.
The university faculty who supervise students during practicum and the site supervisor-counselors who supervise students during internship complete
a criterion-referenced performance based rubric (see Appendix D) at the mid-point and completion of the experience. Data for the purpose of
informing program practices includes only the final evaluation for practicum and both midterm and final evaluation for internship. The supervising
university faculty member reviews the rubric in consultation with the cooperating counselor and other supervising faculty, thus assigning a final
grade.
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 4
Additional Faculty Review of Student Performance
In addition to systematic review of student progress at the benchmark points, the program director and program faculty monitor student learning
through the following:
Transcript Review. Student transcripts are reviewed by the program director. Students who fall below the minimum GPA of 3.0 in a program core
course and/or fail any course are informed of the deficiency and the necessity for meeting with the program director to develop a remediation plan.
Findings and Student Learning Outcome Data
National Exam for Certification as School Counselor
Prior to fall 2010 a volunteer cohort of students sat for the Praxis II; School Guidance and Counseling Content Exam and all volunteers passed the
exam. In fall of 2010 19 students sat for the Praxis II exam. Wisconsin requires a minimum passing score of 560 (ETS, July 1st, 2011) for
endorsement for licensure. All students who took the exam in 2010 received a passing score with the range of passing scores between the lowest of
600 to the highest score received of 730.
Portfolio Review
During the 2010 academic year 17 students submitted portfolios for an initial review (Benchmark II) and 23 submitted their portfolio for a final
review during internship. The data show that student artifact ratings increased from the initial review at bench mark II to internship, as expected. In
addition, when compared to 2009 data, overall artifact quality improved in 2010. One change the program made in 2010 was in requiring students to
include an artifact from internship in every domain area for portfolio. This provided a more up-to-date and accurate illustration of student skills at the
end of their program.
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 5
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 6
Practicum and Internship Performance Ratings
Practicum Data and Interpretation; 2009 and 2010:
The range of possible scores for practicum are a low of one (1=observer) and a high of four (4=novice). Data results indicate that student
performance was roughly the same over a two year period. On a four point scale all means for final practicum evaluation were 2.5-3.9 (ranging from
high observer to novice). For the 2010 cohort there was an increase in six domain areas compared to the 2009 cohort.
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 7
Internship
Internship Data and Interpretation:
The range of possible scores is a low of one (1=observer) and a high of six (6=initial practitioner). Internship final evaluation data show that students
in 2010 made skill development progress from midterm evaluation to final evaluation. It is expected that students perform in the 5-6 point range in all
domain areas by the end of their internship experience. The data show that this occurred. Data points from 2009 indicate that the scores from 2009
and 2010 are essentially the same (no statistical differences), thus highlighting consistent strong performance of students over a two year period.
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 8
Disposition Review
Disposition Data and Interpretation:
Scores for disposition ratings range from a low of one (1=unsatisfactory) to four (4=proficient). The minimum acceptable score is a three
(3=satisfactory). Students who receive less than a three in any domain are required to meet with the program director to draft a written plan for
improvement in that domain area. In 2010 there were three students who were on active remediation plans. Two students successfully completed
their remediation plans in spring of 2011. A third student was not successful in meeting remediation plan goals and was dismissed from the program
in 2011. Students are reviewed for dispositions at two points in the program; benchmark II at 18 credits completed in the program, and during
internship. The data below reflect scores during internship (end of program). All scores for 2010 reflect satisfactory +(3-4) scores for all students. In
addition, scores, over time, have increased since the program first instituted disposition reviews. Faculty have begun including informal feedback in
and outside of class, and a more in depth discussion of important dispositions is now included in new student orientation. These factors likely
contributed to better awareness for students about the interpersonal and professional qualities necessary for success in the program.
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 9
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 10
Dissemination
The School Counseling Program faculty meet once a month to discuss student progress, issues, review student performance and plan for program
needs and activities. Also, twice per year the program faculty host a Program Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting including faculty affiliate faculty
from mental health Counseling, Education, administration, as well as community and field based constituents (school counselors currently working in
the field) and at least one program student. Annual data is disseminated and discussed. Feedback from external stakeholders is sought regarding
student preparation and needs from the field where the program ought to respond.
In 2010 an Addendum report was sent to CACREP as a part of the accreditation process. However this was a part of the dissemination process, as the
future accrediting body for the School Counseling Program. The data disseminated to CACREP was then used as the basis for granting a campus site
visit and subsequent eight-year accreditation of the program.
Program Improvements
One of the most substantial changes to the program includes recent national accreditation. The program itself did not change in terms of curriculum,
etc. However, with national endorsement it is clear that program structure, curriculum, field experience and faculty preparation are well established.
In addition a few small suggestions were provided in April when the CACREP site visiting team was on campus to review the program. Three
changes came about as follows. The CACREP team The CACREP review team had suggestions in some sections of the report. The following is the
program faculty responses to those suggestions:
Include a more comprehensive study of addiction, addictive behaviors theories and etiologies: The program faculty developed a more extensive
study of addiction and addictive behaviors theories and etiologies that have now been incorporated into SCOUN 647-Behavior Problems of Children
and Adolescents. The identification of signs and symptoms of substance abuse have also been included in SCOUN 647-Behavior Problems of
Children and Adolescents. Program faculty will also work with the instructors for the Lifespan Human Development course (HDFS 742) to further
incorporate the study of those topics into the course materials.
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 11
Future Plans for Improvement
Some of the plans for the next year are ongoing and will be developed and completed over the next several years. These goals were derived out of the
2010 PRC review of the program, and are consultant recommendations provided to the program director:
1. “Develop a protocol for supporting students that do not pass the Praxis-II Exam which is a new graduation requirement.”
Over the next semester the program the faculty will develop a procedure for students who do not pass the Praxis II. This will include possible
alternatives to allow the student to take internship, or other avenues in career options.
CACREP Team Reviewer Suggested Goals:
2. Create a cross walk matrix of the CACREP standards and course topics that address each standard. Response: The program faculty
will work over 2011 to align the course syllabi to the specific 2009 CACREP Standards language. We will index class topics to the CACREP
standards and will present that in a crosswalk matrix in each course syllabus for easy reference for students and faculty.
3. Develop a master crosswalk to include all content areas and school counseling standards for student access: During the 2011
academic year the School Counseling faculty will develop a crosswalk between the CACREP 2009 standards, curriculum content, outcome
measures, especially related to skills and practice of school counseling.
Two additional items are planned for future improvements to the program:
1. In September 2011 Barb Flom developed a proposal for an in service training for practicum and internship site supervisors. This in service
would apprise site supervisors of recent changes to the school counseling program (e.g., CACREP accreditation), a review of the new (2010)
ASCA Ethical Code, a mini training on Title IX and Sexual harassment, and case law summary related to school counselors and NCAA
requirements related to advising student athletes.
2. A second goal is to complete a program ‘mini’ revision. While still in progress, the program faculty plan to hone the selective choices (2
credits required toward degree), eliminating courses that fall under the ‘workshop/professional development’ option. In addition, an action
research agenda will be embedded and highlighted in SCOUN 793, Internship seminar. This will better meet requirements to for evidencebased practice standards now included in counselor education. One credit will be added to the internship seminar and evidence based practice
research course, while the SCOUN 735 Problems in Counseling will be dropped as a requirement. Faculty will also further consider
including a current selective, Play Therapy, as a new required course.
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 12
Respectfully Submitted,
Denise S. Brouillard, M.S., LP, NCC, Ph.D,
Associate professor and Program Director
School Counseling Program
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 13
Appendix A: Performance Based Assessment System School Counseling [2010]
The School of Education has adopted a Pupil Services Performance-Based Assessment System to ensure that all pupil service candidates possess the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions required for successful careers in education. This assessment system establishes benchmarks at which all
candidates for pupil services certification will be assessed. In addition, all pupil services candidates will be required to maintain a portfolio with
evidence of meeting the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction School Counseling Content Guidelines.
Benchmark I: Acceptance into the Guidance and Counseling Program
 Earned bachelor’s degree
 Undergraduate GPA of 2.75 or greater
 Satisfactory scores on folio review rating scale
 Satisfactory scores on interview rating scale
 Passed educator background check
Benchmark II: Candidate review of progress at 18 credits
 Satisfactory scores on portfolio review rating scale
 Satisfactory scores on dispositions’ review rating scale (>24 total score and satisfactory or above ratings in each area)
Benchmark III: Final review
 Satisfactory scores on dispositions review for all probationary students
 Satisfactory scores on portfolio review rating scale
 Satisfactory completion of all degree/certification requirements
 When available, completion of Wisconsin’s content exam
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 14
Appendix B: Disposition Review School Guidance and Counseling UW-Stout School of Education
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 15
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 16
Appendix C: Portfolio Review Rubric School Counseling University of Wisconsin—Stout
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 17
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 18
Appendix D: Internship Evaluation Rubric: Midterm Assessment School Counseling University of
Wisconsin—Stout
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 19
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 20
School Counseling AIM Report 2010
Page 21