B.S. in Special Education
Assessment in the Major Report
By Dr. Amy Schlieve, Program Director
2009
Submitted October 2010
Table of Contents
Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test .................................................................................................................................................................1
PRAXIS II: Middle School Content Test Summary ...............................................................................................................................................2
Summary at Benchmark I, II and III ........................................................................................................................................................................4
Disposition Ratings ..................................................................................................................................................................................................8
Student Teacher Ratings…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10
Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI) .........................................................................................................................................................12
Communicating Assessment Data with Constituencies .........................................................................................................................................15
Utilization of Assessment Data to Improve Courses and the Program ..................................................................................................................19
Advisory Board Members Spring 2008 .................................................................................................................................................................19
Recruitment Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................................20
Advisement Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................................20
Retention Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................................................20
Overview
The University of Wisconsin-Stout School of Education (SOE) has gathered assessment data gathered from fall semester 2003 through December
2009. 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, and the Educational Benchmarking Inventory (EBI). This report also describes how assessment data is used to set programmatic goals,
improve the program, program curriculum, and delivery of courses.
PRAXIS I: Pre-Professional Skills Test
PPST Attempts and Pass Rates
Due to the Datatel to PeopleSoft conversion, we are not currently able to disaggregate PPST pass percentages by program. This process is being
developed. We hope to have this capability by 2011. Therefore, we only have disaggregated data through 2008.
SPED
Math
Reading
Writing
2004
# test
attempts
-------------
VR
(SPED
certificate)
Math
Reading
Writing
32
33
32
26 = 81%
24 = 73%
21 = 66%
8
10
9
5 = 63%
6 = 60%
3 = 33%
6
4
7
Math
266
215 = 80.8%
189
151 = 80.0%
204
Reading
368
214 = 58.2%
239
138 = 57.7%
280
Writing
425
206 = 48.5%
277
136 = 49.1%
296
Teacher
Education
Program
Undergraduate
TOTALS
PPST
Test
Special Education AIM Report 2009
2004
# (and %)
passed
-------------
2005
# test
attempts
8
9
11
2005
# (and %)
passed
7 = 88%
4 = 44%
6 = 55%
2006
# test
attempts
15
28
24
2006
# (and %)
passed
12 = 80%
11 = 39%
13 = 54%
2007
# test
attempts
20
23
23
2007
# (and %)
passed
13
10
14
2008
# test
attempts
16
22
18
2008
# (and %)
passed
14 = 88%
18 = 82%
12 = 67%
5 = 83%
2 = 50%
4 = 57%
148 =
72.5%
145 =
51.8%
161 =
54.4%
1
3
2
1
2
2
1
1
--
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
226
191 = 84.5%
130
102 = 78.5%
243
184 = 75.7%
150
119 = 79.3%
257
200 = 77.8%
138
104 = 75.4%
--
Page 1
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, mathematics, history/social studies, and science. The score needed to pass the Content Test
is 146.
The most recent data shows the lowest score for SE and VR/SE was 128 and the highest was 181 with a passing rate of 71%. 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 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. However, comparisons with
other state test-takers suggest that UW-Stout SPED majors have more difficulty answering literacy and mathematics test questions on the PRAXIS II
than others in Wisconsin.
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
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 2009
03/04
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
59
184
101
149
136-163
146
34/59
58%
-
15
185
128
148
143-159
146
9
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%
Page 2
Average Percent Correct on PRAXIS II (number of items answered correctly by area)
Middle School
Content Test
Category
Literature
Mathematics
History / Social
Studies
Science
UW-Stout
Points
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
Available
%
%
%
%
%
%
26-30
59
65
66
64
64
28-30
53
58
62
60
61
Wisconsin
08/09 %
72
70
28-30
53
-
56
53
53
52
58
28-30
59
-
58
60
58
61
64
2008/2009 Percent of Items Answered Correctly on the PRAXIS II
80
70
60
50
40
UW-Stout
30
Wisconsin
20
10
0
Family
Special Education AIM Report 2009
Human
Management Nutrition/Food
Development
Page 3
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. 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
Special Education AIM Report 2009
0
7
0
7
0
7
0
7
FA08
N=7
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0
0% 0
0%
Satisfactory
5
100% 7
Unsatisfactory
0
0% 0
Response
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
0
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
Unsatisfactory
SP08
N=5
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
FA09
N=1
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0
0% 0
0%
100% 10
100% 1
0%
SP09
N=10
0
0%
10 100%
0
0%
10 100%
0
0%
10 100%
0
0%
10 100%
0
0% 0
SOE UNIT
SP09
FA09
N=69
N=27
1
1% 2
7%
68 99% 25 93%
1
1% 0
0%
68 99% 27 100%
0
0% 1
4%
69 100% 26 96%
0
0% 1
4%
69 100% 26 96%
1
100% 68
0%
2
1%
1
4%
99% 26
96%
3%
3
11%
Page 4
how these examples illustrate your understanding
of the content you will be teaching
Completed Alignment Summary
Special Education AIM Report 2009
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory
5
0
5
100% 7
0% 0
100% 7
100% 10
0% 0
100% 10
100% 1
0% 0
100% 1
100% 67
0% 2
100% 67
97% 24 89%
3% 0
0%
97% 27 100%
Page 5
Benchmark II Interview Results Special Education
SP08
N=8
Question
Describe your Philosophy of Education and
how it has evolved
Describe what it means to be a "Reflective
Practitioner"
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and
Domain you feel most competent in
Describe the WI Teacher Standard and
Domain you have experienced the greatest
growth
Response
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Fre.
0
1
6
1
0
2
5
1
0
4
3
1
0
4
3
1
%
0%
13%
75%
13%
0%
25%
63%
13%
0%
50%
38%
13%
0%
50%
38%
13%
FA08
N=12
Fre.
0
6
6
0
0
7
5
0
0
6
6
0
0
6
6
0
%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
58%
42%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
SP09
N=8
Fre.
%
FA09
N=9
Fre.
0
0%
0
0%
8 100%
0
0%
0
0%
1 13%
7 88%
0
0%
0
0%
1 13%
7 88%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
8 100%
0
0%
%
SOE UNIT
SP09
FA09
N=70
N=59
Fre.
%
Fre.
%
0
0%
0
0%
9 100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
9 100%
0
0%
0
0%
1 11%
8 89%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
9 100%
0
0%
1
16
53
0
2
17
51
0
1
13
56
0
1
12
57
0
1%
23%
76%
0%
3%
24%
73%
0%
1%
19%
80%
0%
1%
17%
81%
0%
2
21
36
0
1
16
42
0
1
12
46
0
1
21
37
0
3%
36%
61%
0%
2%
27%
71%
0%
2%
20%
78%
0%
2%
36%
63%
0%
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
9
0
1
8
26
35
0
1
9
60
2
1%
11%
37%
50%
0%
1%
13%
86%
3%
1
10
20
28
0
3
4
52
8
2%
17%
34%
47%
0%
5%
7%
88%
14%
Reviewers choose 2 of the following; discuss portfolio evidence that:
demonstrates your content knowledge
demonstrates your knowledge of how
children grow and learn
demonstrates your ability to create
Special Education AIM Report 2009
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
0
2
5
1
0
4
1
3
0
0%
25%
63%
13%
0%
50%
13%
38%
0%
0
5
6
1
0
2
4
6
0
0%
42%
50%
8%
0%
17%
33%
50%
0%
0
0
5
3
0
0
3
5
0
0%
0%
63%
38%
0%
0%
38%
63%
0%
Page 6
instructional opportunities adapted to
diverse learners
demonstrates your ability to teach
effectively
demonstrates your ability to manage a
classroom effectively, including organizing
physical space, managing procedures and
student behavior, and creating a culture of
respect, rapport, and learning
demonstrates your ability to communicate
effectively with students, parents, and
colleagues
demonstrates your ability to assess student
learning
demonstrates your professionalism,
including ongoing professional
development; fostering relationships with
colleagues, families, and the community;
and displaying ethical behavior expected of
education professionals
Special Education AIM Report 2009
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
4
1
3
0
4
1
3
0
4
1
50%
13%
38%
0%
50%
13%
38%
0%
50%
13%
3
5
4
0
2
5
5
0
4
4
25%
42%
33%
0%
17%
42%
42%
0%
33%
33%
0
4
4
0
0
3
5
0
0
4
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
38%
63%
0%
0%
50%
0
1
8
0
0
0
9
0
0
8
7
33
28
0
1
10
59
1
6
22
10%
47%
40%
0%
1%
14%
84%
1%
9%
31%
3
11
37
0
3
6
50
0
13
15
5%
19%
63%
0%
5%
10%
85%
0%
22%
25%
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Basic
3
0
2
5
1
0
3
4
1
0
2
5
38%
0%
25%
63%
13%
0%
38%
50%
13%
0%
25%
63%
4
0
1
4
7
0
3
4
5
0
2
3
33%
0%
8%
33%
58%
0%
25%
33%
42%
0%
17%
25%
4
0
1
4
3
0
1
7
0
0
0
2
50%
0%
13%
50%
38%
0%
13%
88%
0%
0%
0%
25%
1
0
1
2
6
0
1
5
3
0
0
0
41
0
2
20
48
1
8
28
33
0
8
8
59%
0%
3%
29%
69%
1%
11%
40%
47%
0%
11%
11%
31
0
5
4
50
0
14
19
26
0
4
13
53%
0%
8%
7%
85%
0%
24%
32%
44%
0%
7%
22%
n/a
1 13%
7 58%
6
75%
9
54 77%
42 71%
Page 7
Benchmark III Interview Results Special Education
Question
Response
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Artifacts from student teaching, reflection ratings Basic
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Final Student Teaching Assessments and
Basic
Recommendations from Cooperating Teachers
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Disposition ratings from student teaching from
Basic
cooperating & University Supervisors
Proficient
n/a
Unsatisfactory
Emerging
Alignment Summary of artifacts meeting all 10
Wisconsin Teaching Standards & 4 Domains/
Basic
Components & reflections/ reflection ratings
Proficient
n/a
Special Education AIM Report 2009
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
1
8
0
0
0
1
8
0
SP08
N=9
0%
0%
11%
89%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
11%
89%
0%
0%
0%
11%
89%
0%
FA08
N=6
0 0%
0 0%
3 50%
3 50%
0 0%
0 0%
1 17%
2 33%
3 50%
0 0%
0 0%
1 17%
2 33%
3 50%
0 0%
0 0%
2 33%
2 33%
3 50%
0 0%
SP09
N=15
0
0%
0
0%
1
7%
14
93%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
15 100%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
7%
13
87%
1
7%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
15 100%
0
0%
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
1
1
2
0
FA09
N=4
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
75%
25%
0%
25%
25%
50%
0%
SOE UNIT
SP09
FA09
N=80
N=47
0 0% 0
0%
2 3% 1
2%
23 29% 7 15%
55 69% 39 83%
0 0% 0
0%
0 0% 0
0%
3 4% 0
0%
24 30% 7 15%
51 64% 47 100%
2 3% 0
0%
0 0% 0
0%
1 1% 0
0%
23 29% 3
6%
38 48% 17 36%
18 23% 29 62%
0 0% 0
0%
7 9% 5 11%
16 20% 5 11%
56 70% 37 79%
1 1% 0
0%
Page 8
Disposition Ratings
The School of Education is in the process of revising and improving upon our dispositional rating process. In the interim, we are gathering
dispositional data (satisfactory/unsatisfactory) each spring on undergraduate students prior to their student teaching experience. If a student receives
an unsatisfactory rating, he/she must remediate his/her disposition before allowed to progress in their program (through Benchmark I or II).
100% satisfactory disposition ratings are required at the time of Benchmark I and Benchmark II.
Starting in spring of 2010 a disposition form was implemented during student teaching with categories that align directly to our statement of values
and disposition. These factors include: “Initiative, Preparedness & Continuous Learning”, “Academic Excellence through Critical Reflective
Thinking”, “Expression of Beliefs, Collaboration and Professional Communication”, “Adherence to Ethical and Legal Considerations”, and “Respect
for Diversity”. Students are rated on a 3-point scale: Unsatisfactory/Emerging, Basic, and Proficient, by their cooperating teachers. A student would
not be eligible for licensure if an unsatisfactory/emerging rating was reported during student teaching.
Special Education AIM Report 2009
Page 9
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 Course Evaluations Special Education
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
SOE UNIT
SP08
N=9
Std
Mean Dev
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
Special Education AIM Report 2009
FA08
N=4
Std
Mean Dev
SP09
N=15
Std
Mean Dev
FA09
N=5
Std
Mean Dev
SP09
N=78
Std
Mean Dev
FA09
N=74
Std
Mean Dev
3.89
3.89
0.33
0.33
4.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
3.87
3.80
0.52
0.56
3.80
3.60
0.45
0.89
3.87
3.75
0.36
0.39
3.72
3.71
0.32
0.39
4.00
3.89
0.00
0.33
4.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
3.87
3.80
0.52
0.56
3.60
3.60
0.89
0.89
3.82
3.77
0.35
0.39
3.70
3.79
0.42
0.47
3.78
3.89
0.44
0.33
3.75
3.50
0.50
0.58
3.80
3.80
0.56
0.41
3.60
3.80
0.89
0.45
3.73
3.74
0.47
0.40
3.68
3.67
0.46
0.36
3.78
0.44
3.75
0.50
3.73
0.59
3.60
0.89
3.84
0.41
3.75
0.37
3.89
0.33
4.00
0.00
3.67
0.72
3.00
1.73
3.81
0.45
3.48
0.67
3.78
0.44
3.75
0.50
3.80
0.56
3.80
0.45
3.84
0.36
3.75
0.32
3.78
0.44
3.45
0.53
3.67
0.90
3.80
0.45
3.62
0.52
3.66
0.37
Page 10
Student Teacher Course Evaluations Special Education
Rating Scale: 1=Unsatisfactory, 2=Emerging, 3=Basic, 4=Proficient
4.00
3.90
3.80
3.70
3.60
3.50
3.40
3.30
3.20
3.10
3.00
SP08: N=9
FA08: N=4
SP09: N=15
FA09: N=5
Special Education AIM Report 2009
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. Beginning with the fall semester 2007 an online and summer rotation
began for all required special education courses. This rotation supports non-traditional undergraduate students who are often limited in the number of
courses they are able to take during the day.
Special Education AIM Report 2009
Page 12
Special Education AIM Report 2009
Page 13
EBI - Institution Specific Questions 2009-2010
Mean Data; Scale 1-7
ARTED CTET ECE
FCSE MBE SPED TECED SOE
N=8
N=11 N=43 N=10 N=10 N=9 N=20 N=127
To what degree were you prepared to create meaningful learning
experiences for students based on your content knowledge?
5.75 5.80 5.59 5.20 5.60 6.12
4.67
5.42
To what degree were you prepared to provide instruction that
fosters student learning and intellectual, social and personal
development?
4.75 5.60 5.54 5.10 5.30 6.25
4.65
5.29
To what degree were you prepared to create instructional
experiences adapted for students who learn differently?
4.75 5.70 5.56 4.90 5.00 6.12
4.45
5.21
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?
5.00 5.60 5.34 5.70 5.80 5.75
4.80
5.32
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?
4.62 5.10 5.41 4.40 4.80 5.57
4.20
4.91
To what degree were you prepared to use instructional technology
and media to foster active inquiry, collaboration and interaction in
the classroom?
4.38 5.60 4.82 5.60 6.30 5.38
4.65
5.05
To what degree were you prepared to plan instruction based on
knowledge of subject matter, students, the community and
curriculum goals?
5.25 5.10 5.60 5.10 6.20 5.75
4.75
5.35
To what degree were you prepared to use formal and informal
assessment strategies to evaluate student progress?
4.43 4.90 5.05 5.20 6.00 6.00
4.80
5.14
To what degree were you prepared to reflect on teaching and
evaluate the effects of choices and actions on pupils, parents and
others?
5.12 5.30 6.06 5.10 5.70 6.29
5.00
5.60
To what degree were you prepared to foster relationships with
colleges, families and the community to support student learning
and well-being?
5.00 4.90 5.70 5.10 4.90 6.25
4.30
5.16
*We updated our questions for the 2009-2010 school year therefore trend data is not available
Special Education AIM Report 2009
Page 14
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. Assessment data
collected also indicated a need for additional tenured/tenure track faculty. A search was conducted second semester of 2009-10 and a new tenuretrack faculty was hired began teaching in fall 1020.
The following are changes or improvements planned for the upcoming year.
• 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
Advisory Board Members Spring 2008
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
Vicky Thomas - advisement
Sandy White - Continuing Education
Dr. Laura Schmidt - Mathematics
Special Education AIM Report 2009
Page 15
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 and again in 2009, 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. 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. Schlieves’ 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. Head count numbers for Fall 2010 Intro to
Special Education are at 52 (with 16 transfers) up from 34 (14 tranfers) in 2009.
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. 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 and Ruth Nyland to directly and effectively deal with class rank
specific issues more efficiently and effectively. Dr. Ruth Nyland, Dr. Amy Schlieve, Dr. Amy Gillett, and Renee Chandler, ABD 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.
Special Education AIM Report 2009
Page 16
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 2009
Page 17