Professional Education Unit Assessment Report ‐ Initial Preparation Programs Academic Year 2012‐13 Report Version: October 2, 2013 Note: Please direct any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report to Jacqueline Pope‐Tarrence (jacqueline.pope@wku.edu), CEBS Associate Dean for Accountability & Research. Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 2 of 2 Professional Education Unit Assessment Report ‐ Initial Preparation Programs Academic Year 2012‐13 Overview: This report includes assessment and survey results from the following data collection points and sources:  Admission Data (Academic Year 2012‐13) o Number and average GPA by program of teacher preparation candidates approved by the Professional Education Council for admission o Admission test score averages by program  Course‐Based Assessment Data (Academic Year 2012‐13) o Percentage of candidates scoring at each level of proficiency on critical performances o Percentage of program candidates scoring proficient on critical performances by Kentucky Teacher Standards o Listing of candidates scoring below proficiency on at least two critical performances  Clinical Experiences Data (Academic Year 2012‐13) o Field Experience Summary demographic information (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] and candidate self‐report data) o Student teaching demographic information (NCES data)  Dispositions Data (Academic Year 2012‐13) o Admission and early clinical dispositions data by program o Student Teacher Evaluation dispositions results by program  Culminating Assessment Data (Academic Year 2012‐13) o Teacher Work Sample (TWS) Results: Candidates Meeting Standards (by program, by TWS components, and by Kentucky Teacher Standards) o Teacher Work Sample Results: Impact on P‐12 Student Learning o Student Teacher Evaluation results by program and Kentucky Teacher Standards  Exit and Follow‐Up Data o Praxis results (2011‐12 cohort) o WKU Teacher Survey results (2012‐13 student teacher) o Education Professional Standards Board New Teachers Survey Results (2011‐12) See the WKU Professional Education Unit Wide Continuous Assessment Matrix – Initial Preparation on the next page for a conceptual map that guides our data collection efforts. Section 1 describes results by data collection point. Section 2 summarizes these results based on what they tell us about candidate proficiency toward Kentucky Teacher Standards, as well as other key Conceptual Framework values. Section 3 discusses current and planned efforts to report and disseminate these results. Section 4 outlines key decisions made during 2012‐13 based on the 2011‐12 Annual Report and new decisions to be considered based on the 2012‐13 results.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 3 of 3 Faculty
Recs
KY
REQ's
Designs/Plans
Learning Climate
Implements/Manages
Assessment/Evaluation
Technology
Reflection
Collaboration
Professional Development
Leadership
Dispositions
FR a-f
Field Experiences & Clinical
Practice
Diversity
Various Data Required by State for Admission into Teacher Preparation Programs
Content Knowledge
CF1-3, LG2, LG5
DATA HOUSED IN:
DATA REPORTING CYCLE:
DATA REVIEWED BY:
Praxis II
Pass
Rate
Graduate
Survey
Principal
Survey*
1a-d
1a-d
2a-e
2a-e
3a-e
3a-e
4a-e
4a-e
5a-e
5a-e
6a-d
6a-d
7a-c
7a-c
8a-d
8a-d
3a-e, Overall
3a-e
4a-e, Overall
4a-e
LG6, LG8, LG9,
DFI1, DFI5, ASL2
5a-d, Overall
5a-e
DFI3, ASL1
6a-d, Overall
6a-d
ASL2-3, ROT2,
ROT3
7a-c, Overall
7a-c
8a-b, Overall
8a-d
9a-c, Overall
9a-d
9a-d
9a-d
10a, Overall
10a-d
10a-d
10a-d
Ed Tech
Ed Tech
ROT1-3
FX a-l
Disp a-l
Summary Form
OTS Data
Summary Form
OTS Data
Impacts P-12 Student
Learning
DATA MAINTAINED BY:
Component 5:
Exit and Follow-Up Data
State Approved Certification Exams
Conceptual Framework
Standards/Values
Aligned to Kentucky Teacher Standards
Component 1:
Admission Data
WKU PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNIT WIDE CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT MATRIX - INITIAL PREPARATION
Component 2:
Component 4:
Component 3:
Course-Based
Clinical Experiences Data
Culminating Assessment Data
Assessment Data
Capstone
Final Clinical
Exit
Critical
Early Clinical
Final Clinical
Assessment
Evaluation
Survey
Performances
Experiences
Experience
(TWS**)
LG4, DFI2, DFI4,
1a-d, Overall
1a-d
ASL4
CF1-3, LG1, LG3,
LG4, LG7, DFI1-2,
2a-e, Overall
2a-e
DFI4-5, ASL2
CF3,LG4,LG7,DFI1,
DFI2
Disp g
ASL1-4
OTSƗ
Faculty
CEBS ACCSYS
CEBS ACCSYS
STEƗ Staff
OTS
CEBS ACCSYS
OTS Staff/Ed Tech
STE/EdTech
Ed Tech
CEBS ACCSYS
OTS
BANNER/CEBS ACCSYS
Semester
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Biannually
PECƗ
Faculty/Programs/
PEC
Program/PEC
Programs/PEC
Programs/PEC
Programs/PEC
Programs/PEC
PEC
Programs/PEC
Programs/PEC
Note: Cells reflect instruments or rubric/survey items keyed to CF Standards/Values ƗOTS=Office of Teacher Services: PEC=Professional Education Council; STE=School of
Teacher Education *Collection of Principal Survey data collected by EPSB for 2011-2012 **The revised TWS
Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 4 of 4 Section 1. Continuous Assessment Results A. Admission Data (Academic Year 2012‐13) Table 1 provides the number, average test scores, and overall GPAs of candidates by programs approved by the Professional Education Council (PEC) for admission into initial teacher preparation programs. Before the Office of Teacher Services submits their names for review and approval by the PEC, candidates must meet minimum requirements established by the state and/or the WKU Professional Education Unit. Table 1. Approved Candidate Test Score and GPA Averages by Program** Program ACT N Mean PPST* Math N Mean
PPST*
Reading N Mean
PPST*
Writing N Mean
SAT N Mean GRE Composite N Mean 131001 ‐ Special Education LBD and MSD 24 23 8 178 11 194 11 190 6 131012 ‐ Comm Disorders 13 24 1 1060 48 131202 ‐ Early ELED P‐5 117 24 21 178 22 177 21 176 3 1477 131203 ‐ Middle Grades Education P‐5 51 24 3 180 4 178 3 176 131210 ‐ IECE 3 22 1 131301 ‐ Agriculture 4 24 131302 ‐ Art Education 10 23 131303 ‐ Business Education 1 21 131305 ‐ English (English and Allied Lang. Arts 28 25 131308 ‐ Family and Consumer Sciences 1 21 131311 ‐ Mathematics 21 24 131312 ‐ Music Education 12 24 2 178 2 179 2 175 131314 ‐ Physical Education 5 23 3 182 3 176 3 173 131318 ‐ History (Social Studies) 14 25 131320 ‐ Industrial Technology 1 23 131322 ‐ Biology 6 24 2 131323 ‐ Chemistry 5 25 1 187 1 179 1 176 1 131326 ‐ German 1 183 1 184 1 179 131329 ‐ Physics 1 26 131330 ‐ Spanish 5 26 131334 ‐ School Media Specialist 1 183 1 181 1 174 1 420101 ‐ School Psychology 2 31 6 Grand Total 324 24 40 179 45 182 43 179 4 1373 65 *PPST refers to the ETS Pre‐Professional Skills Tests: Mathematics (M), Reading (R), & Writing (W,) respectively. ** Ns reflect admissions from 6/13/12 to 8/14/13 Admission GPA N Mean
945 47 3.23 950 70 198 3.71 3.33 66 7 5 11 3.26 3.39 3.31 3.26 1 3.23 30 3.17 2 23 3.42 3.28 19 3.32 11 3.29 24 3.36 1 9 9 1 1 6 3.54 3.56 3.30 3.44 3.52 3.55 305 5 3.37 632 903 6 552 3.44 3.36 292 1065 920 Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 5 of 5 B. Course‐Based Assessment Data Table 2 provides the percentage of candidates scoring at each level of proficiency on critical performances within professional education courses for the 2012‐13 academic year. Proficiency levels are based on the following scale: 1 – Standard Not Met, 2 – Standard Partially Met, 3 – At Standard, and 4 – Above Standard. Table 2. CP Proficiency Level Percentages Course AGED‐250 AMS‐333 ART‐411 ART‐413 ART‐490 ED201 EDU201 EDU‐250 EDU‐489 ELED‐345 ELED‐355 ELED‐365 ELED‐405 ELED‐406 ELED‐407 ELED‐465 EXED‐330 FACS‐381 IECE‐321 IECE‐322 IECE‐324 IECE‐325 IECE‐326 IECE‐421 IECE‐422 LME‐318 LME‐407 LME‐410 LME‐448 LTCY‐310 LTCY‐320 LTCY‐420 LTCY‐421 MGE‐275 MGE‐385 MGE‐475 MGE‐481 MUS‐312 MUS‐412 PE‐121 1 2 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.67% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 1.38% 8.56% 0.68% 1.33% 0.78% 0.00% 0.88% 0.22% 1.50% 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.66% 5.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 0.00% 4.08% 0.00% 7.09% 2.33% 6.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 50.00% 50.00% 45.33% 62.50% 86.21% 100.00% 78.28% 85.32% 79.80% 69.90% 82.81% 81.18% 73.63% 70.61% 92.79% 10.81% 0.00% 56.80% 40.00% 11.11% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 42.86% 65.79% 48.72% 75.00% 91.11% 61.54% 62.40% 30.10% 95.92% 41.03% 29.92% 97.67% 84.85% 87.50% 89.66% 100.00% 4 100.00% 50.00% 50.00% 48.00% 25.00% 13.79% 0.00% 20.34% 6.12% 19.52% 28.57% 16.41% 18.82% 25.49% 29.17% 5.41% 86.49% 100.00% 43.20% 60.00% 88.89% 100.00% 50.00% 75.00% 57.14% 33.55% 46.15% 25.00% 8.89% 38.46% 35.60% 69.90% 0.00% 58.97% 62.99% 0.00% 9.09% 12.50% 10.34% 0.00% Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 6 of 6 Course 1 PE‐314 PE‐319 PE‐320 PH‐261 PH‐381 PSY‐310 SEC‐351 SEC‐352 SEC‐453 SEC‐475 SEC‐481 SMED‐102 SMED‐210 SMED‐301 SMED‐320 SMED‐340 SMED‐360 SMED‐470 SPAN‐374 SPED‐330 SPED‐331 SPED‐332 SPED‐333 SPED‐422 SPED‐431 SPED‐432 SPED‐434 Grand Total 2 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 3.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.21% 3 11.11% 20.00% 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.93% 0.00% 9.09% 13.33% 5.00% 41.38% 16.67% 0.00% 2.48% 4 88.89% 80.00% 66.67% 54.35% 80.00% 10.17% 58.45% 60.28% 18.91% 100.00% 100.00% 38.00% 10.71% 33.63% 61.26% 33.85% 63.79% 78.53% 80.00% 3.26% 0.00% 45.45% 60.00% 30.00% 41.38% 66.67% 41.67% 62.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 45.65% 20.00% 85.69% 41.55% 39.72% 81.09% 0.00% 0.00% 62.00% 89.29% 66.37% 38.74% 66.15% 36.21% 21.47% 20.00% 95.81% 100.00% 45.45% 26.67% 55.00% 13.79% 16.67% 58.33% 34.80% Table 3 indicates the level of candidate proficiency by program across critical performances related to the Kentucky Teacher Standards. Candidates receiving an overall rating of 3 or 4 on a CP are considered to have demonstrated proficiency on the standards associated with the CP. Table 3. Percent† of Program Students Scoring Proficient on CPs by Kentucky Teacher Standard Program Elementary Ed Middle Grades Ed Secondary Ed P‐12 Ed 5‐12 Ed Special Ed IECE Unit‐Wide Kentucky Teacher Standards* 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 8 9 10 99% 98% 97% 98% 99% 98% 98% 99% 99% 100% 95% 97% 97% 99% 96% 97% 98% 96% 94% 98% 97% 97% 96% 100% 96% 97% 97% 96% 97% 99% 94% 94% 93% 98% 95% 92% 95% 93% 94% 98% 98% 95% 98% 100% 93% 98% 99% 97% 98% 100% 93% 95% 97% 95% 86% 98% 95% 99% 97% 98% 94% 98% 94% 100% 98% 100% 95% 97% 100% 90% 97% 97% 97% 98% 97% 97% 97% 98% 97% 99% †Percentages based on all CPs completed by candidates based on their coursework‐‐not just program requirements*KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 3 – Maintains Learning Climate, 4 – Implements/Manages Instruction, 5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 8 – Collaboration, 9 – Professional Development, 10 – Leadership Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 7 of 7 Table 4 provides counts of 23 students who scored two or below on two or more critical performances over the 2012‐13 academic year. The table highlights the counts of 3 students who scored low on three or more critical performances. Table 4. Count of Students Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Score Student ID 2 Count Per Student 800+ 800+
2 2 2 2 800+
2 2 800+
2 2 800+
2 2 800+
2 2 800+
1 2 800+
800+
1 800+
800+
2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 800+
2 2 800+
2 2 800+
1 2 2 2 800+
2 2 800+
2 2 800+
2 2 800+
2 2 800+
2 2 800+
2 2 800+
1 3 4 800+
1 3 4 800+
1 5 6 Student N 23 Students with three or more low scores 3 C. Clinical Experiences Data (Academic Year 2012‐13) Over the 2012‐13 academic year, 979 students reported demographic information on 1810 field placements, with an average of 18% ethnically diverse students, 49% students on free/reduced lunch, and 15% students with disabilities (based on data from National Center for Education Statistics and Kentucky Department of Education). The ethnic diversity percentage continues to be above the average 11% diversity of schools in the 30+ counties in our service area. Table 5 reveals percentages of field Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 8 of 8 experiences with various characteristics. Note that candidates could choose all the characteristics that applied for any given experience. Table 5. Percentages of Field Experience by Category Types Working with Students With Special Needs % Candidates working with Students with Physical Impairments % Candidates working with Students with Learning Disabilities % Candidates working with Moderate/Severe Disabilities % Candidates working with Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders % Candidates working with Gifted Students % Candidates working with English Language Learners % Candidates working with Students with Visual Impairments % Candidates working with Students with Hearing Impairments % Candidates working with Students with Speech/Language Delays % Candidates working with Students with Development Delays % Candidates working with Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder % Candidates working with Students with Other Impairments 19%
61%
11%
27%
48%
40%
6%
5%
20%
12%
14%
6%
Working with Diverse Students % Candidates working with African American Students % Candidates working with Native American/American Indian Students % Candidates working with Latino/Hispanic Students % Candidates working with Asian Students % Candidates working with Students with Special Needs (Aggregate) % Candidates working with Diverse Students (Aggregate) 87%
13%
73%
49%
85%
92%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 5, in 85% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at least one student with special needs. In 92% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at least one student from a diverse ethnic group. In addition, Table 6 reports the diversity percentages of the schools where student teachers were placed during the 2012‐13 academic year. The average overall diversity percentage remains above the average 11% ethnic diversity of the schools in the 30+ counties that represent our service area. Table 6. Demographic Percentages of Student Teaching Sites Key: AI/AN = American Indian/Alaskan, BL/AA = Black/African American, HIS/LAT = Hispanic/Latino, FRL = Students receiving Free or Reduced Lunch, ELL = English Language Learners, ST W/ DIS = Students with Disabilities Name of School AI/AN ASIAN BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY* FRL ELL ST W/DIS 11TH STREET ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 61.1 0.0 38.9 61.1 83.3 0.0 11.1 ADAIRVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ALLEN COUNTY INTERMEDIATE CENTER 0.0 0.6 6.8 4.5 86.6 11.9 52.8 0.0 24.2 0.3 0.0 0.4 1.7 96.4 2.4 58.1 0.0 8.0 ALLEN COUNTY PRIMARY CENTER ALLEN COUNTY‐SCOTTSVILLE HIGH SCHOOL 0.0 0.4 0.9 2.5 94.6 3.8 62.5 0.0 12.2 0.6 0.3 1.8 1.0 95.2 3.7 49.7 0.0 11.3 ALVATON ELEMENTARY 0.0 1.9 5.8 4.1 82.9 11.8 45.0 0.0 26.1 AUBURN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AUBURNDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.3 0.0 4.6 1.5 91.0 6.4 51.8 0.0 13.5 0.3 8.5 21.1 9.0 58.2 38.9 80.8 Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 9 of 9 Name of School AI/AN ASIAN BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY* AUDUBON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AUSTIN TRACY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.6 0.4 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.2 96.0 3.6 73.2 0.0 20.4 BARDSTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 1.0 16.8 4.3 73.9 22.1 66.2 0.0 12.7 BARDSTOWN MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 0.7 21.0 4.8 70.1 25.8 67.5 BARDSTOWN PRIMARY SCHOOL 0.1 1.1 13.3 5.0 75.2 19.5 63.8 0.0 21.0 BARREN COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.8 96.6 3.0 48.5 0.1 9.4 BARREN COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 0.3 1.1 2.0 95.9 3.6 52.9 0.1 9.5 BATES ELEMENTARY BEN JOHNSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.4 2.0 21.2 7.0 66.6 30.6 51.5 0.0 18.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.7 1.1 61.7 0.0 14.5 2.3 83.7 13.8 FRL 63.0 ELL ST W/DIS 0.0 21.8 BLOOMFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.2 3.2 2.3 92.9 5.7 57.3 0.0 20.2 BONNIEVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 98.4 1.6 69.7 0.0 16.0 BOSTON SCHOOL 0.7 0.0 1.0 3.0 94.7 4.7 54.5 0.0 22.1 BOWLING GREEN HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 3.5 19.8 8.6 67.6 32.1 42.7 5.2 9.7 BOWLING GREEN JUNIOR HIGH 0.2 2.6 22.6 10.0 63.6 35.4 57.5 2.8 11.2 BRANDENBURG PRIMARY SCHOOL BRECKINRIDGE COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.1 0.9 1.7 0.9 95.6 3.6 48.9 0.0 24.8 0.3 0.5 2.7 1.0 94.3 4.5 60.2 0.0 12.0 BRIARWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.1 14.8 8.2 4.4 70.1 27.5 26.7 0.0 17.9 BRISTOW ELEMENTARY 0.0 1.7 8.6 10.9 72.8 21.2 30.5 0.0 16.8 BULLITT LICK MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 0.6 1.7 1.5 94.6 4.0 68.5 0.0 12.0 BUTLER COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.0 0.4 0.4 1.2 97.5 2.0 54.0 0.0 9.6 BUTLER COUNTY LEARNING CENTER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 70.6 0.0 15.4 BUTLER COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 0.2 0.4 2.3 94.9 3.1 59.6 0.0 7.9 CANEYVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 97.5 1.1 76.0 0.0 23.1 CENTERFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.2 2.7 3.7 91.9 6.8 25.2 0.4 15.7 CENTRAL HARDIN HIGH SCHOOL CENTRAL LEARNING CENTER ALTERNATIVE SCH 0.4 1.6 6.2 1.3 90.3 9.5 36.1 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 19.7 0.0 72.4 19.7 82.9 0.0 29.4 CHANDLERS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 96.8 1.8 63.2 0.0 17.4 CLARKSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.5 98.5 1.0 71.2 0.0 19.9 COLLEGE VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 1.8 5.0 2.1 89.5 8.9 41.0 0.2 11.2 COXS CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.4 1.7 1.7 95.8 3.8 48.2 0.0 25.8 CRAVENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 27.6 3.2 59.9 30.8 92.1 0.0 16.3 CREEKSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.2 2.6 2.6 93.7 5.4 52.5 0.0 24.6 CUB RUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 97.4 1.8 62.3 0.0 21.2 CUMBERLAND TRACE ELEMENTARY 0.0 11.8 4.0 6.9 71.6 22.7 34.9 CUSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.5 94.7 4.1 70.6 DAVID T. WILSON ELEMENTARY 0.0 0.4 2.2 1.1 95.0 3.7 44.4 0.0 DAVIESS COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.1 0.9 1.3 1.3 95.3 3.6 33.8 0.3 8.1 DAVIESS COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL DISHMAN MCGINNIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.1 0.7 2.1 1.7 93.5 4.6 50.2 0.4 10.7 0.0 1.5 25.8 27.9 41.4 55.2 95.8 2.8 17.8 DRAKES CREEK MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 7.8 5.3 5.5 78.4 18.8 35.4 1.0 8.8 0.2 23.7 11.4 EAST HARDIN MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 2.0 7.0 0.8 89.7 9.8 40.0 0.0 11.9 EAST VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.4 0.8 4.9 92.5 6.1 70.8 0.4 21.0 EASTERN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.0 97.3 1.4 58.9 0.4 15.5 EDMONSON COUNTY 5/6 CENTER 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.5 96.0 2.7 52.9 0.0 19.5 Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 10 of 10 Name of School AI/AN ASIAN BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY* FRL EDMONSON COUNTY GREAT ONYX HIGH SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 71.1 4.4 24.4 75.5 71.1 EDMONSON COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 98.1 0.8 51.3 ELL ST W/DIS 0.0 9.3 14.8 EKRON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 1.2 2.1 2.1 90.8 5.4 56.4 0.0 ELIZABETHTOWN HIGH SCHOOL 0.1 1.6 12.0 2.4 80.5 16.1 36.1 0.1 8.2 F T BURNS MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 0.4 5.3 3.5 86.2 9.2 57.6 0.7 14.7 FLAHERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.3 2.8 2.2 92.3 5.3 53.2 0.0 15.6 FOUST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.3 20.9 9.5 54.0 30.7 93.9 0.0 33.2 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.3 7.1 5.5 81.0 12.9 70.7 0.0 31.5 FRANKLIN‐SIMPSON HIGH SCHOOL FRANKLIN‐SIMPSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.1 0.9 12.3 1.7 81.5 15.0 47.2 0.0 8.9 0.4 1.0 10.5 1.6 84.0 13.5 55.4 0.0 8.2 FREEDOM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL G C BURKHEAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.8 1.6 3.3 93.8 5.9 35.0 0.0 14.2 0.1 2.5 18.2 5.9 72.4 26.7 52.4 0.0 20.2 GLASGOW HIGH SCHOOL 0.0 1.4 14.4 4.4 75.4 20.2 46.5 0.4 9.2 GLASGOW MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 1.2 11.0 3.9 80.4 16.1 51.5 0.0 15.2 GRAYSON COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.3 98.5 1.0 61.0 0.0 6.4 GRAYSON COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 0.4 1.3 1.8 95.5 3.7 68.8 0.0 11.4 GREEN COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.2 96.9 1.7 60.8 0.0 15.2 GREENWOOD HIGH SCHOOL 0.3 9.3 5.6 2.7 81.2 17.9 30.8 0.3 5.7 H W WILKEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.7 96.1 2.2 74.1 0.0 18.2 HANCOCK COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL HARDINSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.8 96.7 3.2 48.2 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.6 2.6 0.9 91.3 4.1 56.3 0.0 24.7 HEARTLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HELMWOOD HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 2.0 10.1 9.2 76.0 21.3 39.8 0.4 2.4 16.4 3.3 71.3 22.5 65.3 0.0 HENDERSON COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 0.3 9.9 1.9 86.4 12.3 42.9 0.0 9.3 HENRY F. MOSS MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 4.6 17.8 8.2 65.4 30.8 57.2 1.7 9.9 HIGHLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HODGENVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 1.0 15.3 5.4 74.9 21.7 62.7 0.1 23.1 0.2 0.3 5.6 7.7 83.1 13.8 61.6 1.2 20.4 HOWEVALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.4 0.0 2.1 3.8 91.2 6.3 65.3 0.0 28.2 JAMES E BAZZELL MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 0.0 0.7 1.6 96.6 2.5 56.8 0.0 11.9 JAMES T ALTON MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.3 1.9 17.6 7.1 65.7 26.9 41.2 JEFFERSONTOWN HIGH SCHOOL 0.4 1.9 40.8 7.9 48.1 51.0 59.1 24.0 0.0 12.9 JOE HARRISON CARTER 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 98.0 1.6 50.8 0.0 20.4 JOHN HARDIN HIGH SCHOOL 0.0 2.9 25.1 5.4 64.2 33.4 32.9 0.0 7.1 KAMMERER MIDDLE 0.3 1.2 37.1 2.7 57.9 41.3 42.2 KENWOOD ELEMENTARY KENWOOD STATION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 6.5 26.6 9.4 53.5 42.7 81.0 0.0 5.5 4.2 2.3 84.3 12.0 17.4 KYROCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 97.3 0.6 59.9 0.0 LARUE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.1 0.3 4.4 1.4 93.0 6.2 49.4 0.0 9.2 LEWISBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 97.5 1.3 57.5 0.0 20.0 LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.8 12.9 2.9 81.7 16.6 64.0 0.0 17.5 LOGAN COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 0.1 3.1 1.0 95.1 4.4 45.2 0.0 12.0 LOST RIVER ELEMENTARY MADISONVILLE NORTH HOPKINS HIGH SCHOOL 0.3 6.3 11.4 15.3 57.3 33.3 36.8 0.3 18.6 0.0 0.4 14.4 1.4 82.9 16.2 37.6 0.0 12.4 0.0 21.4 26.8 Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 11 of 11 Name of School AI/AN ASIAN BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY* FRL ELL ST W/DIS MEADE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL MEADOW VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.4 0.6 2.2 1.7 93.4 4.9 42.0 0.0 10.3 0.2 4.7 38.2 10.2 43.7 53.3 58.9 0.0 28.2 MEMORIAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.4 96.3 1.7 70.7 0.0 19.7 METCALFE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.5 97.7 2.3 72.5 0.0 12.9 MONROE CO MIDDLE MORGANTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MORNINGSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MUHLENBERG COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL MUNFORDVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NEW HIGHLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NEWTON PARRISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.2 2.8 2.8 92.9 5.8 67.7 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 4.3 94.3 4.7 49.7 0.0 16.6 0.0 3.1 14.5 6.4 69.7 24.0 48.9 0.0 12.5 0.1 0.1 5.2 0.8 93.3 6.2 47.0 0.0 0.2 5.1 1.8 90.8 7.1 59.9 0.0 20.8 0.5 5.2 26.2 6.1 60.0 38.0 50.8 0.1 24.2 0.2 0.7 6.7 6.4 73.3 14.0 63.2 0.0 19.2 NORTH BULLITT HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 0.8 0.9 0.9 96.7 2.8 42.9 0.1 12.4 NORTH BUTLER ELEMENTARY NORTH HANCOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.6 97.2 2.1 67.0 0.0 21.6 0.2 1.1 1.0 2.3 93.7 4.6 50.6 0.0 20.4 NORTH MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.3 2.4 35.5 11.2 44.8 49.4 62.3 NORTH PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.5 1.3 26.5 12.7 54.1 41.0 68.0 NORTH WARREN ELEMENTARY 0.0 0.5 5.6 2.2 90.3 8.3 30.8 0.0 26.2 OAKLAND ELEMENTARY 0.3 1.0 16.0 6.8 73.5 24.1 59.2 0.2 23.9 OHIO COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 0.2 0.7 3.2 94.9 4.1 60.6 0.0 15.8 OLMSTEAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.5 3.4 0.7 95.1 4.8 47.4 0.0 18.9 OWENSBORO MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.3 1.0 19.5 2.6 70.9 23.4 79.7 0.2 22.8 PARK CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.8 0.0 0.6 6.7 90.3 8.1 74.7 0.0 18.8 PARKER‐BENNETT‐CURRY SCHOOL 0.2 3.1 38.2 30.8 24.9 72.3 97.2 3.6 20.6 PAYNEVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.5 0.0 46.7 0.0 16.7 PLANO ELEMENTARY 0.2 0.5 2.5 5.7 89.0 8.9 35.5 PORTLAND ELEMENTARY 0.0 0.0 44.7 0.4 51.0 45.1 91.4 POTTER GRAY ELEMENTARY 0.0 3.0 4.8 1.8 88.4 9.6 19.9 RADCLIFF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 3.9 28.6 12.6 49.3 45.1 79.8 RED CROSS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.3 1.7 2.0 94.5 7.2 56.2 0.0 13.0 RICH POND ELEMENTARY 0.0 3.5 2.7 4.2 87.2 10.4 26.8 0.3 14.6 0.2 9.3 RICHARDSVILLE ELEMENTARY 0.2 1.2 0.5 1.6 95.8 3.5 35.4 0.0 24.7 ROCKFIELD ELEMENTARY RUSSELL SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.3 0.4 4.7 2.2 89.7 7.6 37.6 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.6 0.4 5.4 93.3 6.4 68.0 0.0 18.8 SIMPSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTH EDMONSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTH GREEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.3 0.6 10.2 4.3 82.5 15.4 61.5 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.4 96.6 2.0 56.2 0.0 21.0 0.2 0.5 14.0 7.5 70.0 22.2 64.9 SOUTH WARREN HIGH SCHOOL 1.1 1.9 3.2 2.2 90.3 8.4 27.8 SOUTH WARREN MIDDLE SCHOOL SOUTHERN OAKS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 1.4 3.4 2.4 89.5 7.2 25.4 0.0 0.3 1.6 11.8 85.3 13.7 61.3 STUART PEPPER MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.6 0.1 1.8 1.8 94.7 4.3 44.2 0.0 12.5 T C CHERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 1.8 11.7 8.8 70.3 22.3 64.8 0.0 18.9 0.0 16.4 Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 12 of 12 Name of School AI/AN ASIAN BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY* FRL ELL TALTON K STONE MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 1.9 13.3 3.0 76.2 18.4 44.4 0.0 9.8 TAMARACK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TAYLOR COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.8 7.2 4.0 83.9 12.2 62.0 0.0 22.5 0.3 0.4 1.5 2.5 93.3 4.7 62.0 0.2 16.7 TAYLOR COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.4 0.5 2.7 1.8 94.7 5.4 49.5 0.8 11.2 TEMPLE HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.6 0.0 0.6 3.3 94.2 4.5 68.3 TOMPKINSVILLE ELEM UNION CHAPEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 3.6 6.9 84.6 10.5 82.7 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.4 90.2 7.4 81.0 0.0 30.4 VINE GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 3.0 9.7 5.5 77.9 18.4 46.0 0.0 22.9 W R MCNEILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 5.4 11.3 3.4 78.6 20.1 22.4 0.5 8.6 8.6 ST W/DIS WARREN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 5.1 16.7 8.9 66.4 30.9 54.1 5.8 WARREN EAST HIGH SCHOOL 0.1 1.1 7.3 3.9 85.9 12.4 51.9 0.2 8.7 WARREN EAST MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 1.0 6.5 3.9 85.8 11.6 52.1 0.1 13.4 WARREN ELEMENTARY WAYLAND ALEXANDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 8.4 21.6 13.3 52.5 43.3 31.5 0.1 20.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 4.4 93.6 4.9 67.9 0.0 23.0 WEST HARDIN MIDDLE SCHOOL WEST LOUISVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.7 1.0 6.6 3.0 88.1 11.3 54.4 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 95.8 3.1 60.1 0.0 29.0 WHITESVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.2 97.0 2.9 54.9 0.0 17.2 WILLIAM H. NATCHER ELEMENTARY 0.0 11.8 7.4 5.8 72.4 25.0 24.2 0.9 17.1 Grand Total 0.2 1.4 8.9 4.0 83.1 14.5 55.3 0.2 16.6 *Diversity equals combined percentage of Native American/Alaskan, Asian, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino students in the school D. Dispositions Data (Academic Year 2012‐13) All initial programs have developed Program Assessment Plans that outline how each program collects mid‐program level dispositions data. Tables 7 and 8 report how initial program candidates are performing on our dispositions as they enter and progress through their program and during their student teaching experience. Students are considered “proficient” who average 3 or higher on each dispositions category. Table 7. Proficiency Rates on Unit Wide Dispositions prior to Student Teaching Program Elementary Ed. Middle Grades Ed. Secondary Ed. P‐12 Ed. 5‐12 Ed. Special Ed. IECE Unit‐Wide Total Values Learning WKU Professional Education Dispositions Values Personal Values Values Integrity Diversity Collaboration Values Professionalism 99.61% 99.42% 99.80% 99.39% 98.95% 96.91% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 98.23% 100.00% 100.00% 98.11% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 99.11% 99.62% 99.86% 99.31% 99.25% Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 13 of 13 Table 8. Proficiency Rates on Unit Wide Dispositions during Student Teaching Program Values Learning Elementary Ed. Middle Grades Ed. Secondary Ed. P‐12 Ed. 5‐12 Ed. Special Ed. IECE Unit‐Wide Total WKU Professional Education Dispositions Values Personal Values Values Integrity Diversity Collaboration Values Professionalism 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% E. Culminating Assessment Data (Academic Year 2012‐13) Teacher Work Sample Results: Candidates Meeting Standards As Component 4 of our unit‐wide Continuous Assessment Plan (CAP) strategy, all initial preparation candidates complete a culminating assessment of professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, the Teacher Work Sample (TWS). Although in spring 2008 the Professional Education Council agreed that candidates who score a holistic score of at least “2 – Developing” are able to exit the program, for program evaluation purposes our goal is that at least 80% of program candidates will achieve “3 – Proficient” or higher. Table 9 represents three‐year proficiency rates by program area. Table 9. Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates Program Type Elementary Ed. Middle Grades Ed. Secondary Ed. P‐12 Ed. 5‐12 Ed. Special Ed. IECE Unit‐Wide 2012‐13
99%
86%
91%
80%
92%
**
100%
93%
2011‐12
98%
83%
93%
97%
100%
100%*
100%*
96%
2010‐11 97% 91% 84% 93% 94% ** 100% 94% *Pass rate based on N<10 ** No data reported Because faculty members score TWS at the indicator level, we can use their scores to ascertain candidate success in meeting each component of the TWS. For program evaluation purposes, candidates are considered successful who average at least 2.5 on a three‐point scale (1 – Not Met, 2 – Partially Met, and 3 – Met) on indicators associated with each component. Table 10 depicts the percentage of candidates by program who averaged at least 2.5 on the indicators for each TWS Factor: CF – Contextual Factors, LG – Learning Goals, DFI – Design for Instruction, ASL – Analysis of Student Learning, and ROT – Reflection on Teaching. Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 14 of 14 Table 10. Percentage by Program of Candidates who “Passed” Each TWS Component Major CF LG DFI ASL ROT Elementary Ed. 94% 96% 92% 99% 85% Middle Grades Ed. 80% 91% 86% 74% 77% Secondary Ed. 88% 87% 75% 83% 93% P‐12 Ed. 77% 73% 69% 85% 100% 5‐12 Ed. 89% 89% 89% 100% 89% * * * * * IECE** 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Unit‐Wide 89% 91% 85% 91% 88% Special Ed. *No data reported **Pass rate based on N<10 Likewise, because the TWS indicators are aligned to Kentucky Teacher Standards, we can use these scores to ascertain candidate success in meeting each standard related to the TWS (Table 11). Table 11. Percentage of Program Candidates “Passing” Each Kentucky Teacher Standard† Major 1 2 3 5 6 7 9 Elementary Ed. 95% 97% 96% 98% 98% 94% 85% Middle Grades Ed. 83% 94% 88% 97% 88% 74% 77% Secondary Ed. 85% 92% 90% 77% 87% 93% 93% P‐12 Ed. 81% 85% 77% 77% 81% 96% 100% 5‐12 Ed. 89% 100% 100% 78% 100% 89% 89% * * * * * * * 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Special Ed. IECE** Unit‐Wide 89% 94% 92% 90% 92% 91% 88% *No data reported **Pass rate based on N<10 †KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 3 – Maintains Learning Climate, 4 – Implements/Manages Instruction, 5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 8 – Collaboration, 9 – Professional Development, 10 – Professional Leadership Student Teacher Evaluation Results Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the Student Teaching Evaluation form. This form aligns with the Kentucky Teacher Standards and the descriptive rubrics developed for these standards as part of the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program. A statewide Task Force under the direction of the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board developed these rubrics and, as a result, they represent statewide consensus on what “Not Met,” “Partially Met,” and “Met” levels of a standard look like. Table 12 reports the percentages of 2012‐13 student teachers successful on each standard. For program evaluation purposes, candidates are considered successful who average at least 2.5 on a three‐point scale (1 – Not Met, 2 – Partially Met, and 3 – Met) on indicators aligned to a standard. Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 15 of 15 Table 12. Student Teaching Evaluation Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards† Program Elementary Ed. Middle Grades Ed. Secondary Ed. P‐12 Ed. 5‐12 Ed. Special Ed. IECE Unit‐Wide 1 2 3 Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 98% 95% 97% 94% 89% 93% 87% 94% 99% 90% 97% 90% 94% 92% 87% 93% 92% 95% 99% 91% 99% 94% 96% 89% 92% 94% 92% 92% 97% 94% 92% 88% 94% 85% 76% 78% 84% 89% 92% 89% 100% 92% 83% 83% 92% 100% 83% 83% 92% 92% 94% 84% 94% 88% 82% 82% 66% 90% 92% 70% 91% 91% 100% 91% 91% 91% 82% 100% 91% 91% 8 9 10 97% 92% 96% 91% 87% 90% 86% 93% 97% 89% †KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 3 – Maintains Learning Climate, 4 – Implements/Manages Instruction, 5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 8 – Collaboration, 9 – Professional Development, 10 – Professional Leadership F. Exit and Follow‐Up Data Praxis Results (2011‐12 Cohort) Tables 13 and 14 delineate the most recent Educational Testing Service reports of pass rates on content licensure and Principles of Learning and Teaching and related exams of 2011‐12 program completers (N=415) compared to previous pass rates. Table 13. Pass Rates on Content Licensure Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation Program Elementary Ed Middle Grades Ed Middle Grades Ed Middle Grades Ed Middle Grades Ed Secondary Ed Secondary Ed Secondary Ed Secondary Ed Secondary Ed Secondary Ed Secondary Ed Secondary Ed Secondary Ed P‐12 Ed P‐12 Ed P‐12 Ed P‐12 Ed P‐12 Ed P‐12 Ed P‐12 Ed P‐12 Ed 5‐12 Ed Name of Licensure Test ELEMENTARY ED CONTENT KNOWLEDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS MIDDLE SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE BIOLOGY CONTENT KNOWLEDGE CHEMISTRY CONTENT KNOWLEDGE PHYSICS CONTENT KNOWLEDGE ENG LANG LIT COMP CONTENT KNOW ENG LANG LIT COMP ESSAYS MATHEMATICS: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE MATH PROOFS MODELS PROBLEMS PART 1 SOCIAL STUDIES: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE SOCIAL STUDIES: INTERPRET MATERIALS ART MAKING ART CONTENT KNOWLEDGE MUSIC CONCEPTS AND PROCESSES MUSIC CONTENT KNOWLEDGE PHYSICAL ED: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE PHYSICAL ED: ANALYSIS AND DESIGN PHYSICAL ED: CONTENT AND DESIGN SPANISH WORLD LANGUAGE AGRICULTURE N Taking Assessment (2011‐12) 168 24 31 28 12 9 5 3 11 10 16 16 19 18 9 9 14 14 4 11 3 6 5 WKU Pass Rate (2011‐12) 97% 88% 100% 82% 100% 100% 86% ** 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ** 100% ** 100% 100% WKU Pass Rate (2010‐11) 98% 94% 100% 89% 93% 100%* 86%* 96% 96% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100%* 86%* 100% 83% 71%* 100% 100%* 100%* WKU Pass Rate (2009‐10) 97% 97% 100% 95% 100% 100% ‐‐‐ 89% 83% 100% 100% 88% 96% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93% ‐‐ 90% Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 16 of 16 Program 5‐12 Ed 5‐12 Ed 5‐12 Ed IECE Special Ed Special Ed Special Ed Overall Pass Rate Name of Licensure Test BUSINESS ED FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES II TECHNOLOGY ED INTERDISCIPLINARY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION EDUC. EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS: CK ED EXCEPT STUDENTS: MILD/MOD. DISAB. ED EXCEPT STUDENTS: PROFND. DISAB. N Taking Assessment (2011‐12) 5 1 2 8 39 15 6 415† WKU Pass Rate (2011‐12) 100% ** ** 100% 100% 100% 86% 96% WKU Pass Rate (2010‐11) 100%* 92% ‐‐‐ 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% *Pass rate based on N<10 **N<5 not reported †Total N equals number of students passing all of the tests they took. Total N does not equal the sum of the “N Taking Assessment” column because students may take more than one test for licensure.
Table 14. Pass Rates on Professional Knowledge Praxis Test Type of Assessment Aggregate – Professional Knowledge N Taking Assessment (2011‐12) 346 Institutional
Pass Rate (2011‐12) 96%
Institutional Pass Rate (2010‐11) 96% Institutional
Pass Rate (2009‐10) 98% WKU Teacher Survey Results (Academic Year 2012‐13) Below are the results of the electronic WKU Teacher Survey sent to student teachers completing their experience fall 2012 or spring 2013. Out of a possible 406 student teachers, 375 (92%) completed the survey. Survey items requested the respondent’s perception of WKU preparation on each of the Kentucky Teacher Standards using a scale of 1 ‐ Poor, 2 ‐ Fair, 3 ‐ Good, and 4 ‐ Excellent. Standards with average scores of 3 or better across items were considered to demonstrate acceptable program quality. Table 15 reports student teacher results by program with averages below 3 in bold. Table 15. Student Teacher Averages on Teacher Standards Questions by Program Kentucky Teacher ELED Standard* N=180 1 3.60 2 3.67 3 3.77 4 3.56 5 3.50 6 3.42 7 3.51 8 3.32 9 3.47 10 3.30 MGE N=56 3.34 3.25 3.48 3.30 3.17 3.42 3.07 2.96 3.24 2.97 SECED N=58 3.41 3.30 3.59 3.29 3.06 3.34 3.14 2.88 3.30 3.05 P‐12 N=44 3.37 3.20 3.58 3.26 3.04 3.10 3.09 2.90 3.22 3.10 5‐12 N=9 3.58 3.20 3.58 3.38 3.18 3.81 3.04 2.75 3.53 3.42 SPED
N=23
3.35
3.23
3.57
3.37
3.05
3.39
3.17
3.36
3.17
3.15
IECE N=5 3.40 3.52 3.64 3.36 3.44 3.00 3.20 3.65 3.35 3.05 Unit‐Wide Total 375 3.49 3.45 3.66 3.43 3.29 3.37 3.30 3.14 3.36 3.18 *KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 3 – Maintains Learning Climate, 4 – Implements/Manages Instruction, 5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 8 – Collaboration, 9 – Professional Development, 10 – Leadership WKU Pass Rate (2009‐10) 100% ‐‐ 100% 100% 100% 89% 92% 95% Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 17 of 17 Additionally, Table 16 reflects similar teacher survey results from Kentucky’s Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB) on each of the Kentucky Teacher Standards for 2011‐2012. Standards with average scores of 3 or better across items were considered to demonstrate acceptable program quality. Averages below 3 are in bold print. Table 16. Averages on Teacher Standards by School Role* Kentucky Teacher Standard** Student Teacher N=257 Cooperating Teacher N=364 Resource
Teacher N=243 Intern N=206 Principal N=196 3.36 3.19 3.21 3.06 3.16 3.59 3.42 3.35 3.27 3.28 3.36 3.15 3.15 3.06 3.08 3.33 3.13 3.14 3.00 3.07 3.20 3.02 3.03 2.92 2.90 3.38 3.29 3.13 3.29 3.10 3.31 3.14 3.12 3.21 3.13 3.30 3.11 3.14 3.23 3.13 3.13 3.01 2.90 3.08 2.90 3.25 2.94 3.05 3.10 2.97 *EPSB reports on a two‐year cycle ** KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 3 – Maintains Learning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Climate, 4 – Implements/Manages Instruction, 5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 8 – Collaboration, 9 – Professional Development, 10 – Leadership Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (2012‐13) All candidates in our initial teacher preparation programs who enter the profession participate in a year‐
long internship entitled the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP). During KTIP, candidates are mentored and observed by their building principal, a resource teacher, and a teacher educator at a nearby Kentucky university. In addition, candidates must develop several artifacts tied to the Kentucky Teacher Standards including lesson plans; a videotaped lesson; plans for professional development, collaboration, and leadership with documented evidence of carrying them out; and a standards‐based unit very similar to the WKU TWS. Based on these sources of evidence, the mentor team rates candidates on each Kentucky Teacher Standard on a three‐point scale (1 – Not Met, 2 – Partially Met, and 3 – Met) over several cycles of the internship. Of most interest to us are the first cycle scores because they are assigned near the beginning of the internship, and, thus, should reflect the strength of our preparation programs. It should be noted, however, that because the goal of the internship is showing intern growth, mentor teams tend to score candidates at the “partially met” level. Thus, for the first cycle, we consider ourselves successful if overall our newly prepared teachers average at least 2 on each standard. However, our goal is that by the last cycle all our candidates are performing at the proficient level (averaging at least 2.5 or higher on each standard). Below are several years of internship data. Table 17 reports the percentage of candidates averaging at least 2 during the first cycle. Table 18 reports the percentage of candidates averaging at least 2.5 by the last cycle. Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 18 of 18 Table 17. Percentage of Candidates Averaging 2 (First Cycle) Year 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 2011‐12 2012‐13 1 100% 100% 100% 95% 96% 2 100% 100% 99% 94% 96% 3 100% 100% 99% 97% 95%
Kentucky Teacher Standards* 4 5 6 7 100% 100% 100% 97% 99% 96% 97% 98% 97% 94% 97% 97% 94% 90% 93% 91% 95%
94%
93%
93%
8 94% 94% 91% 86% 87% 9 94% 94% 92% 87% 91%
10 n/a 94% 90% 89% 91%
8 9 10 Table 18. Percentage of Candidates Averaging at least 2.5 (Last Cycle) Year Kentucky Teacher Standards* 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 2007‐08 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% n/a 2008‐09 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2009‐10 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2011‐12 2012‐13 100% 96% 100% 97% 99% 96%
99% 96%
100% 96%
100% 97%
100% 97%
100% 97% 100% 97%
99% 99%
*KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 3 – Maintains Learning Climate, 4 – Implements/Manages Instruction, 5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 8 – Collaboration, 9 – Professional Development, 10 – Professional Leadership
Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 19 of 19 Section 2. Continuous Assessment Results A. Introduction and Context Following our successful 2011 NCATE visit, the WKU Professional Education Unit met all six standards, in particular Standard 2 ‐ Assessment System and Unit Evaluation. The unit continues to work to ensure coherent planning, delivery, and operations with the various programs. Although the next NCATE visit is not until spring 2018, we continue to monitor and make changes to the assessment/accountability processes we have implemented. We believe the routines established continue to serve the WKU Professional Education Unit well. B. Kentucky Teacher Standards Assessment Summary Table 19 provides a summary of candidate passing rates within and across assessments and surveys. Note that the overall average is the calculated average pass rate across assessments and surveys, with each instrument average receiving equal weight. Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 20 of 20 Table 19 Summary of Assessment Results (Based on Most Recent Year) by Kentucky Teacher Standard and Component Component 2:
Course-Based
Assessment Data
Kentucky Teacher Standards
Component 4:
Culminating Assessment Data
Component 5:
Exit and Follow-Up Data
OVERALL
Critical Performance
Pass Rates
TWS Pass Rates
Student Teacher
Evaluation Pass Rate
Student Teacher
Survey Pass Rates*
Praxis II
Pass Rate
KTIP
Results
(1st cycle)
AVERAGE
1 - Content Knowledge
97%
89%
96%
93%
96%
96%
94%
2 - Designs/Plans
97%
94%
92%
86%
96%
93%
3 - Learning Climate
97%
92%
95%
95%
95%
95%
4 - Implements/Manages
98%
91%
88%
95%
93%
5 -Assessment/Evaluation
97%
90%
87%
79%
94%
89%
6 - Technology
97%
92%
90%
86%
93%
92%
7 – Reflection
97%
91%
86%
83%
93%
90%
8 - Collaboration
98%
93%
72%
87%
87%
9 - Professional Development
97%
88%
97%
89%
91%
92%
10 ‐ Leadership 99% 89% 79% 91% 89% 96%**
*Survey Pass Rates calculated as percentage of respondents with Kentucky Teacher Standard Averages >2.99 on survey questions **Not included in Rough Average Calculation
Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 21 of 21 C. Other Conceptual Framework Values Summary Diversity As described earlier, overall, in 85% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at least one student with special needs. In 92% of their field experiences, candidates reported working with at least one student from a diverse ethnic group. To ensure that all candidates have at least one diverse field experience, all initial education preparation programs have developed Program Assessment Plans that identify a course and experience where all candidates within the program are assigned to schools that meet or exceed the average level of diversity (11%) of schools in our service area. As a unit, we will continue our efforts to ensure that students leave the program prepared to work with students from diverse backgrounds. Results from 2011‐12 state data indicate that approximately 74% of educators (i.e., cooperating teachers, principals, and resource teachers) view our teacher preparation program as “good” or “excellent” at preparing our candidates to teach students with disabilities, including training related to participation as a member of individualized education program (IEP) teams. We received slightly lower numbers, approximately 62%, who view our teacher preparation program as “good” or “excellent” when working with students who are limited English proficient. We continue to move in the right direction and will continue with our efforts. Assessment data from the TWS reveal that 88% of candidates are considered successful (average at least 2.5 on 3‐point scale) on indicators related to diversity, including knowledge of student characteristics, student‐learning needs, adaption to student needs, and student engagement. Impact on P‐12 Student Learning We continue our efforts to assess the impact on P‐12 student learning based on data reported within the TWS. The preliminary results are promising indicating that our candidates do know how to make an impact on the students, with candidates scoring approximately 91% on indicators related to assessment, analysis, and instructional implications of the data. Section 3. Dissemination Efforts Portions and drafts of this report have been shared with the College of Education and Behavioral Sciences Dean and Associate Dean for Academic Programs. Planned efforts to disseminate the final version of this report include the following audiences:  Other WKU College Deans  Professional Education Council  CEBS department heads and associated faculty  Education Professional Standards Board staff  NCATE  The public via the CEBS website (reported in summary form) These audiences have been invited to discuss; provide insight regarding; and suggest edits, corrections, and alternative explanations to the findings of this report. More importantly, these audiences have Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 22 of 22 contributed and will again contribute to Section 4 that outlines key decisions made during 2012‐13 based on the previous Annual Reports and new decisions to be considered based on the 2012‐13 results. Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 23 of 23 Section 4. Key Decisions Made and to be Considered During the 2010‐11 academic year, the WKU Professional Education Unit prepared for and hosted a visit by the NCATE Board of Examiners. The unit visit was successful, with the program receiving continuing accreditation through the 2017‐2018 academic year. The following decisions remain to continue improving the unit assessment process.  Mapping Critical Performances: In 2008‐09, program coordinators worked with their faculty to develop a Program Assessment Plan that maps their performances by standard. Program coordinators and faculty are asked to continually refine their assessments and update their Program Assessment Plans.  Monitoring and Following‐Up Candidate Performance on Critical Performances: Table 4 reports students (800 numbers are available from the Associate Dean for Accountability & Research) who have scored low on critical performances. The PEC adopted a transition plan that monitors candidate proficiency on critical performance for progress through initial preparation programs at specific transition points: Admission to Teacher Preparation, Student Teaching, and Program Exit. These transition points included minimum levels of proficiency candidates must demonstrate in course work, Kentucky Teacher Standards measured by critical performances, and unit dispositions. Because Student Teaching is a university course, establishing minimal proficiencies as course prerequisites required making “Multiple Revisions” to these courses and passing them through the entire university curriculum process. The School of Teacher Education task force developed a policy to work with candidates who apply for student teaching but do not meet minimal proficiencies.  Establishing Acceptable TWS Individual Score and Program‐Level Pass Rates: The PEC formally adopted a TWS cutoff score that candidates must meet in order to complete a program, as well as policies for dealing with candidates who fall below the cutoff. However, past versions of this report continued to reveal program variability in the proficiency rates of candidates. Based on the recommendation in the 2008‐09 version of this report, program faculty worked together to revise the TWS to align better with Kentucky Teacher Standards. They also discussed differences in implementing and interpreting TWS processes with the goal of a stronger TWS instrument, as well as opportunities to refine programs to prepare candidates for the knowledge and skills associated with the TWS.  Monitoring new 200‐hour Field Experiences Placements Following a mandate from the state, all students admitted to a teacher education program must complete 200 hours of field experiences prior to student teaching beginning the spring of 2014. During the fall of 2013, the Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB) provided training sessions to assist institutions with the implementation of the field experiences placements. Program representatives in the school of teacher education, as well as those in other teacher education programs across the university are working to ensure that we are ready to implement the 200‐hour field experiences state mandate.  Developing a Comprehensive Diversity Plan: Although diversity of clinical experience placement is important to monitor, it is a small piece in what should be a more comprehensive diversity plan. We believe that “all candidates must be able to demonstrate knowledge about issues of diversity that affect teaching and student learning” (WKU_STE). We continue to work toward a Unit Wide Assessment Report 2012‐13 Final Page 24 of 24 comprehensive diversity plan to ensure that candidates are able to meet the needs of diverse learners in our P‐12 settings.  Deciding on future directions regarding NCATE accreditation: Following our NCATE visit, we focused our efforts on refining our unit assessment process and considering areas of improvement. In the upcoming year as CAEP (Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation) becomes our new accrediting body due to the merger of NCATE and TEAC, we will continue with efforts to improve our unit assessment measures to ensure our candidates continue to perform well at the state and federal levels.