Professional Education Unit Assessment Report ‐ Initial Preparation Programs Academic Year 2011‐12 Report Version: October 2, 2012 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 2011‐12 Final Page 2 of 23 Professional Education Unit Assessment Report ‐ Initial Preparation Programs Academic Year 2011‐12 Overview: This report includes assessment and survey results from the following data collection points and sources:  Admission Data (Academic Year 2011‐12) 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 2011‐12) 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 2011‐12) 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 2011‐12) o Admission and early clinical dispositions data by program o Student Teacher Evaluation dispositions results by program  Culminating Assessment Data (Academic Year 2011‐12) 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 (2010‐11 cohort) o WKU Teacher Survey results (2011‐12 student teacher) o Education Professional Standards Board New Teacher Survey results (2011‐2012) 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 2011‐12 based on the 2010‐11 Annual Report and new decisions to be considered based on the 2011‐12 results.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 3 of 23 Faculty
Recs
KY
REQ's
Various Data Required by State for Admission into Teacher Preparation Programs
Content Knowledge
Designs/Plans
Learning Climate
Implements/Manages
Assessment/Evaluation
Technology
Reflection
Collaboration
Professional Development
Leadership
Dispositions
FR a-f
Field Experiences & Clinical
Practice
Diversity
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
OTS
Faculty
CEBS ACCSYS
CEBS ACCSYS
C&I Staff
OTS
CEBS ACCSYS
C&I Staff/Ed Tech
OTS/EdTech
Ed Tech
CEBS ACCSYS
OTS
BANNER/CEBS ACCSYS
Semester
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Yearly
Biannually
PEC
Faculty/Programs/
PEC
Program
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
*Collection of Principal Survey data collected by EPSB for 2011-2012 **The revised TWS was administered Fall 2011 and Spring 2012.
Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 4 of 23 Section 1. Continuous Assessment Results A. Admission Data (Academic Year 2011‐12) 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 ACT Program N Mean 131001‐Special Ed 22 131012‐Comm Dis 4 131202‐Early ELED P‐5 139 131203‐MGE 44 131204‐IECE 4 131301‐Agriculture 4 131302‐Art Ed 9 131303‐Business Ed 6 131308‐Family & CS 3 131312‐Music Ed 14 131314‐Physical Ed 11 160905‐Spanish 3 230101‐English & ALA 18 250101‐School Media 1 260101‐Biology 4 270101‐Mathematics 15 400501‐Chemistry 5 400703‐Earth Science 2 400801‐Physics 1 420101‐School Psy 450101‐History/SS 15 450801‐History/SS 1 500901‐Music Ed 1 Grand Total 326 23 22 24 23 22 24 24 24 22 25 23 26 25 30 28 25 28 23 30 24 21 21 24 PPST* Math N Mean
3 14 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 30 PPST*
Reading N Mean
PPST*
Writing N Mean
175
3
177
3
173
178
177
178
179
183
173
15
2
1
1
1
1
177
177
176
175
173
176
14
2
1
174
177
172
1
1
174
172
188
182
1
2
182
176
1
2
173
175
SAT N Mean 1
1370 1
1510 179
186
1
1
172
179
1
1
174
180
181
2
180
2
174
179 31 177 29 174 1
3 1270 1383 GRE Composite N Mean 11 8 2 2 1 3 5 3 1 3 39 947 1009 1175 905 1060 1193 1232 1087 1290 1030 1053 Admission GPA N Mea
n 35 3.21
13 3.61
170 3.25
51 3.26
10 3.42
7 3.31
11 3.41
7 3.38
3 2.97
16 3.41
21 3.02
4 3.50
18 3.42
3 3.73
5 3.38
20 3.49
8 3.40
2 3.29
2 3.51
3 3.48
17 3.26
1 2.89
2 2.72
429 3.29 *PPST refers to the ETS Pre‐Professional Skills Tests: Mathematics (M), Reading (R), & Writing (W,) respectively. 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 2011‐12 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. Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 5 of 23 Table 2. CP Proficiency Level Percentages Course AGED‐250 AGED‐470 AMS‐331 AMS‐333 ART‐411 ART‐413 ART‐490 ED201 EDU‐250 EDU‐489 ELED‐345 ELED‐355 ELED‐365 ELED‐405 ELED‐406 ELED‐407 ELED‐465 EXED‐330 EXED‐331 EXED‐332 EXED‐333 EXED‐334 EXED‐415 EXED‐417 EXED‐419 EXED‐422 EXED‐430 EXED‐431 EXED‐432 EXED‐434 FACS‐381 IECE‐321 IECE‐322 IECE‐324 IECE‐325 IECE‐421 IECE‐422 LME‐318 LME‐407 LME‐410 LME‐448 LTCY‐310 LTCY‐320 LTCY‐420 LTCY‐421 MGE‐275 MGE‐385 1 2 3 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.50% 7.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.88% 0.00% 0.70% 2.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.82% 5.81% 2.36% 1.17% 1.49% 0.79% 0.88% 0.29% 0.00% 3.19% 4.00% 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 14.29% 0.00% 23.33% 86.96% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.83% 0.00% 0.00% 35.29% 0.00% 3.52% 3.21% 1.89% 1.77% 1.12% 13.89% 44.44% 14.29% 0.00% 50.00% 22.22% 50.00% 88.89% 71.02% 83.49% 87.87% 82.39% 84.70% 77.17% 72.33% 64.88% 82.98% 30.72% 64.00% 0.00% 40.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.67% 13.04% 0.00% 16.00% 33.33% 100.00% 12.50% 7.14% 50.00% 20.00% 33.33% 28.57% 70.00% 37.50% 100.00% 35.29% 10.00% 78.52% 45.41% 81.13% 32.94% 34.83% 86.11% 55.56% 85.71% 100.00% 50.00% 73.33% 50.00% 11.11% 28.16% 10.40% 9.78% 16.44% 13.43% 22.05% 26.80% 34.74% 17.02% 66.09% 32.00% 100.00% 40.00% 0.00% 100.00% 85.71% 100.00% 70.00% 0.00% 87.50% 84.00% 66.67% 0.00% 54.17% 85.71% 50.00% 80.00% 66.67% 71.43% 29.17% 62.50% 0.00% 23.53% 90.00% 17.25% 49.08% 16.98% 65.29% 64.04% Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 6 of 23 1 2 3 4 MGE‐479 MGE‐481 MUS‐312 MUS‐412 PE‐111 PE‐121 PE‐314 PE‐319 PE‐320 PE‐413 PH‐261 PH‐381 PSY‐310 SEC‐351 SEC‐352 SEC‐453 SEC‐473 SEC‐475 SEC‐481 SMED‐102 SMED‐210 SMED‐301 SMED‐320 SMED‐340 SMED‐360 SMED‐470 SPAN‐376 SPAN‐470 Course 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.53% 0.00% 1.51% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.13% 13.33% 3.33% 9.52% 0.00% 0.00% 2.94% 1.47% 1.89% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.90% 9.00% 0.00% 3.18% 8.75% 5.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 75.00% 0.00% 68.18% 11.11% 75.00% 94.87% 66.67% 53.33% 90.48% 25.49% 57.14% 11.07% 52.76% 34.34% 29.69% 80.00% 0.00% 96.30% 20.78% 51.50% 89.29% 70.87% 22.50% 74.29% 85.06% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 100.00% 31.82% 88.89% 25.00% 0.00% 13.33% 43.33% 0.00% 74.51% 42.86% 84.45% 45.77% 62.26% 70.31% 20.00% 100.00% 3.70% 75.32% 39.50% 10.71% 24.35% 68.75% 20.00% 14.94% 25.00% 100.00% Grand Total 0.51%
2.85%
60.90%
35.74%
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 1 2 98% 97% 95% 96% 96% 96% 98% 98% 98% 100% 89% 90% 100% 95% 97% 97% 3 97% 96% 97% 95% 97% 91% 97% 97% Kentucky Teacher Standards* 4 5 6 7 99% 97% 97% 98% 98% 96% 96% 96% 97% 95% 97% 97% 100% 98% 98% 98% 100% 100% 97% 98% 97% 86% 92% 88% 100% 91% 91% 98% 98% 96% 96% 97% 8 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 78% 89% 97% 9 98% 90% 96% 94% 97% 88% 96% 95% †Percentages based on all CPs completed by candidates based on their coursework‐‐not just program requirements 10 99% 99% 98% 98% 100% 76% 100% 98% Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 7 of 23 *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 Table 4 provides counts of 39 students who scored two or below on two or more critical performances over the 2011‐12 academic year. The table highlights the counts of five students who scored low on three or more critical performances. Table 4. Count of Students Scoring Below Proficient on CPs Score Student ID 1 2 Count Per Student 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 8 of 23 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 Student N 2 Students with three or more low scores 4 39 5 C. Clinical Experiences Data (Academic Year 2011‐12) Over the 2011‐12 academic year, 1140 students reported demographic information on 1639 field placements, with an average of 21% ethnically diverse students, 52% students on free/reduced lunch, and 16% 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 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 12%
61%
11%
37%
51%
37%
8%
8%
22%
13%
18%
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%
12%
69%
44%
90%
94%
Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 9 of 23 Overall, as can be seen in Table 5, in 90% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at least one student with special needs. In 94% 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 2011‐12 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 ADAIR COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.5 0.8 2.6 96.0 4.0 68.2 0.0 18.6 ADAIR COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL ALLEN COUNTY INTERMEDIATE CENTER 0.3 0.3 2.8 0.9 95.7 4.3 58.3 0.0 8.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 1.3 97.8 2.2 59.5 0.0 8.0 ALLEN COUNTY PRIMARY CENTER ALLEN COUNTY‐SCOTTSVILLE HIGH SCHOOL 0.0 0.2 0.8 1.6 97.4 2.6 53.4 0.0 12.2 0.3 0.2 2.0 0.6 96.9 3.1 47.0 0.0 11.3 ALVATON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 3.4 5.6 3.4 87.4 12.6 48.3 0.0 26.1 APOLLO HIGH SCHOOL 0.0 0.9 6.0 1.4 91.6 8.4 45.4 0.4 9.4 AUBURN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.3 0.0 4.7 0.8 94.2 5.8 52.7 0.0 13.5 AUDUBON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AUSTIN TRACY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.7 0.4 14.3 1.1 83.4 16.6 63.6 0.0 21.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.2 98.0 2.0 81.7 0.0 20.4 BARDSTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 1.4 19.9 3.6 75.1 24.9 67.7 0.0 12.7 BARDSTOWN PRIMARY SCHOOL 0.1 0.1 14.1 3.9 81.7 18.3 76.2 0.0 21.0 BARREN COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.3 97.6 2.4 47.3 0.1 9.4 BARREN COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 0.3 1.5 1.7 96.5 3.5 58.7 0.1 9.5 BATES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 2.0 25.8 6.3 66.0 34.0 49.4 0.0 18.2 BEAVER DAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BEN JOHNSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.5 1.9 13.6 84.1 15.9 66.4 0.0 17.7 1.6 0.0 1.1 1.1 96.3 3.7 68.3 0.0 14.5 BOSTON SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.1 98.2 1.8 51.2 0.0 22.1 BOWLING GREEN HIGH SCHOOL 0.0 3.0 22.6 7.9 66.5 33.5 46.7 5.2 9.7 BOWLING GREEN MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.5 3.2 19.2 8.9 68.2 31.8 57.5 2.8 11.2 BRANDENBURG PRIMARY SCHOOL BRECKINRIDGE COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 1.1 1.5 0.8 96.6 3.4 49.2 0.0 24.8 0.0 0.2 2.8 1.7 95.3 4.7 66.6 0.0 12.0 BREMEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 98.5 1.5 60.6 0.0 18.9 BRIARWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 13.6 9.8 4.0 72.6 27.4 29.7 0.0 17.9 BRISTOW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BROWNING SPRINGS MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 2.5 7.7 8.1 81.5 18.5 40.3 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.7 20.0 1.3 78.0 22.0 60.4 0.0 25.3 BUCKNER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 1.8 1.2 3.0 93.7 6.3 8.3 0.2 17.2 BULLITT EAST HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.8 98.4 1.6 23.1 0.0 9.3 BUTLER COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.7 98.2 1.8 52.4 0.0 9.6 BUTLER COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 98.3 1.7 59.9 0.0 7.9 CALHOUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.4 96.3 3.7 50.4 0.0 15.7 CAMDEN STATION ELEMENTARY 0.5 1.4 3.5 2.8 91.7 8.3 17.5 0.4 20.7 Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 10 of 23 Name of School AI/AN ASIAN BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY* FRL† ELL ST W/DIS SCHOOL CANEYVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 98.7 1.3 73.3 0.0 23.1 CAVERNA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.8 11.2 2.3 85.7 14.3 85.7 0.0 28.5 CAVERNA MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 15.0 1.4 83.7 16.3 78.2 0.0 19.5 CENTERFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.3 0.8 2.9 1.6 94.4 5.6 23.2 0.4 15.7 CENTRAL HARDIN HIGH SCHOOL 0.3 1.3 4.9 1.3 92.3 7.7 39.1 0.0 8.9 CLARKSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.8 98.9 1.1 70.3 0.0 19.9 COLLEGE VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.1 1.6 4.5 0.9 92.9 7.1 42.9 0.2 11.2 CRAVENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 30.6 2.0 67.5 32.5 101.6 0.0 16.3 CUB RUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CUMBERLAND TRACE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 99.5 0.5 60.7 0.0 21.2 0.0 10.4 3.7 5.0 80.9 19.1 42.4 0.2 23.7 DAVID T. WILSON ELEMENTARY 0.2 0.7 2.0 1.3 95.9 4.1 49.3 0.0 11.4 DAVIESS COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.1 1.3 1.1 1.5 96.0 4.0 33.3 0.3 8.1 DAVIESS COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL DISHMAN MCGINNIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.1 0.3 1.8 1.5 96.3 3.7 43.2 0.4 10.7 0.0 2.5 27.5 25.7 44.2 55.8 102.2 2.8 17.8 DIXON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.3 97.9 2.1 49.2 0.0 15.3 DRAKES CREEK MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.3 4.9 3.0 2.8 89.0 11.0 31.8 1.0 8.8 EARLINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.6 15.5 3.3 80.6 19.4 70.1 0.0 29.8 EAST HARDIN MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 0.7 6.9 1.0 91.5 8.5 42.3 0.0 11.9 EAST OLDHAM MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 0.7 0.7 2.2 96.4 3.6 11.6 1.1 13.7 EAST VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.4 1.0 4.5 94.1 5.9 64.0 0.4 21.0 EASTERN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.5 2.5 2.6 94.2 5.8 54.2 0.1 16.3 EDMONSON CO 5‐6 CENTER 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 98.9 1.1 61.3 0.0 19.5 EDMONSON COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.1 0.1 5.4 0.6 93.8 6.3 53.9 0.0 9.3 EKRON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 1.2 3.2 1.2 94.2 5.8 49.9 0.0 14.8 ESTES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 17.3 8.1 74.7 25.3 107.5 0.0 26.9 F T BURNS MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 1.0 6.4 3.2 89.4 10.6 54.5 0.7 14.7 FLAHERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOSTER HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 1.1 1.4 2.3 95.2 4.8 45.5 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.1 2.1 1.4 96.4 3.6 45.3 0.0 27.7 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FRANKLIN‐SIMPSON MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.3 0.0 8.7 3.5 87.5 12.5 42.8 0.0 31.5 0.3 0.5 9.5 1.4 88.4 11.6 56.8 0.0 8.2 GLASGOW HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 1.1 17.6 2.5 78.6 21.4 50.7 0.4 9.2 GLASGOW MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 1.2 11.7 3.3 83.6 16.4 52.6 0.0 15.2 GRAYSON COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.8 98.1 1.9 61.7 0.0 11.4 GREENWOOD HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 4.4 5.3 2.6 87.4 12.6 36.9 0.3 5.7 H W WILKEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.4 1.5 0.7 97.4 2.6 73.6 0.0 18.2 HAGER PRESCHOOL 0.0 0.4 23.7 4.6 71.4 28.6 125.3 HANCOCK COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL HARDINSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.3 98.2 1.8 48.9 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.4 3.6 0.4 95.7 4.3 63.6 0.0 24.7 HART COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.0 0.4 3.6 1.1 94.9 5.1 59.0 0.1 9.9 HEARTLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 3.7 9.4 4.0 82.9 17.1 39.9 HEBRON MIDDLE SCHOOL HELMWOOD HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1.1 0.5 0.0 2.1 96.3 3.7 46.7 0.0 12.9 0.2 3.8 16.6 2.1 77.2 22.8 65.1 0.0 24.0 HENDERSON COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.3 0.3 11.2 2.1 86.1 13.9 42.6 0.0 9.3 Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 11 of 23 Name of School HENDERSON COUNTY NORTH MIDDLE SCHOOL AI/AN ASIAN BL/AA 0.0 0.4 9.1 HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY* 1.3 89.2 10.8 FRL† ELL ST W/DIS 0.0 14.6 50.8 HENRY F MOSS MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 4.8 16.2 5.7 73.1 26.9 59.5 1.7 9.9 HIGHLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HOPKINS COUNTY CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL HORSE BRANCH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.1 0.7 15.6 0.7 83.0 17.0 63.5 0.1 23.1 0.1 0.7 7.6 0.0 91.6 8.4 48.3 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.6 97.8 2.2 74.3 0.0 29.0 HOWEVALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 94.5 5.5 57.0 0.0 28.2 IRVINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.5 5.8 1.8 91.9 8.1 75.6 0.0 17.6 JAMES E BAZZELL MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.4 96.8 3.2 60.9 0.0 11.9 JAMES MADISON MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 1.2 12.0 1.6 84.9 15.1 40.4 0.0 17.0 JAMES T ALTON MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.5 3.5 19.8 3.7 72.5 27.5 48.2 0.0 12.9 JAMESTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.6 0.0 3.0 1.7 94.7 5.3 72.7 0.0 24.2 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOHN ADAIR INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL 0.0 0.5 19.1 4.5 75.8 24.2 74.8 0.0 20.7 0.3 0.0 3.5 3.2 92.9 7.1 64.7 0.0 15.1 LARUE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.1 0.1 4.8 1.0 94.0 6.0 51.1 0.0 9.2 LARUE COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL LEBANON JUNCTION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.7 4.9 2.0 92.2 7.8 64.2 0.2 17.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 99.1 0.9 66.5 0.0 18.8 LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.1 0.7 6.1 2.3 90.9 9.2 67.3 0.1 17.5 LIVERMORE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.3 96.1 3.9 61.1 0.0 26.7 LOGAN COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.3 0.0 3.3 0.6 95.8 4.2 46.1 0.0 12.0 LOST RIVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.5 4.2 13.1 13.3 68.8 31.2 52.1 0.3 18.6 MEADE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL MEADOW VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.5 0.7 2.3 0.9 95.7 4.3 41.8 0.0 10.3 0.0 4.2 35.2 8.8 51.7 48.3 73.5 0.0 28.2 MEMORIAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL METCALFE COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.9 98.5 1.5 76.0 0.0 19.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.6 97.6 2.4 75.2 0.0 14.1 MONROE CO HIGH 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.7 94.8 5.2 63.0 0.2 9.0 MONROE CO MIDDLE MORGANTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MORNINGSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MOUNT WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MUHLENBERG COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL MUHLENBERG SOUTH MIDDLE SCHOOL MUNFORDVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 2.1 3.6 94.3 5.7 70.4 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.3 0.7 2.7 96.3 3.7 58.1 0.0 16.6 0.1 2.1 29.8 7.3 60.6 39.4 73.0 0.0 12.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.5 97.7 2.3 41.0 0.0 14.0 0.1 0.1 4.9 0.6 94.3 5.7 44.7 0.2 0.0 5.3 0.9 93.7 6.3 54.8 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.2 5.5 1.5 92.8 7.2 60.3 0.0 20.8 NEWBURG MIDDLE SCHOOL NEWTON PARRISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NORTH HANCOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.1 3.1 50.1 4.1 42.6 57.4 61.5 0.0 20.3 0.3 0.8 3.7 3.1 92.1 7.9 74.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 1.0 1.4 2.4 95.3 4.7 56.1 0.0 20.4 NORTH HARDIN HIGH SCHOOL 0.7 3.7 29.2 6.1 60.3 39.7 49.4 0.1 NORTH JACKSON ELEMENTARY NORTH METCALFE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NORTH WARREN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.3 97.5 2.5 43.7 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.7 94.7 5.3 66.7 0.0 17.6 0.5 0.0 4.7 3.2 91.6 8.4 37.6 0.0 26.2 7.2 Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 12 of 23 Name of School AI/AN ASIAN BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY* FRL† ELL ST W/DIS 23.9 OAKLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 1.5 14.8 5.5 78.2 21.8 55.4 0.2 OLDHAM COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 1.1 3.8 4.1 90.8 9.2 21.9 0.8 10.1 OLMSTEAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.5 2.5 1.1 95.7 4.3 49.4 0.0 18.9 OWENSBORO MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.0 0.4 19.3 2.0 78.3 21.7 80.7 0.2 22.8 PARK CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARKER BENNETT CURRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 1.1 4.3 94.6 5.4 71.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 4.7 35.9 36.6 22.8 77.2 104.9 3.6 20.6 PAYNEVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 51.7 0.0 PLANO ELEMENTARY 0.2 0.5 3.1 5.8 90.4 9.6 39.1 POTTER GRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRIDE AVENUE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 2.6 6.8 1.8 88.8 11.2 27.3 0.2 9.3 0.0 0.5 29.0 2.3 68.2 31.8 64.5 0.0 30.5 RED CROSS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.4 1.4 1.4 96.7 3.3 55.6 0.0 13.0 RICH POND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RICHARDSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 2.0 3.3 4.1 90.6 9.4 24.5 0.3 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 98.4 1.6 41.8 0.0 24.7 16.7 ROCKFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.3 0.5 5.6 1.2 92.4 7.6 37.6 0.0 16.7 RUSSELL COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL RUSSELL SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RUSSELLVILLE JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.6 97.2 2.8 64.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.1 0.3 4.4 95.2 4.8 71.0 0.0 18.8 0.2 0.2 31.3 3.6 64.7 35.3 63.1 1.8 10.8 RUSSELLVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.5 0.5 30.1 3.0 66.0 34.0 49.8 0.0 8.1 SALEM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SENECA HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET CAREER ACADEMY 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 97.1 2.9 67.3 0.0 22.1 0.0 1.9 40.5 7.2 50.4 49.6 61.6 0.0 19.8 SIMPSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 0.9 9.4 2.9 86.5 13.5 60.2 0.0 11.0 SORGHO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTH CHRISTIAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTH EDMONSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTH GREEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTH HANCOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 1.3 6.3 4.8 87.7 12.3 60.3 0.0 27.2 1.6 2.9 27.7 10.4 57.5 42.5 80.9 0.8 19.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 98.6 1.4 56.9 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.8 16.2 5.2 77.7 22.3 63.1 0.0 16.4 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.4 98.4 1.6 72.5 0.0 28.2 SOUTH OLDHAM MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.2 1.4 3.9 2.7 91.9 8.1 40.6 0.3 12.2 SOUTHERN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.3 0.6 8.7 5.1 85.4 14.6 65.0 0.1 20.8 STUART PEPPER MIDDLE SCHOOL 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.7 96.7 3.3 45.5 0.0 12.5 T C CHERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 1.6 19.4 4.7 74.4 25.6 69.4 0.0 18.9 TALTON K STONE MIDDLE SCHOOL TAYLOR COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.4 3.5 15.4 2.1 78.6 21.4 44.3 0.0 9.8 0.1 0.3 1.8 2.1 95.8 4.2 61.5 0.2 16.7 THE NEW HAVEN SCHOOL TODD COUNTY CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.4 98.4 1.6 63.0 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.2 10.5 3.5 85.8 14.2 55.3 0.2 9.8 W R MCNEILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 4.6 12.9 2.6 79.9 20.1 26.5 0.5 8.6 WARREN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL WARREN COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.2 2.9 16.6 6.3 74.0 26.0 59.0 5.8 8.6 0.0 5.2 25.3 15.3 54.1 45.9 43.9 0.1 20.1 WARREN EAST HIGH SCHOOL 0.1 1.3 7.1 3.7 87.8 12.2 51.0 0.2 8.7 WARREN EAST MIDDLE SCHOOL WAYLAND ALEXANDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.6 7.3 1.9 90.2 9.8 58.5 0.1 13.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.8 96.6 3.4 66.5 0.0 23.0 Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 13 of 23 Name of School WEST HARDIN MIDDLE SCHOOL WEST LOUISVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AI/AN ASIAN BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY* 0.2 1.3 5.8 1.8 90.9 9.1 0.0 FRL† ELL ST W/DIS 52.2 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 2.1 97.9 2.1 55.8 0.0 29.0 WHITESVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WILLIAM NATCHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 97.3 2.7 50.5 0.0 17.2 0.0 12.3 7.1 4.4 76.2 23.8 29.6 0.9 17.1 Grand Total 0.2 1.1 8.2 3.1 87.4 12.6 56.8 0.2 16.8 *Diversity equals combined percentage of Native American/Alaskan, Asian, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino students in the school †Some percentages exceed 100 because state reports MORE students in a category than the TOTAL number of students in the school D. Dispositions Data (Academic Year 2011‐12) During the 2007‐08 school year, a dispositions rubric was developed and adopted at the initial preparation level. The faculty recommendation used for teacher program admission now reflects Level 1 dispositions. The full rubric is used as part of the student teaching evaluation process. 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 96% 98% 99% 93% 100% 100% 100% 98% WKU Professional Education Dispositions Values Personal Values Values Integrity Diversity Collaboration 98% 100% 99% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% Values Professionalism 99% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% Table 8. Proficiency Rates on Unit Wide Dispositions during Student Teaching Program Elementary Ed. Middle Grades Ed. Secondary Ed. P‐12 Ed. 5‐12 Ed. Special Ed. IECE Unit‐Wide Total Values Learning 99% 100% 98% 98% 100% 100% 100% 99% WKU Professional Education Dispositions Values Personal Values Values Integrity Diversity Collaboration 99% 99% 99% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 99% Values Professionalism 98% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 99% Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 14 of 23 E. Culminating Assessment Data (Academic Year 2011‐12) 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 2011‐12
98%
83%
93%
97%
100%
100%*
100%*
96%
2010‐11
97%
91%
84%
93%
94%
**
100%
94%
2009‐10 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% *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. Table 10. Percentage by Program of Candidates who “Passed” Each TWS Component Major CF LG DFI ASL ROT Elementary Ed. 92% 96% 89% 92% 87% Middle Grades Ed. 94% 92% 73% 83% 91% Secondary Ed. 95% 68% 97% 95% 84% P‐12 Ed. 98% 90% 96% 94% 88% 5‐12 Ed. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Special Ed.* 100% 100% 50% 50% 100% IECE* 83% 100% 83% 100% 100% Unit‐Wide 94% 91% 89% 92% 88% *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). Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 15 of 23 Table 11. Percentage of Program Candidates “Passing” Each Kentucky Teacher Standard† Major 1 Elementary Ed. 83% 91% 93% 88% 85% 73% 87% Middle Grades Ed. 73% 91% 91% 85% 67% 67% 91% Secondary Ed. 81% 81% 81% 86% 92% 78% 84% P‐12 Ed. 87% 96% 96% 90% 83% 83% 88% 5‐12 Ed. 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 93% 100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 50% 50% 100% Special Ed.* 2 3 5 6 7 9 IECE* 83% 83% 100% 83% 83% 83% 100% Unit‐Wide 83% 91% 92% 88% 83% 76% 88% *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 2011‐12 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. 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 93% 96% 97% 93% 100% 100% 100% 94% 2 90% 95% 90% 82% 92% 100% 80% 89% 3 93% 98% 91% 94% 100% 100% 100% 94% Kentucky Teacher Standards 4 5 6 7 87% 87% 80% 85% 95% 93% 91% 95% 93% 91% 88% 88% 85% 80% 70% 85% 77% 92% 100% 85% 100% 100% 86% 100% 100% 60% 80% 80% 89% 88% 82% 87% 8 87% 93% 91% 91% 100% 100% 100% 90% 9 85% 96% 90% 87% 92% 100% 100% 88% 10 89% 95% 91% 85% 85% 100% 80% 90% †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 Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 16 of 23 Praxis Results (2010‐11 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 2010‐11 program completers (N=488) compared to previous pass rates. Table 13. Pass Rates on Content Licensure Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation Program N Taking Assessment (2010‐11) 176 34 31 38 15 5 1 7 27 25 13 13 15 15 8 7 18 18 6 6 3 5 5 12 1 14 55 20 11 488† Name of Licensure Test WKU Pass Rate (2010‐11) 98% 94% 100% 89% 93% 100%* 100%* 86%* 96% 96% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100%* 86%* 100% 83% 83%* 100%* 100%* 100%* 100%* 92% 0%* 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% WKU Pass Rate (2009‐10) 97% 97% 100% 95% 100% 100% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 89% 83% 100% 100% 88% 96% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93% ‐‐ 90% 100% ‐‐ 100% 100% 100% 89% 92% 95% WKU Pass Rate (2008‐09) 99% 100% 100% 84% 100% 100% ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 100% 95% 100% 100% 84% 94% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ‐‐ 98% 92% 92% 97% Elementary Ed ELEMENTARY ED CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Middle Grades Ed MIDDLE SCHOOL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS Middle Grades Ed MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS Middle Grades Ed MIDDLE SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES Middle Grades Ed MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE Secondary Ed BIOLOGY CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Secondary Ed EARTH & SPACE SCIENCES CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Secondary Ed PHYSICS CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Secondary Ed ENG LANG LIT COMP CONTENT KNOW Secondary Ed ENG LANG LIT COMP ESSAYS Secondary Ed MATHEMATICS: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Secondary Ed MATH PROOFS MODELS PROBLEMS PART 1 Secondary Ed SOCIAL STUDIES: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Secondary Ed SOCIAL STUDIES: INTERPRET MATERIALS P‐12 Ed ART MAKING P‐12 Ed ART CONTENT KNOWLEDGE P‐12 Ed MUSIC CONCEPTS AND PROCESSES P‐12 Ed MUSIC CONTENT KNOWLEDGE P‐12 Ed PHYSICAL ED: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE P‐12 Ed PHYSICAL ED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN P‐12 Ed SPANISH CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 5‐12 Ed AGRICULTURE 5‐12 Ed BUSINESS ED: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE 5‐12 Ed FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES II 5‐12 Ed TECHNOLOGY ED IECE IECE Special Ed EDUC. EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS: CK Special Ed ED EXCEPT STUDENTS: MILD/MOD. DISAB. Special Ed ED EXCEPT STUDENTS: PROFND. DISAB. Overall Pass Rate *Pass rate based on N<10 †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 and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills Praxis Test Type of Assessment Aggregate – Professional Knowledge N Taking Assessment (2010‐11) 383 WKU Teacher Survey Results (Academic Year 2011‐12) Institutional Pass Rate (2010‐11) 96%
Institutional Pass Rate (2009‐10) 98% Institutional
Pass Rate (2008‐09) 98% Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 17 of 23 Below are the results of the electronic WKU Teacher Survey sent to student teachers completing their experience fall 2011 or spring 2012. Out of a possible 394 student teachers, 348 (88%) 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=191 1 3.56 2 3.61 3 3.71 4 3.49 5 3.43 6 3.51 7 3.51 8 3.27 9 3.42 10 3.26 MGE N=44 3.26 3.10 3.34 3.15 2.95 3.12 2.95 2.80 3.04 2.76 SECED N=51 3.40 3.24 3.59 3.29 3.11 3.36 3.08 2.72 3.39 3.02 P‐12 N=36 3.26 3.10 3.48 3.22 2.94 3.18 3.14 2.75 3.10 2.87 5‐12 N=13 3.17 3.11 3.26 3.06 3.05 3.56 3.05 2.85 2.94 2.88 SPED
N=8
3.50
3.70
3.75
3.60
3.33
3.47
3.50
3.47
3.47
2.97
IECE N=5 3.10 3.28 3.56 3.32 3.20 3.25 3.40 3.30 3.25 3.05 Unit‐Wide Total 348 3.44 3.42 3.61 3.37 3.25 3.40 3.32 3.06 3.31 3.09 *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 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3.36 3.59 3.36 3.33 3.20 3.38 3.31 3.30 3.13 3.25 3.19 3.42 3.15 3.13 3.02 3.29 3.14 3.11 3.01 2.94 3.21 3.35 3.15 3.14 3.03 3.13 3.12 3.14 2.90 3.05 3.06 3.27 3.06 3.00 2.92 3.29 3.21 3.23 3.08 3.10 3.16 3.28 3.08 3.07 2.90 3.10 3.13 3.13 2.90 2.97 ** 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 2011‐12 Final Page 18 of 23 Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (2011‐12) 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. Table 17. Percentage of Candidates Averaging 2 (First Cycle) Year 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 2011‐12 1 100% 100% 100% 95% 2 100% 100% 99% 94% 3 100% 100% 99% 97% Kentucky Teacher Standards* 4 5 6 7 100% 100% 100% 97% 99% 96% 97% 98% 97% 94% 97% 97% 94% 90% 93% 91% 8 94% 94% 91% 86% 9 94% 94% 92% 87% 10 n/a 94% 90% 89% 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% 2011‐12 100% 100% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 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 23 Section 2. Continuous Assessment Results A. Introduction and Context This report represents the first 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 received an Area for Improvement (AFI) related to Standard 6 – Unit Governance and Resources, and more specifically, in relation to our physical education teacher preparation program. The unit will continue to work to ensure coherent planning, delivery, and operations with the program. 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 23 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%
83%
94%
91%
96%
95%
93%
2 - Designs/Plans
97%
91%
89%
85%
94%
91%
3 - Learning Climate
97%
92%
94%
90%
97%
94%
4 - Implements/Manages
98%
89%
82%
94%
91%
5 -Assessment/Evaluation
96%
88%
88%
75%
90%
87%
6 - Technology
96%
83%
82%
87%
93%
88%
7 – Reflection
97%
76%
87%
85%
91%
87%
8 - Collaboration
97%
90%
73%
86%
87%
9 - Professional Development
95%
88%
88%
83%
87%
88%
10 ‐ Leadership 98% 90% 68% 89% 86% 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 23 C. Other Conceptual Framework Values Summary Diversity As described earlier, overall, in 90% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at least one student with special needs. In 94% of their field experiences, candidates reported working with at least one student from a diverse ethnic group. These percentages have shown a slight increase over the last several years. However, 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 the 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 are clearly moving in the right direction and will continue with our efforts. 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 they teach. 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 will be invited to discuss; provide insight regarding; and suggest edits, corrections, and alternative explanations to the findings of this report. More importantly, these audiences have contributed and will again contribute to Section 4 that outlines key decisions made during 2011‐12 based on the previous Annual Reports and new decisions to be considered based on the 2011‐12 results. Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 22 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 (names 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. This policy has passed the university curricula process and was implemented this academic school year.  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. This report includes the first sets of data from the new TWS instrument.  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. 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. Based on recommendations in the 2009‐2010 Unit‐Wide Assessment Report, last year a School of Teacher Education task force developed a set of diversity proficiencies. We believe that “all candidates must be able to demonstrate knowledge about issues of diversity that affect teaching and Unit Wide Assessment Report 2011‐12 Final Page 23 of 23 student learning” (WKU_STE). We continue to work toward a 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 successful 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.