Note: Any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report should be directed to Jacqueline Pope-
Tarrence ( jacqueline.pope@wku.edu
), CEBS Assistant to the Dean for Accountability & Research.

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 2 of 24
Professional Education Unit Assessment Report - Initial Preparation Programs
Academic Year 2010-11
Overview: This report includes assessment and survey results from the following data collection points and sources:
 Admission Data (Academic Year 2010-11) 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 2010-2011) 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 2010-2011) 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 2010-2011) o
Admission and early clinical dispositions data by program o
Student Teacher Evaluation dispositions results by program
 Culminating Assessment Data (Academic Year 2010-2011) 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 (2009-2010 cohort) o
WKU Teacher Survey results (2010-11 student teacher) o
Kentucky’s Education Professional Standards Board Teacher Survey results (2009-2010)
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 2010-11 based on the 2009-
2010 Annual Report and new decisions to be considered based on the 2010-11 results.

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 3 of 24
Conceptual Framework
Standards/Values
Content Knowledge
Designs/Plans
Learning Climate
Implements/Manages
Assessment/Evaluation
Technology
Reflection
Collaboration
Component 1:
Admission Data
Faculty
Recs
KY
REQ's
WKU PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION UNIT WIDE CONTINUOUS ASSESSMENT MATRIX - INITIAL PREPARATION
Component 2:
Course-Based
Assessment Data
Component 3:
Clinical Experiences Data
Component 4:
Culminating Assessment Data
Critical
Performances
Early Clinical
Experiences
Final Clinical
Experience
Capstone
Assessment
(TWS)
LG4, DFI2, DFI4,
ASL4
CF1-3, LG1, LG4,
LG7, DFI1-2, DFI4-5,
ROT4-5
Final Clinical
Evaluation
1a-d, Overall
2a-e, Overall
Exit
Survey
1a-d
2a-e
CF1-3, LG2, LG5 3a-e, Overall 3a-e
4a-e, Overall 4a-e
LG6, LG8-10, DFI1,
DFI5, ASL2, ASL4-5
DFI3, ASL1
ASL2-3, ASL5,
ROT2-5
CF4-5, ASL4
5a-d, Overall
6a-d, Overall
7a-c, Overall
8a-b, Overall
5a-e
6a-d
7a-c
8a-d
Professional Development
Leadership
ROT1-3 9a-c, Overall
10a, Overall
9a-d
10a-d
Dispositions
Field Experiences & Clinical
Practice
Diversity
Impacts P-12 Student
Learning
DATA MAINTAINED BY:
FR a-f
OTS Faculty
FX a-l
Summary Form
Summary Form
C&I Staff
OTS Data
OTS Data
OTS
To Be Determined**
To Be Determined**
C&I Staff/Ed Tech
Disp a-l
Disp g
OTS/EdTech Ed Tech
DATA HOUSED IN: CEBS ACCSYS CEBS ACCSYS CEBS ACCSYS CEBS ACCSYS
DATA REPORTING CYCLE: Semester Yearly Yearly Yearly Yearly
DATA REVIEWED BY: PEC
Faculty/Programs/
PEC
Program
Note: Cells reflect instruments or rubric/survey items keyed to CF Standards/Values
*Collection of Principal Survey data will resume Spring 2012
Programs/PEC Programs/PEC
**The TWS was revised Fall 2010 and Spring 2011. New TWS Items have yet to be keyed to Diversity and Impacts on P-12 Student Learning
Yearly
Programs/PEC
Yearly
Programs/PEC
Component 5:
Exit and Follow-Up Data
Praxis
II
Graduate
Survey
1a-d
2a-e
3a-e
4a-e
5a-e
6a-d
7a-c
8a-d
9a-d
10a-d
OTS Ed Tech
BANNER/CEBS ACCSYS
Yearly Yearly
Principal
Survey*
1a-d
2a-e
3a-e
4a-e
5a-e
6a-d
7a-c
8a-d
9a-d
10a-d
Ed Tech
Biannually
PEC Programs/PEC Programs/PEC

Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final
Page 4 of 24
Section 1. Continuous Assessment Results
A. Admission Data (Academic Year 2010-11)
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
PPST
Math
PPST
Reading
PPST
Writing
SAT
GRE
Composite
Admission
GPA
N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean
0-Unknown
131001-Special Ed
131012-Comm Dis
16
12
131202-Early ELED P-5 127
23
23
23
1
21
183
177
1
20
180
176
1
20
176
174
1
1
2
970
900
1420
30
36
957
1068
1
44
41
171
2.79
3.20
3.73
3.23
131203-MGE
131204-IECE
131301-Agriculture
131302-Art Ed
40
3
2
4
23
23
22
24
2
2
179
177
2
2
177
179
2
1
2
175 2 1045 1
178
179 1 1790
1
890
1320
50
7
2
7
3.18
3.43
2.66
3.46
131303-Business Ed
131308-Family & CS
131309-Indust Tech
131312-Music Ed
1
6
1
12
22
23
24
25
1 179 1 180 1 1700
1 3.65
9 3.17
2 3.39
13 3.53
131314-Physical Ed
160905-Spanish
190701-IECE
230101- English & ALA
250101-School Media
260101- Biology
270101-Mathematics
400501-Chemistry
2
4
7
1
1
5
6
2
22
24
27
24
24
27
27
26
22
2
1
1
178
174
173
2
1
1
174
175
177
2
1
1
176
175
175
3 1023
7 1083
1 800
1 990
2 1020
7 3.00
9 3.62
7 1073 11 3.17
1 1060 24 3.34
6
5
8
3
3.53
3.43
3.55
3.12
400801-Physics
4210101-School Psy
450101-History/SS
450801-History/SS
14
2
25
24 1
23
178 1 181 1 177
1 1870
6 910
2 3.66
6 3.65
15 3.24
3 2.75
500901-Music Ed
Grand Total
4
294
24
24 31 177 31 177 32
*PPST refers to the ETS Pre-Professional Skills Tests: Mathematics (M), Reading (R), & Writing (W,) respectively.
4 3.63
175 8 1286 97 1028 451 3.31
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 2010-11 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.

EXED-434
IECE-321
IECE-322
IECE-324
IECE-325
IECE-421
IECE-422
LME-318
LME-407
LME-411
LME-448
LTCY-310
LTCY-320
LTCY-420
LTCY-421
LTCY-444
MGE-275
MGE-385
MGE-475
MGE-477
MGE-479
MGE-481
MUS-312
MUS-412
MUS-415
PE-111
CFS-381
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-416
EXED-417
EXED-422
EXED-430
EXED-431
EXED-432
Course
Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 5 of 24
Table 2. CP Proficiency Level Percentages
1 2
0%
12%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
19%
29%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
6%
3%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
25%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
6%
0%
0%
1%
3%
5%
10%
0%
17%
13%
4%
9%
3%
3%
3%
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
15%
0%
73%
64%
55%
81%
57%
20%
13%
0%
58%
67%
17%
20%
23%
0%
3
83%
75%
63%
79%
85%
70%
68%
40%
0%
62%
51%
59%
53%
20%
32%
74%
45%
59%
56%
55%
20%
30%
60%
57%
52%
100%
75%
100%
23%
41%
31%
54%
7%
27%
35%
43%
16%
37%
70%
88%
90%
42%
33%
83%
80%
62%
100%
4
0%
6%
33%
12%
12%
28%
28%
60%
100%
32%
46%
22%
6%
80%
61%
26%
55%
36%
44%
45%
80%
70%
40%
43%
48%
0%
0%
0%
77%
59%
67%
46%
88%

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 6 of 24
PE-121
PE-212
PE-320
PE-413
PE-414
PH-261
PH-381
PSY-310
SEC-351
SEC-352
SEC-453
SEC-473
SEC-475
SEC-478
SEC-481
SMED-102
SMED-210
SMED-320
SMED-360
SMED-470
Grand Total
Course
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
3%
5%
1%
8%
0%
2
6%
0%
0%
4%
7%
0%
0%
16%
71%
86%
38%
0%
70%
100%
83%
63%
0%
100%
74%
30%
61%
3
27%
59%
71%
81%
93%
56%
67%
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 Teacher Standard
79%
24%
13%
53%
100%
30%
0%
0%
38%
100%
0%
26%
70%
35%
4
67%
41%
29%
15%
0%
44%
33%
P-12 Ed.
5-12 Ed.
Special Ed.
IECE
Program
Elementary Ed.
Middle Grades Ed.
Secondary Ed.
1 2
98% 97%
93%
93%
95%
91%
94% 93%
94% 95%
3
95%
93%
92%
97%
Kentucky Teacher Standards*
4
92%
94%
96%
97%
5
97% 100% 97%
94%
94%
93%
95%
6
98%
96%
95%
93%
96%
7
96%
96%
97%
93%
97%
8
97%
92%
96%
93%
96%
9
95%
91%
95%
10
97%
96%
99%
92% 100%
95% 100%
95% 96% 97% 95% 96% 100% 96% 100% 91% 100%
100% 96% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 98% 95% 100%
Unit-Wide 96% 95% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 94% 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
Table 4 provides counts of 167 students who have scored 2 or below on two or more critical performances over the 2010-11 academic year. The table highlights the counts of the 31 students who scored low on three or more critical performances.

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 7 of 24
5091
6601
8482
7113
8385
7558
5663
5113
0022
3188
1126
3351
4676
4325
3959
1298
6753
9063
0301
8952
6150
0535
1208
6590
1413
1819
5831
1919
2068
2439
8434
9344
4198
4812
7823
5434
1218
0001
2756
7829
0299
3041
8867
3386
2192
3651
0523
3811
3433
6958
9343
3787
9409
6030
9949
3151
Table 4. Count of Students Scoring Below Proficient on CPs
Student ID
1
Score
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Count Per Student
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
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
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
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Student ID
6362
6379
6568
8098
3588
9262
6073
0032
5266
4303
5630
5138
7108
8376
1202
5188
9140
4671
8545
6910
5958
0827
4983
2416
3107
4701
5291
5490
1292
0314
3825
1413
3831
1171
4067
2543
4156
7438
1146
2743
5224
8075
9284
7500
0060
4593
0213
0157
0154
9955
1275
0426
1768
3723
6949
7051
3882
1
2
2
Score
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
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
2
2
Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 8 of 24
Count Per Student
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
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
2
2
2

Student ID
3228
0459
1532
7998
9624
7281
6973
7572
9226
2772
7348
5001
6779
3500
8865
9422
4256
9589
8427
6013
2675
8206
3357
0561
6269
0493
8716
2091
9673
8444
6583
2621
1
2
2
2
2
1
Score
0341
1509
3271
4140
8248
7482
3795
3607
2628
5643
5235
9560
7906
8812
0056
5742
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
0451
7094
9909
2913
6854
0154 3
Student N
Students with three or more low scores
2
2
3
3
1
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
5
6
6
6
4
4
2
2
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 9 of 24
Count Per Student
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
6
7
167
31
4
5
6
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 10 of 24
C. Clinical Experiences Data (Academic Year 2010-11)
Over the 2010-11 academic year, 937 students reported demographic information on 1303 field placements, with an average of 17% ethnically diverse students, 46% 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 well 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 Students 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
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
16%
61%
13%
37%
47%
39%
10%
10%
26%
16%
19%
7%
87%
9%
70%
42%
% Candidates working with Students with Special Needs (Aggregate) 89%
% Candidates working with Diverse Students (Aggregate) 94%
Overall, as can be seen in Table 5, in 89% 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 2010-11 academic year. The average overall diversity percentage remains slightly above the average 11% ethnic diversity of the schools in the 30+ counties that represent our service area.

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 11 of 24
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
96.6
84.3
85.7
98.1
67.6
68.5
96.5
83.2
96.9
76.6
82.8
97.3
96.1
94.9
97.5
97.7
97.3
95
95
92.3
93.5
49
84.5
95.8
93.1
7.6
98.7
94.5
95.9
95.9
96.8
82.2
79.6
97.4
97.8
96.9
83.3
98.3
63.3
94.7
95.5
100
72
95.9
95.2
1.4
13.2
2.2
0.6
7.8
8.8
0.3
2.3
1.2
2
3.6
0.9
1.7
3.3
1.7
1.7
0.6
2.4
1
1.5
0.5
6.7
1.1
1
1.9
1.5
6.2
0.6
1.9
1
3.3
1.5
1
2
1
3.3
8.5
1
1.5
2
1.9
0
10.2
1.8
1.3
1.8
2.1
10.2
0.6
22
19.5
1.9
13.4
1.2
20.3
13.1
1.3
1.7
1.4
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.4
0
5.2
5.7
44.2
14.2
2.4
4.4
83.1
0
3.5
1.9
2.2
0.5
0.4
12.7
0.2
1.8
8.1
9.5
1
35.3
2.4
2.2
0
12.3
0.6
2.6
0.4
0.6
0
0
0
0.4
0
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0
0
0.3
0
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
0
0.6
0
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
ABRAHAM LINCOLN ES
ADAIR COUNTY ES
ALLEN COUNTY INTERMEDIATE
ALLEN COUNTY PRIMARY
ALLEN CNTY-SCOTTSVILLE HS
ALVATON ES
ANCHORAGE PUBLIC ES
APOLLO HS
AUBURN ES
AUDUBON ES
AUSTIN TRACY ES
BARDSTOWN ES
BARDSTOWN PRIMARY
BARREN COUNTY HS
BARREN COUNTY MS
BEAVER DAM ES
BEECH SENIOR HS
BEN JOHNSON ES
BOWLING GREEN HS
BOWLING GREEN MS
BRANDENBURG PRIMARY
BRECKINRIDGE COUNTY MS
BRIARWOOD ES
BRISTOW ES
BULLITT CENTRAL HS
BUTLER COUNTY HS
BUTLER COUNTY MS
CAMPBELLSVILLE ES
CANEYVILLE ES
CARRITHERS MS
CAVERNA MS
FIELD ES
CENTRAL HARDIN HS
CENTRAL HS
CLARKSON ES
COLLEGE VIEW MS
COLONEL WILLIAM CASEY ES
COX'S CREEK ES
CRAVENS ES
CREEKSIDE ES
CROSSROADS ES
CUB RUN ES
CUMBERLAND TRACE ES
CUSTER ES
DAVID T. WILSON ES
0.3
0.4
1.5
0
2.7
2.9
1.3
0.9
0.8
1.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0
0
0.3
1
3.9
1.1
0
2.5
0
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.6
0
0
1.2
0.5
0.4
0.7
0
0.3
6.3
2.2
0.4
0
0.9
0.4
0
5.5
1.2
0.9
3.4
15.7
14.3
1.9
32.4
31.5
3.5
16.8
3.1
23.4
17.2
2.7
3.9
5.1
2.5
2.3
2.7
7.7
6.5
5
5
51
15.5
4.2
6.9
92.4
1.3
5.5
4.1
4.1
3.2
17.8
20.4
2.6
2.2
3.1
16.7
1.7
36.7
5.3
4.5
0
28
4.1
4.8
62 0.0
69.6 0.0
69.2 0.0
60.4 0.0
54.4 0.0
36.3 0.0
0.3 0.0
39.2 0.4
50.9 0.0
55.1 0.0
76.4 0.0
68.1 0.0
53 0.0
47.5 0.1
51.4 0.1
61.2 0.0
15.8 n/a
47.8 0.0
44.9 5.2
53 2.8
47.4 0.0
68.8 0.0
30.5 0.0
49.1 0.0
43.5 0.3
55.9 0.0
61.8 0.0
88.3 0.0
85.6 0.0
64 0.0
83.2 0.0
18 0.4
38.6 0.0
81.5 0.0
76 0.0
35.3 0.2
47.8 0.0
22.6 0.0
99.6 0.0
49.7 0.0
59.6 n/a
53.8 0.0
46.4 0.2
50.9 0.0
41.5 0.0
9.5
17.7 n/a
14.5
9.7
11.2
24.8
21.8
20.4
12.7
21
9.4
24.4
18.6
8
12.2
11.3
26.1
17.5
9.4
13.5
23.7
19.5
15.7
8.9
14.1
19.9
11.2
23.4
25.8
12
17.9
16.8
13.1
9.6
7.9
26.4
23.1
16.3
24.6 n/a
21.2
23.7
21.2
11.4

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 12 of 24
Name of School
DAVIESS COUNTY HS
DAVIESS COUNTY MS
DEER PARK ES
DISHMAN MCGINNIS ES
DRAKES CREEK MS
EAST HARDIN MS
EAST OLDHAM MS
EAST VIEW ES
EDMONSON COUNTY HS
EDMONTON ES
ELIZABETHTOWN HS
F T BURNS MS
FRANKLIN ES
FRANKLIN-SIMPSON HS
FRANKLIN-SIMPSON MS
GAMALIEL ES
GLASGOW MS
GRAYSON COUNTY HS
GREEN COUNTY HS
GREENWOOD HS
H W WILKEY ES
HANCOCK COUNTY MS
HARDINSBURG ES
HART COUNTY HS
HELMWOOD HEIGHTS ES
HENDERSON CNTY SOUTH MS
HENRY F MOSS MS
HIGHLAND ES
HISEVILLE ES
HODGENVILLE ES
HORSE BRANCH ES
HOWE VALLEY ES
INDIAN LAKE ES
IRVINGTON ES
JAMES E BAZZELL MS
JAMES T ALTON MS
JOE HARRISON CARTER ES
JOHN ADAIR INTERMEDIATE
JOHN HARDIN HS
KENWOOD STATION ES
LAKEWOOD ES
LINCOLN ES
LINCOLN TRAIL ES
LOGAN COUNTY HS
LOST RIVER ES
MADISON CREEK ES
MEADOW LANDS ES
AI/AN ASIAN BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY* FRL
†
ELL ST W/DIS
0.1 1.1 1.5 1.2 96.2 3.8 29 0.3 8.1
0.4
0.3
0
0.5
0.4
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0.1
0.5
0
0
0
0.3
0.2
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.6
0
0.7
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.5
0
2.4
1.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0
3
0
0.3
4.3
0.2
2.5
3.3
0.2
0
0.2
0
0.7
0
0
0.9
1.2
1.3
0.6
0
0.2
0
3.2
0.1
2
2.3
3.9
0.9
0.9
2.2
0.8
1
1
3.3
0
0.7
3.6
2.9
0.7
0
3
5.8
2.3
11.9
1.6
6.9
5.5
6.2
3.5
6
21.9
11.8
24.9
9.9
2.6
1.9
3.5
10.1
19.5
15.1
14.5
3.4
13.8
1.6
2
3.2
6.6
54.4
12.8
7.6
3.1
5.7
6.9
2.3
20
26.3
2.2
7.8
29.6
8.2
8.8
14.3
4.6
3.5
28.1
20.6
5.7
94.2
97.7
88.1
98.4
93.1
94.5
93.8
96.5
90.1
97.4
98.1
96.5
94
78.1
88.2
75.1
89.9
80.5
84.9
85.5
96.6
86.2
98.4
98
96.8
93.4
45.6
87.2
92.4
96.9
94.3
93.1
97.7
80
73.7
97.8
92.2
70.4
91.8
91.2
85.7
95.4
96.5
71.9
79.4
94.3
1.6
2.3
4.7
1.9
1.6
0
6.1
0
4.2
15.8
9.3
14.9
4.5
1.9
1.1
2.6
6.3
13.2
13
11.1
1.1
10.3
0.7
1.8
1.8
3.4
31.1
5.1
6
0.5
1.4
6
0.8
14.8
17.9
0.7
3.5
21.8
4.6
4.2
11.9
2.1
2.9
12.8
13.1
2.6
2.4
1.3
0.9
0.7
1.1
2.3
4.7
1.6
1.5
1.6
2.2
7.3
1.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
2.3
2.8
0.8
0.2
2.9
5.1
0.7
2.3
4.3
0.5
1.3
2
1.3
1.2
21
3.5
0.7
1.6
0.4
11.9
4
2.4
1.5
3.2
1.2
1.1
4.5
1.5
2.8
4.2
35.7 0.3
75.1 0.0
41.9 0.0
45.3 0.0
57.5 0.1
61.7 0.0
48.4 0.0
61.3 1.7
20.5 0.2
65.4 0.0
60.7 1.2
71.4 0.0
61.1 0.0
38.3 0.4
44 0.0
97.7 2.8
33.2 1.0
42 0.0
12.7 1.1
60.6 0.4
46 0.0
73.2 0.0
37.6 0.1
48.4 0.7
63.4 0.0
42.6 0.0
53.2 0.0
73.3 0.0
52.9 0.0
47.9 0.0
53.6 0.0
4 n/a
50.5 0.0
55.9 0.0
46.3 0.0
59.5 0.0
71.3 0.0
33.7 0.0
15.8 0.3
52.8 0.0
52.7 0.2
43.8 0.0
41 0.0
67 0.3
19 n/a
49.6 0.0
5.7
18.2
10.5
24.7
9.9
24
13.3
9.9
18.8
20.2
20.4
29
28.2
14.7
31.5
8.9
8.2
18.3
15.2
6.4
15.2
10.7
21.3
17.8
8.8
11.9
13.7
21
9.3
23.3
8.2 n/a
17.6
13.4
27.6
8.5
22.6
12
18.6
11.9
12.9
20.4
15.1
7.1 n/a
26.5

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 13 of 24
Name of School
MONROE COUNTY HS
MONROE COUNTY MS
MORGANTOWN ES
MORNINGSIDE ES
MORNINGSIDE ES
MUNFORDVILLE ES
NELSON COUNTY HS
NORTH BUTLER ES
NORTH HANCOCK ES
NORTH WARREN ES
OHIO COUNTY MS
OLD KENTUCKY HOME MS
ORAN P LAWLER ES
OWENSBORO HS
OWENSBORO MS
PARKER BENNETT CURRY ES
PAYNEVILLE ES
PLANO ES
POTTER GRAY ES
R E STEVENSON ES
RED CROSS ES
RICH POND ES
RICHARDSVILLE ES
RINEYVILLE ES
ROCKFIELD ES
RUSSELL COUNTY HS
RUSSELL SPRINGS ES
SALEM ES
SENECA HS MGNT CRR ACAD
SIMPSON ES
SORGHO ES
SOUTH EDMONSON ES
SOUTH GREEN ES
SOUTH HANCOCK ES
SOUTH SPENCER HS
SOUTHERN ES
SOUTHERN ES
SOUTHERN OAKS ES
STUART PEPPER MS
T C CHERRY ES
TALTON K STONE MS
TAYLOR COUNTY HS
TAYLOR COUNTY MS
TECUMSEH JR-SR HIGH SCH
TEMPLE HILL ES
TEMPLE HILL ES
TOMPKINSVILLE ES
AI/AN ASIAN BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY* FRL
†
ELL ST W/DIS
0 0.5 3.8 1.4 94.2 5.8 59.4 0.2 9
0.4
1.2
0.5
0.4
0.9
1.8
0
2
1.1
0.5
0.5
0
0.8
0.7
1.7
0
0.5
2.8
4
0
0.5
0.2
0.6
1.1
0
0.3
0.57
2.9
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.7
0
0
1.4
3.9
0.1
0.5
0.3
0
0
0.4
0.2
0
0
0
0
39.4
9.6
3.5
0.2
15.8
1.4
0.9
23.4
0.7
2.8
0.4
5.4
4.3
0.5
0.3
1.9
1.6
20.3
19.7
33.7
0
1.5
6.3
3.4
0.7
44.25
17
6.3
2.1
0.3
2.2
4.2
0.3
17.2
13.3
1.7
2
1
0.5
0.3
2
1.4
0.8
0.9
3.9
1.8
5.9
0.5
1.1
1.7
7
3
2.4
2.2
1.4
1.7
3.6
4.8
1.9
2.8
0.7
37.2
0.5
2.8
2.8
1.4
0.2
0.6
1.6
2.7
2.6
8.91
4.3
0.9
0.6
0.6
2
2.2
1.5
4.1
1.2
1.5
1.4
5.1
2.8
7
1.1
0
0.8
2.6
4.1
0.2
0.2
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0.3
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.2
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
98.3
51.6
86.4
92.2
97.4
76.8
97.7
97.6
70.9
96.8
92.8
98.9
91.3
93.6
97.3
96.1
96
97.9
78.4
77.5
25.2
99.5
95.2
88
94
96.3
46.26
75.8
92.6
96.9
98.6
95.2
93.4
98.1
93.5
96.7
92.7
96.3
77.4
81.2
96.6
95.6
98.3
98.5
96.5
92
6
3.7
53.74
24.2
2.6
23.2
2.3
2.4
6.5
3.3
7.3
3.7
1.7
48.4
13.6
7.8
8.7
6.4
2.7
3.9
22.6
18.8
3.4
4.4
1.7
1.5
3.5
8
74.8
0.5
4.8
12
29.1
3.2
7.2
1.1
6.6
1.9
4
2.1
21.6
22.5
7.4
3.1
1.4
4.8
69.6 0.0
27.6 0.0
89.94
53.2 n/a
58.3 0.0
56.5 0.0
32.8 0.0
43.2 0.0
46.1 0.0
39.6 0.0
56.6 0.0
52.6 0.0
58.1 0.0
65.4 0.0
74.6 0.2
99 3.6
50.2 0.0
36.4 n/a
27.4 0.2
63.5 0.0
37.4 0.0
22.7 0.3
37.6 0.0
46.3 0.0
43.3 0.0
61.5 0.0
70.7 0.0
66.2 0.0
56 0.0
63.5 0.0
49.2 0.0
58.3 0.0
60.5 0.0
58.7 0.0
29.2 n/a
53.5 0.5
71.5 0.0 n/a
44.4 0.0
60.6 0.0
28.8 0.0
44.1 0.8
47.7 0.6
28.4 n/a
51.5 n/a
67.1 0.0
77.1 0.0
15.6
16.6 n/a
12.5
20.8
8.7
21.6
20.4
26.2
15.8
10.8
17.5
13.9
22.8
20.6
16.7 n/a
9.3
22.1
19.8
11
27.2
21
16.4
28.2
21.4
13
14.6
24.7
20.4
16.7
9.9
18.8 n/a
17.2
21.7 n/a
12.5
18.9
9.8
11.2
14.3 n/a n/a
19.2
20

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 14 of 24
Name of School
W R MCNEILL ES
WARREN CENTRAL HS
WARREN CENTRAL HS
WARREN COUNTY ES
WARREN EAST HS
WARREN EAST MS
WATT HARDISON ES
WEBSTER COUNTY HS
WEST HARDIN MS
WEST LOUISVILLE ES
WESTERN ES
WHITE HOUSE HERITAGE
WHITE HOUSE HS
WHITE HOUSE MS
WHITESVILLE ES
AI/AN ASIAN BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY* FRL
†
ELL ST W/DIS
0 3.8 11.7 2.2 82.2 17.8 26.2 0.5 8.6
59.9 5.8 8.6
0.2
0.7
0
0
0.1
0.3
0
0.2
0
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.2
0
0.2
0.8
0.4
0
1.7
0.9
3.4
1.9
1.1
0.8
1
0.7
0.8
0
18.1
50.5
24.6
9.6
7.4
6.3
4.4
6.7
0.4
0
2.2
2.8
2.5
1.2
5.5
6.2
15.1
3.2
3.1
3.9
2.1
2.1
3.9
0.3
2.2
1.9
2.3
1.2
74.5
42.1
56.9
85
88.4
88.6
93.2
89.7
95.4
99.7
94
94.2
94.2
97.5
25.5
57.9
43.1
15
11.6
11.4
6.8
10.3
4.6
0.3
6
5.8
5.8
2.5
54.9 n/a
60.9 0.1
50.9 0.2
64.6 0.1
46 n/a
41.7 0.0
50.7 0.0
48.2 0.0
70.4 0.0
21
19.8
27.3 n/a n/a n/a
48.5 0.0 n/a
20.1
8.7
13.4 n/a
12.8
13.9
29
26 n/a n/a n/a
17.2
WILLIAM NATCHER ES 0.1 10.4 8.4 5.3 75.8 24.2 36.6 0.9 17.1
Average Percentages 0.1 1.0 7.4 2.9 88.4 11.5 51.3 0.2
*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
**n/a - Data not available from Tennessee schools
16.6
D. Dispositions Data (Academic Year 2010-11)
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 midprogram level dispositions data. These were finalized throughout 2008, as all programs prepared
Program Review Documents to be submitted to the EPSB as a required part of our accreditation renewal process. 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
Values
Learning
97%
88%
87%
95%
95%
100%
84%
94%
WKU Professional Education Dispositions
Values Personal
Integrity
Values
Diversity
Values
Collaboration
99%
95%
99%
94%
99%
99%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
Values
Professionalism
98%
93%
90%
100%
100%
100%
89%
96%

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 15 of 24
Table 8. Proficiency Rates on Unit Wide Dispositions during Student Teaching
Program Values
Learning
WKU Professional Education Dispositions
Values Personal
Integrity
Values
Diversity
Values
Collaboration
Values
Professionalism
Elementary Ed.
Middle Grades Ed.
100%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
Secondary Ed.
P-12 Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
5-12 Ed.
Special Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
IECE
Unit-Wide
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
E. Culminating Assessment Data (Academic Year 2010-11)
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
** No data reported
2010-11
97%
91%
84%
93%
94%
**
100%
94%
2009-10
99%
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
2008-09
92%
95%
90%
93%
100%
100%
100%
93%
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 2010-11 Final
Page 16 of 24
Table 10. Percentage by Program of Candidates who “Passed” Each TWS Component
Major
ELED
MGE
SECED
P-12
5-12
IECE
Total
CF
94%
100%
97%
99%
95%
100%
96%
LG
97%
91%
100%
87%
86%
88%
94%
DFI
90%
89%
97%
85%
91%
100%
90%
ASL
94%
87%
90%
80%
95%
100%
91%
ROT
99%
89%
100%
89%
95%
100%
96%
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 8 9
ELED
MGE
SECED
P-12
84%
84%
68%
72%
93%
96%
97%
91%
97%
100%
94%
100%
90%
89%
90%
85%
79%
78%
55%
57%
89%
82%
94%
72%
89%
95%
91%
100%
97%
89%
100%
89%
5-12
IECE
83%
75%
91%
88%
95%
100%
64%
100%
82%
75%
77%
100%
100%
**
95%
100%
Total 80% 93% 97% 87% 73% 85% 92% 95%
*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
** No data reported
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 2010-2011 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 2010-11 Final
Page 17 of 24
Table 12. Student Teaching Evaluation Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards*
Program
Kentucky Teacher Standards
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Elementary Ed. 97% 93% 99% 93% 91% 94% 93% 94% 91% 95%
Middle Grades Ed. 95% 90% 92% 90% 94% 100% 87% 100% 94% 95%
Secondary Ed. 98% 92% 93% 86% 95% 95% 86% 93% 95% 90%
P-12 Ed. 100% 82% 95% 84% 70% 66% 80% 95% 91% 89%
5-12 Ed. 95% 86% 100% 95% 95% 95% 36% 82% 68% 91%
Special Ed. 100% 100% 100% 89% 78% 78% 89% 89% 78% 78%
IECE 100% 80% 90% 90% 80% 50% 90% 80% 80% 90%
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
Middle Grades Ed
Middle Grades Ed
Secondary Ed
Secondary Ed
Secondary Ed
Secondary Ed
Secondary Ed
Secondary Ed
Secondary Ed
5-12 Ed
5-12 Ed
5-12 Ed
Unit-Wide 97% 91% 96% 91% 89% 91% 86% 94% 90% 93%
*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 (2009-10 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 2009-2010 program completers
(N=433) 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
Name of Licensure Test
ELEMENTARY ED CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
MIDDLE SCHOOL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS
N Taking
Assessment
(2009-10)
194
29
26
WKU
Pass Rate
(2009-10)
97%
97%
100%
WKU
Pass Rate
(2008-09)
99%
100%
100%
WKU
Pass Rate
(2007-08)
94%
97%
100%
MIDDLE SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES
MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE
BIOLOGY 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
FRENCH CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
MUSIC CONCEPTS AND PROCESSES
MUSIC CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
PHYSICAL ED: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
PHYSICAL ED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
SPANISH CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
AGRICULTURE
BUSINESS ED
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES II
4
4
0**
16
16
15
15
0
10**
43
15
3**
18
18
11
11
24
24
7
0
6
100%
100%
--
100%
100%
100%
93%
--
90%
95%
100%
100%
89%
83%
100%
100%
88%
96%
100%
--
100%
100%
100%
--
92%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
84%
100%
100%
100%
95%
100%
100%
84%
94%
100%
100%
100%
33%*
88%*
100%*
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%*
100%*
94%
100%
100%*
94%
88%
100%*
100%*
100%
95%
100%*
0%*
--

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 18 of 24
Program
5-12 Ed
IECE
Special Ed
Name of Licensure Test
TECHNOLOGY ED
IECE
EDUC. EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS: CK
N Taking
Assessment
(2009-10)
1**
8**
44
WKU
Pass Rate
(2009-10)
100%
100%
100%
WKU
Pass Rate
(2008-09)
--
98%
Special Ed
Special Ed
ED EXCEPT STUDENTS: MILD/MOD. DISAB.
ED EXCEPT STUDENTS: PROFND. DISAB.
18
13
89%
92%
Overall Pass Rate 433 † 95%
*Pass rate based on N<10 **Reflects discrepancy between ETS and internal count; the report reflects ETS count.
92%
92%
97%
†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.
WKU
Pass Rate
(2007-08)
100%*
100%
94%
100%*
96%
Table 14.
Pass Rates on Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills Praxis Test
N Taking
Assessment
(2009-10)
Institutional
Pass Rate
(2009-10)
Institutional
Pass Rate
(2008-09)
Institutional
Pass Rate
(2007-08) Type of Assessment
Aggregate – Professional Knowledge
Aggregate – Teaching Special Populations*
Unit-wide
368
--
--
98%
--
--
98%
91%
97%
96%
96%
96%
*ETS no longer reports this information.
WKU Teacher Survey Results (Academic Year 2010-11)
Below are the results of the electronic WKU Teacher Survey sent to student teachers completing their experience fall 2010 or spring 2011. Out of a possible 392 student teachers, 355 (91%) 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 highlighted.
Table 15 . Student Teacher Averages on Teacher Standards Questions by Program
Kentucky Teacher
Standard*
ELED MGE SECED P-12 5-12 IECE Grand Total
1
2
3
N=183 N=41
3.62 3.13
3.64
3.68
3.03
3.28
N=40
3.11
3.08
3.31
N=44
3.28
3.22
3.43
N=17
3.25
3.01
3.25
N=10
3.55
3.54
3.48
335
3.43
3.41
3.52
6
7
4
5
3.52
3.46
3.43
3.58
3.01
3.03
3.15
2.85
2.93
2.78
3.06
3.13
3.18
3.02
2.94
3.14
3.18
2.76
3.44
2.92
3.44
3.30
3.30
3.57
3.33
3.23
3.29
3.35
8
9
3.38
3.45
2.77
3.22
2.71
3.36
2.91
3.18
2.78
3.00
3.43
3.53
3.14
3.36
10 3.29 2.77 2.91 2.95 2.87 3.35 3.12
*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 2010-11 Final
Page 19 of 24
Additionally, Table 16 reflects similar teacher survey results from Kentucky’s Education Professional
Standards Board (EPSB) on each of the Kentucky Teacher Standards for 2009-10. Standards with average scores of 3 or better across items were considered to demonstrate acceptable program quality.
Table 16. Averages on Teacher Standards by Type of Teacher*
Kentucky
Teacher
Standard**
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Cooperating
Teacher
N=266
3.24
3.24
3.46
3.18
3.11
3.40
3.17
3.14
3.20
3.05
Student
Teacher
N=148
3.35
3.37
3.52
3.27
3.22
3.37
3.31
3.14
3.33
3.15
Resource
Teacher
N=167
3.26
3.24
3.45
3.21
3.10
3.42
3.24
3.29
3.30
3.27
Intern
N=94
3.14
3.27
3.36
3.14
3.17
3.19
3.25
3.16
3.26
3.05
*Rating scale: 4=Excellent, 3=Good, 2=Fair, 1=Poor
**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
Kentucky Teacher Internship Program Results (2010-11)
All candidates in our initial teacher preparation programs who enter the profession participate in a yearlong 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). Previous years’ data reveal nearly all our graduates meet both our first and last cycle goals. Because the Kentucky EPSB has not yet provided
2010-11 data, these data will be reported to the Professional Education Council at a later meeting.

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 20 of 24
Section 2. Continuous Assessment Results
A. Introduction and Context
This report represents the first since our spring 2011 NCATE visit. Although a final decision by NCATE’s
Unit Accreditation Board has not been received, all indications from the NCATE Board of Examiners visit and report suggest that the WKU Professional Education Unit likely met all six standards, in particular
Standard 2 – Assessment System and Unit Evaluation. Although, as will be discussed in Section 4, this is a good time to revisit some of the processes that have been followed the last several years, it seems that the routines established served 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 200910 Final
Page 21 of 24
Table 19 Summary of Assessment Results (Based on Most Recent Year) by Kentucky Teacher Standard and Component
Kentucky Teacher Standards
Component 2:
Course-Based
Assessment Data
Component 4:
Culminating Assessment Data
Component 5:
Exit and Follow-Up Data
Critical Performance
Pass Rates
TWS Pass Rates
Student Teacher
Evaluation Pass Rate
Student Teacher
Survey Pass Rates*
Praxis II Pass Rate
OVERALL
AVERAGE
1 - Content Knowledge 96% 80% 97% 88% 95% 91%
2 - Designs/Plans 95% 93% 91% 84% 91%
3 - Learning Climate
4 - Implements/Manages
5 -Assessment/Evaluation
6 - Technology
7 – Reflection
8 - Collaboration
9 - Professional Development
96%
96%
96%
96%
96%
96%
94%
97%
87%
73%
85%
92%
95%
96%
91%
89%
91%
86%
94%
90%
10 - Leadership 99% 93% 75%
*Survey Pass Rates calculated as percentage of respondents with Kentucky Teacher Standard Averages >2.99 on survey questions
**Not included in Rough Average Calculation
86%
74%
87%
89%
81%
77%
81%
95%**
88%
89%
91%
95%
89%
88%
86%
89%

Unit Wide Assessment Report 200910 Final
Page 22 of 24
C. Other Conceptual Framework Values Summary
Diversity
As described earlier, overall, in 89% 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 remained steady 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 will be assigned to schools that meet or exceed that average level of diversity (11%) of schools in our service area.
Impact on P-12 Student Learning
Data for reporting these results are still being gathered. Results will be reported at a later PEC meeting.
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 2010-11 based on the previous Annual Reports and new decisions to be considered based on the 2010-11 results.

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 23 of 24
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. As mentioned earlier, all indications are that the visit was successful.
Yet, 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 out their performances by standard. In some cases, new assessments were developed and added to the Electronic Portfolio System to fill gaps in standard coverage. As time passes, it will be important for coordinators and faculty to 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 during the 2008-09 academic year. Last year a School of Teacher
Education task force was created to develop 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.
 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.
 Collecting Impact on P-12 Student Learning Data: A routine process was established last year.
Work will continue to encourage more faculty and students to use the Excel workbook created for this purpose.
 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. This policy has passed the university curricula process.

Unit Wide Assessment Report 2010-11 Final
Page 24 of 24
 Deciding on future directions regarding NCATE accreditation: Following our successful NCATE visit, we will focus our efforts on refining our unit assessment process and considering areas of improvement. In the upcoming year as NCATE considers its move to a Continuous Assessment model, 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.