Professional Education Unit
Assessment Report - Initial Preparation Programs
(Abridged)
Academic Year 2008-09
Report Version: September 2, 2009
Note: Any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report should be directed to Tony Norman
(tony.norman@wku.edu), CEBS Associate Dean, Accountability & Research.
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 2 of 26
Professional Education Unit Assessment Report - Initial Preparation Programs
Academic Year 2008-09
Overview: This report includes assessment and survey results from the following data
collection points and sources:
 Admission Data (Academic Year 2008-09)
o Number, percentage, 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 2008-09)
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 Standard
o Listing of candidates scoring below proficiency on at least two critical performances
 Clinical Experiences Data (Academic Year 2008-09)
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 2008-09)
o Admission and early clinical dispositions data by program
o Student Teacher Evaluation dispositions results by program
 Culminating Assessment Data (Academic Year 2008-09)
o Teacher Work Sample Scores by program, by TWS components, and by Kentucky
Teacher Standards
o Student Teacher Evaluation results by program and Kentucky Teacher Standards
 Exit and Follow Up Data
o Praxis results (2007-08 cohort)
o WKU Teacher Survey results (2008-09 student teacher and alumni results)
o Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP) results (2008-09)
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 2008-09
based on the 2007-08 Annual Report and new decisions to be considered based on the 2008-09
results.
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 3 of 26
KY
REQ's
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
Impacts P-12 Student Learning
DATA MAINTAINED BY:
DATA HOUSED IN:
DATA REPORTING CYCLE:
DATA REVIEWED BY:
Praxis
II
Graduate
Survey
Principal
Survey*
DFI 2**
1a-d, Overall
1a-d
1a-d
1a-d
CF 1-5, LG 1-4,
DFI 1, 3-5
2a-e, Overall
2a-e
2a-e
2a-e
3a-e, Overall
3a-e
3a-e
3a-e
IDM 1-3
4a-e, Overall
4a-e
4a-e
4a-e
AP 1-5, ASL 1-4
5a-d, Overall
5a-e
5a-e
5a-e
DFI 6
6a-d, Overall
6a-d
6a-d
6a-d
RSE 1-3
7a-c, Overall
7a-c
7a-c
7a-c
8a-b, Overall
8a-d
8a-d
8a-d
9a-c, Overall
9a-d
9a-d
9a-d
10a, Overall
10a-d
10a-d
10a-d
Ed Tech
Ed Tech
RSE 4-5
FX a-l
Summary
Form
Summary
Form
Component 5:
Exit and Follow Up Data
State Approved Certification Exams
Faculty
Recs
Various Data Required by State for Admission into Teacher Preparation Programs
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 3:
Component 4:
Course Based
Clinical Experiences Data
Culminating Assessment Data
Assessment Data
Capstone
Early Clinical
Final Clinical
Final Clinical
Exit
Critical Performances
Assessment
Experiences
Experience
Evaluation
Survey
(TWS)
Disp a-l
OTS Data
OTS Data
CF 1-5, AP 5, DFI
4, IDM 2
Disp g
AP 1-5, ASL 1-4
OTS
Faculty
CEBS ACCSYS
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
*Data sources in the process of being added to the electronic assessment system
**Cells reflect instruments or rubric/survey items keyed to CF Standards/Values.
C&I Staff
OTS
CEBS ACCSYS
C&I Staff/Ed Tech
OTS/EdTech
Ed Tech
CEBS ACCSYS
OTS
BANNER/CEBS ACCSYS
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 4 of 26
Section 1. Continuous Assessment Results
A. Admission Data (Academic Year 2008-09)
Table 1 provides the number, percentages, and average 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 GPA Averages by Program
CIP Code
N
Average
GPA
%
0-Unknown
21
4%
3.47
131001-Special Education
99
18%
3.21
131012-Communication Disorders
30
5%
3.74
184
33%
3.27
131203-Middle Grades Education
50
9%
3.37
131204-Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education
14
3%
3.19
131301-Agriculture
4
1%
3.20
131302-Art Education
6
1%
3.07
10
2%
3.53
6
1%
3.38
131312-Music Education
11
2%
3.57
131314-Physical Education
131202-Early Elementary Education P-5
131303-Business Education
131308-Family and Consumer Science
17
3%
3.08
131320-Industrial Technology
1
0%
2.91
160901-French
1
0%
3.75
160905-Spanish
2
0%
3.25
190701-Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education
2
0%
3.29
230101- English and Allied Language Arts
23
4%
3.18
250101-School Media Specialist
10
2%
3.18
9
2%
3.27
260101- Biological Science
270101-Mathematics
18
3%
3.21
400801-Physics
1
0%
3.64
420101-School Psychology
1
0%
3.62
450101-History/Social Studies
22
4%
3.13
450801-History/Social Studies
6
1%
3.25
500901-Music Education
8
1%
3.33
556
100%
3.29
Grand Total
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 5 of 26
Table 2 provides the average admission test scores of candidates by program approved by the
Professional Education Council (PEC) for admission into initial teacher preparation programs.
Table 2 Approved Candidate Test Score Averages by Program
ACT
CIP Code
N
0-Unknown
PPSTM*
Mean
1
25
131001-Special Education
18
22
131012-Communication Disorders
14
24
134
23
42
131204-IECE
131202-Elementary Education
N
Mean
3
Mean
N
Mean
SAT
N
Mean
GRE
Composite
N
Mean
19
971
3
177
3
173
80
962
1
175
1
173
13
948
14
176
15
174
1096
1
1780
24
1
1240
1
1240
8
21
1
1140
131301-Agriculture
4
24
131302-Art Education
4
23
1
870
131303-Business Education
7
23
1
950
131308-Family Consumer Science
4
24
131312-Music Education
10
26
131314-Physical Education
11
22
1
1430
1
1
176
N
PPSTW*
5
131203-Middle Grades Education
13
177
PPSTR*
176
1
178
1
174
176
2
1010
131320-Industrial Technology
160901-French
160905-Spanish
190701-IECE
1
1190
1
1040
2
25
230101- English Allied Lang Arts
23
25
250101-School Media Specialist
2
23
1
1010
8
1014
260101- Biological Science
5
26
1
1360
5
1140
16
24
2
1095
1
33
1
810
Grand Total
335
23 19
176 21
176 22
174 13 1112 134
*PPST refers to the ETS Pre-Professional Skills Tests: Mathematics (M), Reading (R), & Writing (W) respectively.
984
270101-Mathematics
400801-Physics
420101-School Psychology
450101-History/Social Studies
18
23
450801-History/Social Studies
4
22
500901-Music Education
7
23
1
179
1
178
1
173
1
180
1
175
1
1010
B. Course Based Assessment Data
Table 3 provides the percentage of candidates scoring at each level of proficiency on critical
performances within professional education courses for the 2008-09 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_0809_Abridged.doc Page 6 of 26
Table 3 CP Proficiency Level Percentages
Course
ED-201
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-418
EXED-422
EXED-430
EXED-431
EXED-432
EXED-434
IECE-321
IECE-322
IECE-324
IECE-421
IECE-422
LME-318
LME-407
LME-410
LME-448
LTCY-310
LTCY-320
LTCY-420
LTCY-421
LTCY-444
MGE-275
MGE-385
1
2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
3
23%
3%
7%
4%
1%
2%
3%
3%
2%
7%
4%
6%
8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
17%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
0%
18%
0%
2%
8%
18%
28%
3%
6%
4
62%
66%
66%
82%
58%
71%
63%
82%
40%
86%
36%
17%
23%
75%
81%
100%
21%
38%
33%
0%
20%
18%
75%
32%
33%
39%
92%
33%
76%
64%
100%
47%
50%
65%
45%
78%
62%
62%
85%
15%
31%
26%
14%
40%
26%
33%
14%
59%
7%
60%
78%
69%
25%
19%
0%
79%
62%
65%
100%
80%
74%
25%
68%
44%
61%
8%
67%
23%
33%
0%
35%
50%
33%
46%
4%
10%
34%
9%
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 7 of 26
Course
1
MGE-475
MGE-477
MGE-479
MGE-481
MLNG-410
MUS-312
MUS-412
MUS-415
PH-261
PSY-310
SEC-351
SEC-352
SEC-453
SEC-473
SEC-475
SEC-477
SEC-479
SEC-481
SPAN-374
Grand Total
2
3
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
7%
12%
14%
7%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
6%
4%
6%
8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
14%
0%
5%
4
82%
31%
64%
84%
0%
92%
40%
70%
8%
20%
67%
44%
52%
71%
42%
0%
50%
59%
100%
60%
11%
58%
21%
9%
100%
4%
60%
30%
92%
72%
29%
49%
39%
29%
58%
100%
50%
23%
0%
35%
Table 4 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 4 Percent† of Program Students Scoring Proficient on CPs by Teacher Standard
Program
Kentucky Teacher Standards*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Elementary Ed.
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
94%
96%
95%
95%
99%
Middle Grades Ed.
93%
95%
94%
93%
94%
95%
98%
95%
98%
94%
Secondary Ed.
100%
92%
97%
89%
93%
92%
94%
95%
96%
90%
P-12 Ed.
94%
95%
94%
93%
93%
92%
94%
98%
93%
100%
5-12 Ed.
93%
97%
94%
94%
97%
90%
93%
94%
98%
100%
Exceptional Ed.
94%
89%
91%
98%
90%
85%
93%
100%
97%
100%
IECE
100%
100%
96%
100%
100%
96%
96%
97%
93%
97%
Unit-Wide
94%
95%
95%
94%
95%
93%
96%
96%
95%
97%
†Percentages based on all CPs candidates completed based on their coursework--not just program requirements
*KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 3 – Maintains Learning Climate, 4 –
Implements/Manages Instruction, 5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 8 – Collaboration, 9 –
Professional Development, 10 – Leadership
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 8 of 26
Table 5 provides counts of 139 students who have scored 2 or below on two or more critical
performances over the 2007-08 academic year. The table highlights the counts of the 28 students
who scored low on three or more critical performances.
Table 5 Count of Students Scoring Below Proficient on CPs
Student ID
Score
1
0744
2709
1
2510
8366
Count Per Student
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
5625
2
2
9722
2
2
8271
2
2
0534
2
2
6506
2
2
1
2
4105
2
2
5135
2
2
5598
2
2
1
2
9867
2
2
4522
2
2
4610
2
2
5137
2
2
5578
2
2
6000
2
2
8285
2
2
8545
2
2
7437
2
2
0880
2
2
3107
5703
1146
1
2
1
1
2
2
3188
2
2
5932
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
6745
2
2
8373
2
2
1677
2
2
2763
2
2
6574
1659
1
5610
3827
1
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 9 of 26
Student ID
3604
Score
1
Count Per Student
2
1
2
3895
2
2
5518
2
2
6030
2
2
0532
2
2
3984
2
2
8389
2
2
0763
2
2
7212
2
2
7716
1
1
2
0774
2
2
8958
2
2
9973
2
2
1
2
9547
2
2
1693
2
2
2953
2
2
4138
2
2
1470
2
2
2131
2
2
3830
2
2
0606
2
2
6293
3387
1
1
2
2
2219
2
2
9981
2
2
9074
2
2
4025
2
2
4188
2
2
3581
2
2
2194
1
2
3
3375
1
2
3
6200
3
3
2325
3
3
4873
3
3
7664
3
3
6193
3
3
4800
3
3
8315
3
3
8649
3
3
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 10 of 26
Student ID
Score
1
Count Per Student
2
1012
3
3
1258
3
3
0541
3
3
2022
3
3
3022
3
3
4970
3
3
2746
3
3
6595
3
3
9597
1
2
3
5079
1
2
3
9042
4
4
3678
4
4
3365
4
4
2403
4
4
3
4
9300
4
4
7724
5
5
8384
0776
1
1
6
7
Student N
92
Students with three or more low scores
28
C. Clinical Experiences Data (Academic Year 2008-09)
Over the 2008-09 academic year, 817 students reported demographic information on 1655 field
placements, with an average of 17% ethnically diverse students and 48% students on
free/reduced lunch (based on National Center for Education Statistics). The diversity percentage
continues to be well above the average 11% diversity of schools in the 31 counties in our service
area. Table 6 reveals percentages of field experiences with various characteristics. Note that
candidates could choose all the characteristics that applied for any given experience.
Table 6 Percentages of Field Experience by Category Types
Mainstreamed Class
67%
Physical Disability
14%
African American
86%
Context
Resource Room
Collaboration
Pullout Program
Tutorial/Enrichment
9%
41%
23%
18%
Working With Students With Special Needs
Learning Disability
Mental Disability
EBD
Gifted
ELL
60%
12%
38%
50%
38%
Working with Diverse Students
Native American
Latino/Hispanic
Asian American
Other
9%
62%
42%
23%
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 11 of 26
Overall, in 88% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at least one student
with special needs, and in 93% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at
least one student from a diverse ethnic group.
In addition, Table 7 reports the diversity percentages of the schools where student teachers were
placed during the 2008-09 academic year. The average overall diversity percentage remains
slightly above the average 11% diversity of the schools in the 31 counties that represent our
service area.
Table 7 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
ADAIRVILLE ES
0.3
0.6
5.7
3.1
90.4
9.6
53.7
0.0
24.2
ALLEN COUNTY PRIMARY
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.3
97.5
2.5
53.0
0.0
12.2
ALLEN CNTY-SCOTTS HS
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.4
98.5
1.5
38.4
0.0
11.3
ALVATON ES
0.2
0.2
2.0
2.6
95.0
5.0
32.4
0.0
26.1
ANCHORAGE PUBLIC ES
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.7
96.6
3.4
0.0
0.0
17.5
APOLLO HS
0.0
0.9
4.5
1.3
93.3
6.7
34.6
0.4
9.4
AUBURN ES
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.8
95.1
4.9
48.9
0.0
13.5
AUDUBON ES
0.2
1.3
9.2
3.2
86.2
13.8
63.8
0.0
21.8
AUSTIN TRACY ES
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
99.2
0.8
71.4
0.0
20.4
BALLARD HS
0.1
3.8
26.4
1.7
68.0
32.0
21.0
0.0
16.8
BARDSTOWN ES
0.0
1.5
20.3
1.8
76.5
23.5
63.3
0.0
12.7
BARDSTOWN MS
0.0
0.8
21.2
2.7
75.3
24.7
56.4
0.0
12.7
BARDSTOWN PRIMARY
0.2
0.9
16.1
2.3
80.6
19.4
90.8
0.0
21.0
BARREN COUNTY HS
0.2
0.4
1.4
0.5
97.4
2.6
39.5
0.1
9.4
BARREN COUNTY MS
0.3
0.0
0.4
1.0
98.3
1.7
46.0
0.1
9.5
BEAVER DAM ES
0.0
0.2
2.0
9.8
88.0
12.0
70.4
0.0
17.7
BEN JOHNSON ES
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.7
98.7
1.3
69.7
0.0
14.5
BERNHEIM MS
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.9
98.7
1.3
39.9
0.0
11.3
BLOOMFIELD MS
0.0
0.5
1.9
1.2
96.4
3.6
38.1
0.0
12.5
BLUEGRASS MS
0.0
4.1
24.2
3.2
68.5
31.5
44.8
0.0
12.4
BONNIEVILLE ES
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.7
98.4
1.6
62.3
0.0
16.0
BOWLING GREEN HS
0.1
3.4
22.5
7.7
66.2
33.8
46.2
5.2
9.7
BOWLING GREEN MS
0.1
2.6
23.1
7.0
67.3
32.7
50.1
2.8
11.2
BRACKEN COUNTY MS
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
99.7
0.3
38.9
0.0
8.4
BRIARWOOD ES
0.2
4.7
10.1
2.5
82.5
17.5
22.8
0.0
17.9
BRISTOW ES
0.2
1.5
13.5
5.1
79.8
20.2
47.8
0.0
16.8
BURNS ES
0.0
2.3
5.3
4.1
88.3
11.7
38.7
0.0
24.4
BUTLER COUNTY HS
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.5
98.4
1.6
47.4
0.0
9.6
BUTLER COUNTY MS
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.1
98.2
1.8
52.4
0.0
7.9
BYCK ES
0.0
4.0
49.0
12.1
35.0
65.0
105.0
0.0
21.7
CANEYVILLE ES
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.8
98.5
1.5
79.3
0.0
23.1
CENTERFIELD ES
0.0
0.4
1.5
1.7
96.5
3.5
11.9
0.4
15.7
CENTRAL HARDIN HS
0.2
1.4
3.8
1.0
93.7
6.3
30.8
0.0
8.9
CLARKSON ES
0.2
0.0
0.5
1.5
97.8
2.2
64.6
0.0
19.9
CLAY ES
0.0
0.3
1.0
1.5
97.2
2.8
45.7
0.0
15.8
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 12 of 26
Name of School
COLLEGE VIEW MS
COOPERTOWN ES
CREEKSIDE ES
CREEKSIDE ES
CUB RUN ES
CUMBERLAND COUNTY ES
CUMBERLAND COUNTY MS
CUMBERLAND TRACE ES
CUSTER ES
DAVIESS COUNTY HS
DEER PARK ES
DISHMAN MCGINNIS ES
DOSS HS MAGNET
DRAKES CREEK MS
EAST HARDIN MS
EAST HEIGHTS ES
EAST ROBERTSON HS
EDMONSON COUNTY HS
EDMONSON COUNTY MS
EDMONTON ES
EKRON ES
ESTES ES
F T BURNS MS
FAIRDALE HS MAGNET
FLAHERTY ES
FOSTER HEIGHTS ES
FOUST ES
FRANKLIN ES
FRANKLIN-SIMPSON HS
FRANKLIN-SIMPSON MS
FREEDOM ES
G C BURKHEAD ES
GLASGOW HS
GLASGOW MS
GRAYSON COUNTY HS
GRAYSON COUNTY MS
GREENSBURG ES
GREENWOOD HS
GUILD ES
H W WILKEY ES
HANCOCK COUNTY MS
HARDINSBURG ES
HAROLD B WILLIAMS ES
HART COUNTY HS
HELMWOOD HEIGHTS ES
HENDERSON COUNTY HS
HENRY F MOSS MS
AI/AN
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.0
ASIAN
1.2
0.3
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
3.1
0.0
0.9
1.3
2.2
1.3
2.5
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.1
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.7
3.7
1.3
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.2
3.5
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.3
3.5
0.7
0.9
BL/AA
2.3
1.7
0.5
2.5
0.0
2.5
2.4
9.9
0.0
0.8
2.5
31.0
47.9
4.8
4.7
10.5
5.2
3.3
0.3
0.5
1.7
15.5
4.7
25.2
2.0
2.6
32.3
11.3
11.9
13.5
1.0
17.7
14.8
18.5
0.9
0.3
2.8
5.0
21.4
2.1
1.1
4.3
1.3
4.7
15.0
9.9
17.3
HIS/LAT
0.4
2.8
3.2
1.6
0.5
1.2
0.4
6.6
1.1
0.6
1.3
13.9
1.7
2.2
0.9
1.4
1.0
0.5
0.3
1.8
0.5
3.7
1.6
3.5
2.9
1.4
4.7
2.8
0.7
1.5
0.7
2.2
1.7
2.4
0.9
0.5
0.4
2.0
15.3
0.6
1.7
0.4
0.8
1.1
2.0
1.0
7.0
WHITE
96.1
94.8
94.9
95.8
99.5
96.1
96.8
80.2
98.3
97.6
94.9
52.9
49.1
90.1
93.9
88.2
93.4
95.8
98.8
97.5
96.9
80.5
92.5
70.9
94.3
96.0
62.5
85.0
86.8
84.6
97.6
76.2
82.2
78.5
97.9
99.1
96.3
89.3
61.5
97.3
97.3
95.3
97.4
93.8
79.0
88.4
74.8
DIVERSITY*
3.9
5.2
5.1
4.2
0.5
3.9
3.2
19.8
1.7
2.4
5.1
47.1
50.9
9.9
6.1
11.8
6.6
4.2
1.2
2.5
3.1
19.5
7.5
29.1
5.7
4.0
37.5
15.0
13.2
15.4
2.4
23.8
17.8
21.5
2.1
0.9
3.7
10.7
38.5
2.7
2.8
4.7
2.7
6.2
21.0
11.7
25.2
FRL†
30.2
27.1
33.7
49.4
52.6
75.3
70.6
51.7
75.0
25.2
45.5
101.5
65.7
23.7
34.3
48.6
29.0
48.9
51.4
72.0
50.4
106.8
44.3
59.0
59.3
49.0
103.2
98.6
33.7
49.0
35.6
52.1
40.8
50.0
41.7
48.7
67.5
15.7
61.3
68.9
36.9
62.2
27.9
52.0
62.7
34.5
93.2
ELL
0.2
n/a**
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.0
2.8
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.7
ST W/DIS
11.2
n/a
n/a
24.6
21.2
28.4
12.8
23.7
21.2
8.1
21.3
17.8
23.3
8.8
11.9
21.5
n/a
9.3
14.9
23.3
14.8
26.9
14.7
25.0
15.6
27.7
33.2
31.5
8.9
8.2
14.2
20.2
9.2
15.2
6.4
11.4
19.7
5.7
n/a
18.2
10.5
24.7
n/a
9.9
24.0
9.3
9.9
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 13 of 26
Name of School
HIGHLAND ELEMENTARY
HIGHLAND ES
HISEVILLE ES
HODGENVILLE ES
HORSE BRANCH ES
HOWARD ES
HOWEVALLEY ES
INDIAN LAKE ES
INDIAN SPRINGS ES
IRVINGTON ES
JAMES T ALTON MS
JAMESTOWN ES
JEFFERSONTOWN ES
JOE HARRISON CARTER ES
JOHN HARDIN HS
KYROCK ES
LAKEWOOD ES
LINCOLN ES
LINCOLN TRAIL ES
LIVERMORE ES
LOGAN COUNTY HS
LOST RIVER ES
MEADOW VIEW ES
MEMORIAL ES
METCALFE COUNTY HS
MONROE COUNTY MS
MORGANTOWN ES
MORNINGSIDE ES
MUHLENBERG NORTH HS
MUHLENBERG SOUTH ES
MUHLENBERG SOUTH HS
MUNFORDVILLE ES
NANNIE BERRY ES
NEW HIGHLAND ES
NEWTON PARRISH ES
NIAGARA ES
NORTH BULLITT HS
NORTH HANCOCK ES
NORTH METCALFE ES
NORTH WARREN ES
OAKLAND ES
OHIO COUNTY HS
OHIO COUNTY MS
OLD KENTUCKY HOME MS
ORAN P LAWLER ES
OWENSBORO HS
OWENSBORO MS
AI/AN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
ASIAN
1.8
1.5
0.0
0.4
0.0
1.8
1.3
0.5
1.0
1.3
2.1
0.0
1.3
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.5
2.3
1.5
0.0
0.1
1.9
5.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.2
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.9
3.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.3
0.6
0.0
BL/AA
10.0
2.6
0.0
5.8
0.0
1.4
0.9
1.9
0.8
5.5
16.7
3.6
28.1
1.7
21.8
0.0
4.5
53.3
3.2
2.0
3.0
13.9
34.6
1.3
1.8
4.1
0.8
16.6
3.0
3.1
5.0
6.7
12.8
21.8
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.4
0.6
4.3
11.2
1.5
0.8
2.3
1.1
20.4
18.6
HIS/LAT
1.8
0.4
1.7
3.2
0.0
1.4
0.9
1.4
2.7
1.6
5.2
1.8
8.7
1.3
3.3
0.0
1.8
21.5
1.3
2.0
0.3
10.3
7.7
1.6
0.2
1.1
2.8
3.2
0.0
0.7
0.3
0.2
3.0
4.6
3.9
2.2
1.5
1.0
1.3
1.3
8.0
0.6
1.6
0.4
0.3
1.1
0.6
WHITE
86.4
95.5
98.3
90.0
100.0
95.4
96.6
96.1
95.3
91.5
75.3
94.7
61.7
97.0
72.0
100.0
93.0
23.0
93.7
95.6
96.5
73.8
52.4
97.1
97.4
94.6
96.2
78.1
97.0
96.2
94.6
92.7
82.4
69.6
92.1
96.8
96.6
97.5
98.1
94.2
79.3
97.6
97.5
96.1
98.4
77.9
80.9
DIVERSITY*
13.6
4.5
1.7
10.0
0.0
4.6
3.4
3.9
4.7
8.5
24.7
5.3
38.4
3.0
28.0
0.0
7.0
77.0
6.3
4.4
3.5
26.2
47.6
2.9
2.6
5.4
3.8
21.9
3.0
3.8
5.4
7.3
17.6
30.4
7.9
3.2
3.4
2.5
1.9
5.8
20.7
2.4
2.5
3.9
1.6
22.1
19.1
FRL†
57.1
22.1
59.1
56.6
74.2
22.8
65.1
3.2
25.7
78.5
42.2
72.2
50.7
64.9
30.9
72.9
58.0
96.2
40.6
67.4
38.5
93.2
69.3
77.0
54.7
66.7
45.2
55.9
38.5
70.0
42.6
53.5
23.0
58.5
63.4
41.5
29.1
51.3
80.3
58.7
63.0
46.3
49.8
33.8
63.5
58.1
68.9
ELL
0.0
0.2
0.0
1.2
0.0
n/a
0.0
n/a
n/a
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n/a
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
ST W/DIS
26.8
18.8
20.2
20.4
29.0
n/a
28.2
n/a
n/a
17.6
12.9
24.2
23.3
20.4
7.1
26.8
27.6
26.7
22.6
26.7
12.0
18.6
28.2
19.7
12.9
15.6
16.6
12.5
7.3
19.9
9.8
20.8
n/a
24.2
19.2
15.7
12.4
20.4
17.6
26.2
23.9
12.3
15.8
10.8
17.5
13.9
22.8
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 14 of 26
Name of School
AI/AN ASIAN
BL/AA HIS/LAT WHITE DIVERSITY*
FRL†
ELL
ST W/DIS
PARKER BENNETT CURRY ES
0.0
3.8
39.6
31.2
25.5
74.5
100.0
3.6
20.6
PORTLAND HS
0.4
0.4
3.4
2.1
93.8
6.2
28.5
n/a
n/a
PORTLAND MS
0.1
0.6
5.0
2.7
91.6
8.4
41.3
n/a
n/a
POTTER GRAY ES
0.3
2.3
9.0
2.6
85.9
14.1
32.1
0.2
9.3
R E STEVENSON ES
0.2
1.0
22.7
3.6
72.6
27.4
76.6
0.0
21.4
RED CROSS ES
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.9
98.4
1.6
50.7
0.0
13.0
RICH POND ES
0.1
1.7
2.7
2.6
92.9
7.1
26.1
0.3
14.6
RICHARDSVILLE ES
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.2
98.6
1.4
42.7
0.0
24.7
RINEYVILLE ES
0.0
0.8
6.2
0.8
92.3
7.7
46.1
0.0
20.4
R.F. WOODALL PRIMARY
0.1
0.9
2.8
3.8
92.4
7.6
24.5
n/a
n/a
ROCKFIELD ES
0.0
0.0
4.3
1.1
94.6
5.5
50.2
0.0
16.7
RUSSELL COUNTY MS
0.2
0.2
0.7
1.2
97.6
2.4
62.2
0.0
10.6
RUSSELL SPRINGS ES
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.8
97.3
2.7
73.2
0.0
18.8
RUSSELLVILLE HS
0.3
1.2
29.4
2.9
66.2
33.8
52.9
1.8
10.8
RUSSELLVILLE MS
0.5
0.5
30.1
3.0
66.0
34.0
49.8
0.0
8.1
SHELBY VALLEY HS
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.8
0.2
52.6
0.0
9.1
SHEPHERDSVILLE ES
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.9
98.5
1.5
75.7
0.0
16.9
SIMPSON ES
0.2
0.4
11.1
1.8
86.6
13.5
55.0
0.0
11.0
SORGHO ES
0.0
0.7
3.7
2.2
93.4
6.6
56.7
0.0
27.2
SOUTH EDMONSON ES
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
98.1
2.0
59.9
0.0
21.0
SOUTH GREEN ES
0.0
1.4
12.7
2.6
83.3
16.7
53.2
0.0
16.4
SUMMERSVILLE ES
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
54.1
0.0
16.3
T C CHERRY ES
0.0
1.6
16.3
4.3
77.8
22.2
59.1
0.0
18.9
TALTON K STONE MS
0.2
2.2
14.2
1.2
82.2
17.9
44.6
0.0
9.8
TAYLOR COUNTY HS
0.0
0.0
1.3
1.3
97.4
2.7
37.6
0.8
11.2
TEMPLE HILL ES
0.6
0.0
0.3
0.9
98.1
1.9
68.0
0.0
19.2
TOMPKINSVILLE ES
0.0
0.0
5.7
4.0
90.3
9.7
80.1
0.0
20.0
V G HAWKINS MS
0.4
1.3
7.3
3.8
87.3
12.7
23.8
n/a
n/a
VENA STUART ES
0.0
1.3
31.3
15.2
52.2
47.8
66.0
n/a
n/a
VINE GROVE ES
0.4
2.5
10.0
3.0
84.1
15.9
53.4
0.0
22.9
W R MCNEILL ES
0.0
4.1
14.1
2.2
79.7
20.3
27.9
0.5
8.6
WALTON FERRY ES
0.2
0.4
7.3
3.0
89.0
11.0
26.9
n/a
n/a
WARREN CENTRAL HS
0.0
1.9
19.5
4.6
74.0
26.0
50.7
5.8
8.6
WARREN COUNTY ES
0.0
2.5
27.3
17.4
52.9
47.1
80.6
0.1
20.1
WARREN EAST HS
0.2
0.8
10.7
2.2
86.1
13.9
45.9
0.2
8.7
WARREN EAST MS
0.0
1.2
8.3
2.6
87.9
12.1
56.8
0.1
13.4
WAYLAND ALEXANDER ES
0.0
0.0
0.5
2.7
96.9
3.1
67.1
0.0
23.0
WEBSTER COUNTY HS
0.2
0.3
3.0
1.8
94.7
5.3
34.7
0.0
12.8
WEST HARDIN MS
0.5
0.2
5.3
1.1
92.9
7.1
46.6
0.0
13.9
WHITE HOUSE HS
0.1
0.4
2.9
1.3
95.3
4.7
20.3
n/a
n/a
WILLIAM NATCHER ES
0.0
8.2
5.5
4.8
81.5
18.5
19.2
0.9
17.1
Average Percentages
0.1
1.0
8.3
2.7
87.9
12.1
52.1
0.2
17.0
*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
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 15 of 26
D. Dispositions Data (Academic Year 2008-09)
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. These were finalized throughout 2008, as all
programs prepared and submitted Program Review Documents (aka folios) to the EPSB as
required part of our accreditation renewal process. Tables 8 and 9 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 8 Proficiency Rates on Unit-Wide Dispositions Prior to Student Teaching
Program
Elementary Ed.
Values
Learning
99%
WKU Professional Education Dispositions
Values Personal
Values
Values
Integrity
Diversity
Collaboration
100%
100%
99%
Values
Professionalism
97%
Middle Grades Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Secondary Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
P-12 Ed.
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
5-12 Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Exceptional Ed.
100%
100%
*
*
*
IECE
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
99%
98%
Unit-Wide
*Data not available
Table 9 Proficiency Rates on Unit-Wide Dispositions during Student Teaching
Program
Values
Learning
WKU Professional Education Dispositions
Values Personal
Values
Values
Integrity
Diversity
Collaboration
Values
Professionalism
Elementary Ed.
98%
99%
100%
99%
99%
Middle Grades Ed.
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Secondary Ed.
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
P-12 Ed.
89%
89%
89%
87%
89%
5-12 Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Exceptional Ed.
92%
92%
100%
100%
100%
IECE
92%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Unit-Wide
96%
98%
99%
98%
98%
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 16 of 26
E. Culminating Assessment Data (Academic Year 2008-09)
Teacher Work Sample Results
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 10 represents
three-year proficiency rates by program area.
Table 10 Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates
Program Type
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07†
Elementary Ed.
92%
89%
79%
Middle Grades Ed.
95%
86%
56%
Secondary Ed.
90%
73%
64%
P-12 Ed.
93%
84%
68%
5-12 Ed.
100%
80%
78%
Exceptional Ed.
100%
96%
*
IECE
100%
100%
*
Unit-Wide
93%
86%
71%
*Data not available
†Results are based on “independent scorers”; this and future reports will only include faculty scores.
Because faculty 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 aligned to a standard. Table 11 and Chart 1 depict 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, AP – Assessment Plan, DFI – Design
for Instruction, IDM – Instructional Decision Making, ASL – Analysis of Student Learning, and
RSE – Reflection and Self-Evaluation.
Table 11 Percentage by Program of Candidates who “Passed” Each TWS Component
Major
CF
LG
AP
DFI
IDM
ASL
RSE
ELED
88%
99%
75%
95%
81%
80%
75%
MGE
55%
91%
86%
86%
73%
91%
59%
SECED
79%
96%
70%
96%
81%
87%
83%
P-12
93%
100%
80%
98%
87%
60%
71%
5-12
94%
100%
100%
100%
88%
63%
81%
EXED
100%
100%
100%
100%
92%
100%
92%
IECE
92%
100%
67%
100%
83%
50%
58%
Total
86%
98%
78%
95%
82%
78%
75%
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 17 of 26
Chart 1 Percentage by Program of Candidates who “Passed” Each TWS* Factor
*TWS Key: CF – Contextual Factors, LG – Learning Goals, AP – Assessment Plan, DFI –
Design for Instruction, IDM – Instructional Decision-Making, ASL – Analysis of Student
Learning, RSE – Reflection & Self-Evaluation
Because the TWS indicators have been aligned to Kentucky Teacher Standards, we can use these
scores to ascertain candidate success in meeting each standard related to the TWS (Chart 2 and
Table 12).
Chart 2 Percentage by Program of Candidates who “Passed” Each Kentucky Teacher Standard*
*KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 4 – Implements/Manages
Instruction, 5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 9 – Professional
Development
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 18 of 26
Table 12 Percentage of Program Candidates “Passing” Each Kentucky Teacher Standard*
Major
1*
2
4
5
6
7
9
ELED
93%
95%
84%
76%
90%
72%
76%
MGE
86%
64%
77%
86%
55%
64%
68%
SECED
96%
85%
85%
79%
87%
83%
83%
P-12
98%
100%
87%
69%
87%
82%
69%
5-12
100%
100%
94%
88%
100%
94%
81%
EXED
100%
100%
92%
100%
83%
92%
83%
IECE
100%
100%
83%
75%
100%
58%
75%
Total
94%
93%
85%
77%
87%
76%
76%
*KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 4 – Implements/Manages Instruction,
5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 9 – Professional Development
Student Teacher Evaluation Results
Additionally, all candidates are assessed during their student teaching experience using the
Student Teaching Evaluation form. Although in years past this form has been somewhat
standard aligned, a shortcoming of the form was that indicators for standards were not fully
developed with the result that nearly all candidates received high marks. Two years ago the form
was redesigned to align more clearly with the Kentucky Teacher Standards and the descriptive
rubrics developed for these standards as part of the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program. These
rubrics were developed by a state-wide Task Force under the direction of the Kentucky
Education Professional Standards Board and, as a result, represent state-wide consensus on what
“Not Met” “Partially Met” and “Met” levels of a standard look like. Where appropriate, the
language from these rubrics was added to our new Student Teacher Evaluation. Table 13 reports
the percentages of 2008-09 student teachers successful on each standard. For program
evaluation purposes, candidates are considered successful who average at least 2.5 on a threepoint scale (1 – Not Met, 2 – Partially Met, and 3 – Met) on indicators aligned to a standard.
Table 13 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%
96%
96%
91%
94%
94%
90%
95%
96%
92%
Middle Grades Ed.
91%
83%
89%
83%
87%
89%
85%
89%
96%
89%
100%
91%
97%
93%
84%
84%
84%
93%
93%
84%
96%
93%
98%
87%
74%
50%
96%
85%
85%
78%
Secondary Ed.
P-12 Ed.
5-12 Ed.
Exceptional Ed.
IECE
90%
95%
90%
80%
90%
80%
80%
90%
90%
75%
100%
92%
100%
92%
92%
100%
100%
100%
92%
100%
92%
83%
75%
50%
58%
50%
58%
58%
75%
42%
Unit-Wide
96%
93%
95%
88%
88%
85%
88%
92%
93%
87%
*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_0809_Abridged.doc Page 19 of 26
F. Exit and Follow Up Data
Praxis Results (2007-08 Cohort)
Tables 14 and 15 delineate the most recent Educational Testing Services reports of pass rates on
content licensure and Principles of Learning and Teaching and related exams of 2007-08
program completers (N=381) compared to previous pass rates.
Table 14 Pass Rates on Content Licensure Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation
Program
Name of Licensure Test
Elementary Education
ELEMENTARY ED CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
Middle Grades Education
MIDDLE SCHOOL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
Middle Grades Education
MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS
Middle Grades Education
MIDDLE SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES
Middle Grades Education
MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE
Secondary Education
BIOLOGY CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
Secondary Education
ENG LANG LIT COMP CONTENT KNOW
Secondary Education
ENG LANG LIT COMP ESSAYS
Secondary Education
MATHEMATICS: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
Secondary Education
MATH PROOFS MODELS PROBLEMS PART 1
Secondary Education
SOCIAL STUDIES: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
Secondary Education
SOCIAL STUDIES: INTERPRET MATERIALS
P-12 Education
ART MAKING
P-12 Education
ART CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
P-12 Education
FRENCH CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
P-12 Education
MUSIC CONCEPTS AND PROCESSES
P-12 Education
MUSIC CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
P-12 Education
PHYSICAL ED: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
P-12 Education
PHYSICAL ED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
P-12 Education
SPANISH CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
5-12 Education
AGRICULTURE
5-12 Education
BUSINESS EDUCATION
5-12 Education
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES
5-12 Education
TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
Exceptional Education
SE STUDENTS W/MENTAL RETARDATION
Exceptional Education
EDUC. EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS: CK
Exceptional Education
ED EXCEPT STUDENTS: MILD/MOD. DISAB.
Exceptional Education
ED EXCEPT STUDENTS: PROFND. DISAB.
Overall Pass Rate
*Pass rate based on N<10 **Cells with N < 5 not reported
N Taking
Assessment
(2007-08)
184
29
23
32
12
1
17
16
8
8
22
22
6
8
1
13
13
16
15
2
9
8
1
1
8
32
18
5
381
WKU
Pass Rate
(2007-08)
94%
97%
100%
94%
100%
**
94%
88%
100%
100%
100%
95%
33%
88%
**
100%
100%
100%
100%
**
100%
100%
**
**
88%
100%
94%
100%
96%
WKU
Pass Rate
(2006-07)
100%
96%
94%
92%
100%
100%*
100%
87%
86%*
100%*
100%
91%
100%*
100%*
-100%
90%
100%
100%
100%*
100%
100%*
100%*
100%*
100%
100%
100%
-92%
WKU
Pass Rate
(2005-06)
100%
95%
100%
96%
100%*
100%*
100%
100%
--100%
100%
86%*
100%*
-86%*
86%*
100%*
100%*
34%*
100%*
100%
100%
-100%
100%*
100%*
-97%
Table 15 Pass Rates on Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills Praxis Test
Type of Assessment
Aggregate – Professional Knowledge
Aggregate – Teaching Special Populations
Unit-wide
N Taking
Assessment
(2007-08)
354
52
406
Institutional
Pass Rate
(2007-08)
96%
96%
96%
Institutional
Pass Rate
(2006-07)
96%
98%
96%
Institutional
Pass Rate
(2005-06)
99%
100%
99%
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 20 of 26
WKU Teacher Survey Results (Academic Year 2008-09)
Below are the results of the electronic WKU Teacher Survey sent to student teachers and alumni
who have potentially been teaching one or more years. Out of a possible 410 student teachers,
354 (86%) completed the survey; out of a possible 480 alumni, 106 (22%) 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 16 reports alumni results.
Table 15 Student Teacher Averages on Teacher Standards Questions by Program
Kentucky
Teacher
Standard*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ELED
N=188
3.53
3.53
3.70
3.43
3.37
3.48
3.46
3.32
3.41
3.19
MGE
N=36
3.08
2.96
3.17
2.74
2.82
2.98
2.72
2.56
3.02
2.58
SECED
N=48
2.92
2.88
3.16
2.73
2.65
2.71
2.76
2.48
3.30
2.59
Program
P-12
5-12
N=42
N=18
3.48
3.13
3.40
3.19
3.65
3.34
3.42
3.12
3.28
2.99
3.38
3.53
3.40
3.06
3.24
2.76
3.46
3.36
3.39
2.93
EXED
N=12
3.29
3.03
3.52
3.12
3.08
3.15
3.17
3.04
3.00
3.00
IECE
N=10
2.98
2.86
3.34
3.08
3.02
2.78
2.63
3.05
2.73
2.33
Grand Total
N=354
3.35
3.31
3.53
3.23
3.16
3.28
3.23
3.08
3.33
3.03
Table 16 Alumni Averages on Teacher Standards Questions by Program
Program
Kentucky
Teacher
Standard*
ELED
MGE
SECED
P-12
5-12
EXED
IECE
Grand Total
N=42
N=20
N=17
N=9
N=4
N=9
N=1
N=102
1
3.39
3.44
3.01
3.14
3.00
3.31
3.00
3.29
2
3.51
3.14
2.96
3.07
3.25
3.18
3.00
3.26
3
3.47
3.50
3.09
3.16
3.15
3.56
3.00
3.37
4
3.30
2.96
2.81
3.24
2.75
3.24
3.00
3.12
5
3.07
2.96
2.87
2.80
3.00
3.22
2.00
2.99
6
3.23
3.16
2.96
2.89
3.75
3.47
2.00
3.17
7
3.26
3.23
2.90
3.33
3.25
3.19
3.00
3.19
8
3.01
2.86
2.66
3.03
2.44
3.36
3.00
2.93
9
3.32
3.10
3.43
3.50
3.00
3.25
3.00
3.29
10
2.98
2.84
2.74
2.64
2.81
3.19
3.00
2.89
*KTS Key: 1 – Content Knowledge, 2 – Designs/Plans Instruction, 3 – Maintains Learning Climate, 4 –
Implements/Manages Instruction, 5 – Assessment/Evaluation, 6 – Technology, 7 – Reflection, 8 – Collaboration, 9 –
Professional Development, 10 – Leadership
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 21 of 26
In years past, we reported results from the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board
New Teacher Survey. However, because of budget cuts, the state did not administer the survey
this year.
Kentucky Teacher Internship Program Results (2008-09)
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 last 2.5 or higher on each standard). Below are several years of
internship data. Table 24 reports the percentage of our candidates averaging at least 2 during the
first cycle. Table 25 reports the percentage of candidates averaging at last 2.5 by the last cycle.
Table 24 Percentage of Candidates Averaging 2 (First Cycle)
Year
Kentucky Teacher Standards*
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
8
9
10
2004-05
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
95%
99%
98%
95%
n/a
2005-06
100%
99%
99%
99%
99%
93%
98%
96%
95%
n/a
2006-07
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
96%
98%
95%
95%
n/a
2007-08
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
97%
94%
94%
n/a
2008-09
100%
100%
100%
99%
96%
97%
98%
94%
94%
94%
8
9
10
Table 25 Percentage of Candidates Averaging at least 2.5 (Last Cycle)
Year
Kentucky Teacher Standards*
4
5
6
7
1
2
3
2004-05
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n/a
2005-06
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n/a
2006-07
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n/a
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%
*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
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 22 of 26
Section 2. Continuous Assessment Results
A. Introduction and Context
Although WKU’s Professional Education Unit Conceptual Framework describes the unit’s
mission, vision, and core beliefs, in the current assessment cycle the unit is focusing on the
following key values:
Belief 3 – Diversity. WKU should offer a variety of field experiences that reflect student
diversity and demonstrate success with all students.
Belief 5 – Reflection. WKU should provide multiple opportunities for candidates to reflect on
their experiences toward the goals of improving their skills and P-12 student learning.
Belief 7 – Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions. WKU should align curriculum, experiences,
and assessments to ensure that all candidates have the opportunity to develop these essential
competencies and dispositions.
Belief 8 – Technology. WKU education professional preparation unit should strive to provide
instruction in, model, and assess the use of technology tools considered essential for instruction,
assessment, management, and research related to schools.
Beliefs 9 & 10 – Accountability and Assessment. WKU should model accountability by
monitoring candidate progress through assessments that are aligned to professional standards.
This report represents WKU’s efforts to live out Beliefs 9 and 10. Competencies identified in
the Kentucky Teacher Standards (Belief 7) are reflection (Belief 5) and technology (Belief 8).
We evaluate diversity (Belief 3) efforts in light of field experiences data. Below is a summary of
our assessment results based on what they tell us about candidate proficiency toward Kentucky
Teacher Standards, as well as other key Conceptual Framework values.
B. Kentucky Teacher Standards Assessment Summary
Table 26 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_0809_Abridged.doc Page 23 of 26
Table 26 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
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
94%
94%
96%
81%
96%
100%
94%
2 - Designs/Plans
95%
93%
93%
78%
100%
92%
3 - Learning Climate
95%
95%
88%
100%
96%
4 - Implements/Manages
94%
85%
88%
72%
99%
88%
5 -Assessment/Evaluation
95%
77%
88%
74%
96%
86%
6 - Technology
93%
87%
85%
80%
97%
88%
7 – Reflection
96%
76%
88%
81%
98%
88%
8 - Collaboration
96%
92%
69%
98%
88%
9 - Professional Development
95%
93%
84%
94%
88%
10 - Leadership
97%
87%
68%
94%
87%
76%
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_0809_Abridged.doc Page 24 of 26
C. Other Conceptual Framework Values Summary
Diversity
As described earlier, overall, in 88% of their field experiences candidates reported working with
at least one student with special needs, and in 93% of their field experiences candidates reported
working with at least one student from a diverse ethnic group. We project that these percentages
will become higher because, over the 2007-08 year, all initial education preparation programs
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
Many institutions, WKU included, rely on the TWS to document candidate impact on P-12
student learning. Although it seems intuitive that candidate success on the TWS should translate
into positive impact on P-12 learning (and NCATE accepts such evidence), the national mood
requires “proof positive” that teacher preparation does so. One line of evidence that many “TWS
institutions” present is the pre-post assessment data embedded within the TWS (e.g., Emporia
State, Idaho State, Longwood). Some individual faculty efforts continue to study this impact.
However, discussed later are plans to collect these data routinely.
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 2008-09 based on the 2007-08 Annual Report and new decisions to be considered
based on the 2008-09 results.
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 25 of 26
Section 4. Key Decisions Made and to be Considered
Below is a listing of decisions and changes that took place over the 2008-09 academic year based
on the 2007-08 Unit-Wide Assessment Report, as well as decisions that remain to be made
(highlighted) based on challenges associated with developing the current report.
 Mapping Critical Performances: Earlier Unit-Wide Assessment Reports indicated that
some Kentucky Teacher Standards are clearly assessed more often than others and that there
is variability in coverage by program. Based on that finding, 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. By February 2009, 100% of initial
preparation programs had their plan. These plans were included in the Program Review
Documents (aka folios) submitted to the EPSB in February 2009.
 Monitoring and Following Up Candidate Performance on Critical Performances: Table
5 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
this year 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 revisions were approved by PEC (3/14/09), the UCC (4/9/09), and
the University Senate (4/16/09).

Monitoring Clinical Experiences: Although we have collected a large amount of data,
previous Unit-Wide Assessment Reports revealed uncertainty that all candidates in all
programs are providing this information. Based on these findings, program coordinators and
faculty included in Program Assessment Plans when clinical experience information will be
collected from candidates. Furthermore, as diversity is a Conceptual Framework value,
within their Program Assessment Plans, programs identified key courses 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.
 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,
the current report continues to reveal program variability in the proficiency rates of
candidates. Programs should review curriculum and earlier assessment opportunities to
ensure that they are sufficiently preparing candidates for the tasks of the TWS.
 Collecting Impact on P-12 Student Learning Data: This fall, the Associate Dean for
Accountability and Research and the Manager of the Educational Technology Center will
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0809_Abridged.doc Page 26 of 26
provide volunteer EDU 489 faculty an Excel workbook that their students will use to collect
and analyze pre-post assessment data as part of their Teacher Work Sample. These completed
workbooks will be uploaded into the Electronic Portfolio System.
 Reviewing Survey Results: Although Tables 15 and 16 indicate that, in general, student
teachers and alumni feel adequately prepared to meet Kentucky Teacher Standards, variability
exists among programs and across standards. Program faculty should review these results to
ascertain potential program weaknesses.
 Monitoring Dispositions: The Professional Education Council recently adopted “unit-wide”
dispositions and a dispositions assessment form. Again, in the Program Assessment Plans,
programs have identified key points/clinical experiences where candidate dispositions data
will be collected. The electronic accountability system has been modified to allow for entry
of these data. Additionally, the PEC established a cutoff score that candidates must meet in
order to progress through a program
 Setting Assessment Targets to Monitor Unit and Program Quality: On February 11, 2009
the PEC adopted an 80% pass rate as the minimum target for unit-wide and program-level
assessments, with an understanding that program faculty are free to establish higher targets
for individual programs.
 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. The PEC should consider forming a unit-wide task force to develop a
comprehensive diversity plan that 1) describes the unit’s present status related to diversity of
our program candidates, faculty, and clinical placements; 2) outlines the unit’s commitment to
increasing diversity in these areas; 3) proposes goals, strategies, and yearly targets to measure
progress; and 4) identifies resources to be devoted to reach proposed goals.
 Bringing Advanced Preparation Programs on Board: Although this report provides a
comprehensive picture of initial preparation programs, last year’s Unit-Wide Assessment
Report suggested that similar data were needed for all advanced preparation programs.
Again, program coordinators worked with their faculty to develop Program Assessment Plans.
By February 2009, 81% of these programs had developed their plan. These plans were
included in the Program Review Documents (aka folios) submitted to the EPSB in February
2009. The programs that have not developed plans are those connected to the MAE Teacher
Leader program being developed because of an EPSB mandate. This WKU Teacher Leader
framework and associated program curriculum contracts should be approved by the EPSB in
spring 2010.