Professional Education Unit
Assessment Report - Initial Preparation Programs
(Abridged)
Academic Year 2007-08
Report Version: August 19, 2008
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_0708_Abridged.doc Page 2 of 31
Professional Education Unit Assessment Report - Initial Preparation Programs
Academic Year 2007-08
Overview: This report includes assessment and survey results from the following data
collection points and sources:
ƒ Admission Data (Academic Year 2007-08)
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
ƒ Course Based Assessment Data (Academic Year 2007-08)
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
ƒ Clinical Experiences Data (Academic Year 2007-08)
o Field Experience Summary demographic information (National Center for Education
Statistics [NCES] and candidate self-report data)
o Student Teaching demographic information (NCES data)
ƒ Dispositions Data (Academic Year 2007-08)
o Admission and early clinical dispositions data by program
o Student Teacher Evaluation dispositions results by program
ƒ Culminating Assessment Data (Academic Year 2007-08)
o Teacher Work Sample Scores by scoring session, by program, by TWS components, and
by Kentucky Teacher Standards
o Student Teacher Evaluation results by program and Kentucky Teacher Standards
ƒ Exit and Follow Up Data
o Praxis results (2006-07 cohort)
o WKU Teacher Survey results (2007-08 student teacher results)
o Education Professional Standards Board (EPSB) New Teacher Survey results (2002-07)
o Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP) results (2004-08)
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 towards 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 2007-08
based on the 2006-07 Annual Report and new decisions to be considered based on the 2007-08
results.
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 3 of 31
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 4:
Component 3:
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_0708_Abridged.doc Page 4 of 31
Section 1. Continuous Assessment Results
A. Admission Data (Academic Year 2007-08)
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
0-Unknown
131001-Special Education
131012-Communication Disorders
131201-Agriculture
131202-Early Elementary Education P-5
131203-Middle Grades Education
131204-Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education
131302-Art Education
131303-Business Education
131308-Family and Consumer Science
131309-Industrial Technology
131312-Music Education
131314-Physical Education
131320-Industrial Technology
160901-French
160905-Spanish
190701-Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education
230101- English and Allied Language Arts
250101-School Media Specialist
260101- Biological Science
270101-Mathematics
420101 - School Psychology
450101-History/Social Studies
450801-History/Social Studies
500901-Music Education
Grand Total
*Cells with N < 5 not reported
N
%
6
42
40
11
230
81
4
7
9
8
1
9
14
1
1
6
1
21
10
6
14
7
25
6
11
571
1%
7%
7%
2%
40%
14%
1%
1%
2%
1%
0%
2%
2%
0%
0%
1%
0%
4%
2%
1%
2%
1%
4%
1%
2%
100%
Average GPA
3.12
3.30
3.75
3.32
3.29
3.31
3.05
3.21
3.39
3.31
*
3.44
3.04
*
*
3.39
*
3.31
3.51
3.34
3.31
3.69
3.26
3.33
3.33
3.33
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 5 of 31
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
Major Code
N
0-Unknown
131001-Special Education
131012-Communications Disorders
131201-Agriculture
131202-Elementary Education
131203-Middle Grades Education
131204-IECE
131302-Art Education
131303-Business Education
131308-Family Consumer Science
131309-Industrial Technology
131312-Music Education
131314-Physical Education
131320-Industrial Technology
160901-French
160905-Spanish
190701-IECE
230101-English Allied Lang Arts
250101-School Media Specialist
260101-Biological Science
270101-Mathematics
420101 - School Psychology
450101-History/Social Studies
450801-History/Social Studies
500901-Music Education
Grand Total
PPSTR*
PPSTW*
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
Mean
N
23 2
23
24
23 12
23 2
* 1
23 1
23 1
23 1
*
24
23 1
*
*
* 1
*
25
*
2
*
2
*
2
1
176 14
* 2
*
* 1
* 1
* 1
175
*
6
1
*
*
*
1
*
Mean
16
31
8
176
64
2
5
7
5
1
8
7
1
1
1
1
15
6
10
19
5
5
394
GRE
Composite
Mean N Mean
6 1030
* 21
963
* 10
914
*
1
1128
*
1070
6
PPSTM*
23
25
178 14
* 2
* 1
* 1
* 1
* 1
SAT
*
2
*
2
*
*
1
*
1
*
2
*
2
*
1
*
2
*
1
10
*
1179
*
1136
*
1032
2
*
2
*
2
*
24 2
25
25 3
23 29
*
3
*
3
*
* 3
178 33
* 3
177 33
1
*
1
7
2
* 1
175 17
*
1103
67
*Cells with N < 5 not reported
*PPST refers to the ETS Pre-Professional Skills Tests: Mathematics (M), Reading (R), & Writing (W) respectively.
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 2007-08 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_0708_Abridged.doc Page 6 of 31
Table 3 CP Proficiency Level Percentages
COURSE
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-419
EXED-422
EXED-430
EXED-431
EXED-434
IECE-321
IECE-324
LME-318
LME-407
LME-410
LME-448
LTCY-310
LTCY-320
LTCY-420
LTCY-421
LTCY-444
MGE-275
MGE-385
MGE-475
MGE-477
MGE-479
MGE-481
MGE-485
MLNG-410
PSY-310
SEC-351
SEC-352
SEC-453
SEC-473
1
2
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
1%
5%
6%
2%
0%
0%
10%
0%
14%
2%
0%
2%
1%
0%
1%
0%
3
7%
20%
4%
7%
5%
3%
5%
5%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
3%
0%
1%
0%
0%
5%
14%
8%
8%
26%
11%
11%
0%
9%
30%
0%
14%
12%
0%
9%
11%
3%
4%
0%
4
62%
63%
96%
85%
88%
74%
84%
78%
89%
27%
0%
7%
29%
0%
60%
0%
0%
23%
24%
100%
25%
47%
55%
0%
74%
19%
100%
52%
14%
60%
51%
48%
64%
83%
100%
91%
25%
40%
71%
85%
0%
22%
69%
89%
42%
10%
29%
16%
0%
8%
6%
22%
11%
16%
9%
70%
100%
93%
71%
100%
40%
100%
100%
77%
76%
0%
75%
47%
39%
100%
25%
81%
0%
43%
71%
28%
41%
21%
19%
4%
0%
0%
35%
60%
0%
0%
100%
66%
19%
7%
53%
90%
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 7 of 31
COURSE
SEC-475
SEC-477
SEC-479
SEC-481
SPAN-470
Grand Total
1
2
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3
0%
80%
0%
6%
0%
7%
4
93%
20%
0%
94%
0%
67%
7%
0%
100%
0%
100%
25%
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. It
should be noted that the table below is an improvement from last year in that it aggregates
candidates by their program of study versus by the courses they complete.
Table 4 Percent of Program Students Scoring Proficient on CPs by Teacher Standard
Kentucky Teacher Standards
Program
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Elementary Ed.
98%
94% 94% 95%
93%
95%
94%
96%
97%
91%
Middle Grades Ed. 80%
95%
88% 97%
92%
89%
77%
96%
95%
94%
Secondary Ed.
100%
90% 92% 95%
89%
92%
93%
94%
99%
92%
P-12 Ed.
85% 82% 95%
82%
92%
85%
93% 100% 90% 100%
5-12 Ed.
88% 86% 91%
88%
88%
87%
93%
97%
92% 100%
Exceptional Ed.
100% 95% 96%
99%
96%
99%
97% 100% 99% 100%
IECE
100%
98% 100% 100% 99%
99% 100% 99% 100% 100%
Unit-Wide
98%
91% 92% 95%
92%
94%
91%
95%
98%
92%
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 44 student
who scored low on three or more critical performances.
Table 5 Count of Students Scoring Below Proficient on CPs
Student ID
0929
1680
8081
7301
4307
2948
5299
7270
9821
5352
5517
9508
2760
4085
2282
Score
1
Count Per Student
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 8 of 31
Student ID
7540
0504
4813
5509
6200
4127
2225
8143
6853
0167
2907
6884
4047
5222
7065
7967
5585
6501
8831
1520
1607
3588
3626
7801
0776
3538
5745
6128
6840
7847
0552
4772
5086
5234
5676
6478
7390
7652
8139
1490
7144
9701
0687
2671
3758
5713
6598
8029
8711
1711
2423
Score
1
Count Per Student
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
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_0708_Abridged.doc Page 9 of 31
Student ID
7499
7512
8800
8202
5975
7643
7766
1896
2763
7544
9743
0532
6393
6636
7151
7985
1935
5350
6548
2718
6512
1501
2716
6999
1693
2814
7348
8018
6474
6500
1921
3222
1200
0085
9307
9855
8559
8722
7984
3934
7126
3888
2525
4698
9245
1012
5369
7724
1146
2824
6703
Score
1
Count Per Student
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
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
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 10 of 31
Score
Student ID
1
Count Per Student
2
1902
1
2277
1
7772
2397
9388
0154
4762
3327
1
4263
1
4143
2438
1
0323
7808
3250
7139
3301
2
0525
8929
8315
8335
7474
4873
Student N
Students with three or more low scores
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
2
4
5
5
5
5
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
139
44
C. Clinical Experiences Data (Academic Year 2007-08)
Over the 2007-08 academic year, 748 students reported demographic information on 1565 field
placements with an average of 22% diversity (based on National Center for Education Statistics).
This diversity percentage continues to be well above the average 11% diversity of the schools in
the 31 counties that represent our service area. Table 6 reveals the 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
Context
Mainstreamed Class
65%
Resource Room
16%
Collaboration
39%
Pullout Program
22%
Tutorial/Enrichment
15%
Working With Students With Special Needs
Physical
Disability
14%
African American
84%
Learning
Disability
63%
Mental Disability
EBD
Gifted
ELL
9%
38%
51%
41%
Working with Diverse Students
Native American
Latino/Hispanic
Asian American
9%
63%
40%
Other
31%
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 11 of 31
Overall, in 80% of their field experiences candidates reported working with at least one student
with special needs and in 92% 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 candidates student
taught during the 2007-08 academic year. The average overall diversity percentage (highlighted
column) 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
Diversity*
Low SES†
ADAIR COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
0.3
3.9
0.6
95.3
4.7
51.2
ADAIR COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.6
3.0
0.9
95.4
4.6
59.3
COLONEL WILLIAM CASEY ELEMENTARY
0.2
0.3
4.0
1.9
93.6
6.4
60.9
ALLEN COUNTY INTERMEDIATE CENTER
0.3
0.4
1.0
0.6
97.6
2.4
50.4
ALLEN COUNTY-SCOTTSVILLE HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.1
99.1
0.9
39.0
ANCHORAGE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.9
97.5
2.5
0.2
BARDSTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
1.5
22.7
1.9
73.9
26.1
41.8
BARDSTOWN HIGH SCHOOL
0.4
1.7
26.2
0.2
71.6
28.4
39.2
School Name
Native American
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
BARDSTOWN PRIMARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.3
17.5
1.2
81.0
19.0
50.7
AUSTIN TRACY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
98.9
1.1
67.5
BARREN COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.5
98.3
1.7
37.7
BARREN COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.7
98.1
1.9
48.3
HISEVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
99.2
0.8
70.4
PARK CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.3
0.6
1.3
0.6
97.1
2.9
63.7
49.4
RED CROSS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.9
98.3
1.7
TEMPLE HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.6
0.0
0.3
1.6
97.5
2.5
77.0
BOWLING GREEN HIGH SCHOOL
0.4
3.8
21.4
6.7
67.6
32.4
46.0
BOWLING GREEN MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.3
2.8
24.5
5.5
67.0
33.0
53.1
DISHMAN MCGINNIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.4
1.1
30.4
11.5
56.7
43.3
98.5
PARKER BENNETT CURRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.3
6.9
37.7
29.3
25.7
74.3
99.1
POTTER GRAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
2.0
11.0
1.7
85.1
14.9
29.1
T C CHERRY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
2.6
19.9
3.7
73.8
26.2
70.4
W R MCNEILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
2.4
13.0
0.8
83.9
16.1
21.2
BRECKINRIDGE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
0.4
0.2
2.5
0.4
96.6
3.4
41.1
BRECKINRIDGE COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.2
2.0
1.0
96.9
3.1
55.3
CUSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.2
97.6
2.4
74.9
HARDINSBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
0.0
4.2
0.2
95.4
4.6
62.0
IRVINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
1.5
4.9
1.5
92.0
8.0
73.0
MARYVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
98.7
1.3
53.7
OLD MILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.5
98.6
1.4
43.3
MORGANTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.2
0.8
1.1
97.9
2.1
55.3
CAVERNA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.3
13.1
1.9
84.7
15.3
82.2
CAVERNA HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
0.4
18.2
0.8
80.5
19.5
55.9
CUMBERLAND COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
0.3
0.3
2.8
0.0
96.6
3.4
59.2
CUMBERLAND COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
98.1
1.9
64.9
APOLLO HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
0.7
4.9
1.1
93.3
6.7
33.4
AUDUBON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
1.1
10.4
3.2
85.1
14.9
6.2
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 12 of 31
School Name
Native American
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Diversity*
Low SES†
BURNS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
1.8
5.9
2.7
89.6
10.4
3.7
COLLEGE VIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.1
1.7
2.3
0.4
95.5
4.5
19.4
DAVIESS COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
0.1
1.0
0.7
0.6
97.6
2.4
25.1
DEER PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
2.1
2.6
1.1
94.1
5.9
8.3
F T BURNS MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.8
3.7
0.9
94.5
5.5
5.7
WEST LOUISVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.8
0.4
1.5
97.3
2.7
2.3
WHITESVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.3
1.3
0.3
98.2
1.8
2.1
EDMONSON COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
0.2
0.0
4.1
0.2
95.5
4.5
49.3
EDMONSON COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.3
99.0
1.0
55.4
SOUTH EDMONSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.5
98.7
1.3
66.3
HELMWOOD HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
1.0
3.3
15.6
1.4
78.7
21.3
64.0
MORNINGSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.4
2.2
15.7
3.1
78.6
21.4
49.7
TALTON K STONE MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.6
2.9
14.9
1.4
80.2
19.8
40.3
GLASGOW MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.8
16.7
2.9
79.6
20.4
46.5
HIGHLAND ELEMENTARY
0.0
1.8
13.1
1.4
83.7
16.3
63.3
SOUTH GREEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.9
11.0
1.9
86.2
13.8
45.8
CANEYVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
99.8
0.2
79.2
CLARKSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.4
0.2
0.2
1.4
97.9
2.1
63.1
GRAYSON COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
0.2
0.8
1.0
98.0
2.0
47.2
GRAYSON COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.2
99.4
0.6
52.9
H W WILKEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
2.1
1.4
96.5
3.5
63.4
ORAN P LAWLER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.3
1.1
0.3
98.4
1.6
61.1
HANCOCK COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.8
97.4
2.6
39.5
NORTH HANCOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.2
0.8
2.3
96.7
3.3
40.5
SOUTH HANCOCK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
98.3
1.7
58.6
BLUEGRASS MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.3
3.7
23.7
3.9
68.4
31.6
41.7
CENTRAL HARDIN HIGH SCHOOL
0.2
1.1
3.6
1.2
93.8
6.2
29.5
CREEKSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
1.3
4.5
1.0
93.2
6.8
51.0
EAST HARDIN MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.6
2.7
0.9
95.7
4.3
30.5
G C BURKHEAD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
3.6
16.2
2.1
78.1
21.9
49.7
JAMES T ALTON MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.8
1.4
16.6
4.1
77.2
22.8
39.4
LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
0.2
2.3
0.7
96.6
3.4
61.0
LINCOLN TRAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
1.8
2.5
1.5
94.0
6.0
36.8
MEADOW VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.4
3.5
38.0
6.8
51.4
48.6
70.7
NEW HIGHLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.7
2.9
23.6
4.2
68.6
31.4
61.0
NORTH HARDIN HIGH SCHOOL
0.4
4.9
26.7
6.4
61.5
38.5
38.1
RADCLIFF MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.4
4.5
31.6
5.1
58.3
41.7
56.7
RINEYVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.7
4.9
1.5
92.9
7.1
43.0
BONNIEVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.3
0.0
1.2
0.3
98.2
1.8
65.1
MUNFORDVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.4
7.0
0.2
92.4
7.6
56.9
BEND GATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
15.5
1.8
82.7
17.3
55.8
EAST HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
10.5
0.9
88.6
11.4
54.4
HENDERSON COUNTY NORTH MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.3
8.8
1.3
89.7
10.3
46.0
NIAGARA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.6
2.2
97.2
2.8
38.9
CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
0.4
6.1
0.2
93.3
6.7
39.3
SOUTH HOPKINS MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.2
0.2
6.5
0.2
92.8
7.2
55.8
CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
1.9
82.4
3.7
12.0
88.0
76.7
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 13 of 31
School Name
Native American
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Diversity*
Low SES†
CHENOWETH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
1.1
39.5
2.4
56.7
43.3
65.5
DOSS HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET CAREER ACADEMY
0.0
1.4
42.7
1.5
54.5
45.5
68.5
FAIRDALE HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET CAREER ACADE
0.1
0.2
24.9
2.1
72.6
27.4
64.8
FOSTER TRADITIONAL ACADEMY
0.0
3.0
52.0
0.9
44.1
55.9
88.6
GOLDSMITH LANE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
2.1
36.3
10.4
51.0
49.0
92.5
HAWTHORNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.6
0.9
32.7
13.7
52.0
48.0
74.1
KENWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
2.8
41.2
3.2
52.6
47.4
80.6
SENECA HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET CAREER ACADEMY
0.2
1.7
32.5
3.7
62.0
38.0
43.7
HODGENVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.4
0.4
6.9
3.0
89.3
10.7
53.0
LARUE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
0.1
0.1
5.2
1.0
93.5
6.5
38.9
LARUE COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.3
0.0
3.8
1.6
94.3
5.7
58.0
AUBURN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.7
95.8
4.2
50.3
CHANDLERS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.2
1.9
0.0
97.8
2.2
57.0
LEWISBURG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.2
99.3
0.7
50.9
LOGAN COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
0.1
2.3
0.2
97.4
2.6
36.5
CALHOUN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
99.4
0.6
48.3
BRANDENBURG HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
EKRON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.3
0.8
0.8
98.2
1.8
42.4
FLAHERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.5
0.0
1.7
4.1
93.8
6.3
39.7
PAYNEVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
44.2
STUART PEPPER MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.7
0.7
1.9
0.5
96.2
3.8
39.9
EDMONTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
99.6
0.4
64.3
NORTH METCALFE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
96.8
3.2
77.4
MONROE COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
5.1
2.1
92.8
7.2
56.1
MONROE COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.2
0.0
3.5
1.2
95.1
4.9
59.8
GREENVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.4
9.0
1.0
89.7
10.3
68.4
MUHLENBERG NORTH HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
0.2
2.9
0.0
96.9
3.1
41.0
MUHLENBERG SOUTH ELEMENTARY
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.2
95.8
4.2
72.0
MUHLENBERG SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL
0.2
0.0
4.8
0.5
94.6
5.4
42.6
MUHLENBERG SOUTH MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.2
0.0
6.2
0.4
93.2
6.8
50.7
BLOOMFIELD MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.2
2.1
1.2
96.5
3.5
37.4
FOSTER HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.2
1.3
0.2
98.2
1.8
33.9
OLD KENTUCKY HOME MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.5
2.7
0.0
96.7
3.3
32.4
BEAVER DAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.2
1.6
8.0
90.2
9.8
67.1
HORSE BRANCH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
93.8
OHIO COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
0.1
0.3
1.0
0.8
97.8
2.2
46.2
OHIO COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.2
0.2
1.6
1.3
96.7
3.3
55.2
WAYLAND ALEXANDER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.6
3.0
96.4
3.6
73.1
CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.6
1.0
3.9
2.5
92.1
7.9
20.2
GOSHEN AT HILLCREST ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.3
1.7
0.8
1.8
95.5
4.5
1.9
CRAVENS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.4
0.0
26.1
0.4
73.2
26.8
98.9
ESTES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.3
0.0
12.9
3.4
83.4
16.6
99.2
NEWTON PARRISH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.7
5.0
2.1
92.2
7.8
66.0
OWENSBORO MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.4
20.0
0.9
78.7
21.3
71.2
RUSSELL COUNTY HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
0.3
0.7
1.0
97.9
2.1
55.6
RUSSELL COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
0.4
0.7
0.9
98.0
2.0
60.3
RUSSELL SPRINGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
98.1
1.9
31.5
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 14 of 31
School Name
Native American
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Diversity*
Low SES†
SALEM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
98.5
1.5
62.6
FRANKLIN-SIMPSON HIGH SCHOOL
0.0
0.4
13.5
0.4
85.7
14.3
34.2
LINCOLN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.6
12.3
1.1
86.0
14.0
48.8
SIMPSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.3
0.4
10.8
0.9
87.6
12.4
46.1
TAYLOR COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.3
0.6
1.3
1.1
96.7
3.3
41.3
SOUTH TODD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.4
0.0
16.5
6.4
76.7
23.3
71.6
54.7
TODD COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.2
0.0
11.3
2.2
86.3
13.7
ALVATON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.6
2.4
1.5
95.5
4.5
35.2
BRIARWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
3.3
11.4
2.8
82.4
17.6
26.8
BRISTOW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
1.5
10.2
5.8
82.3
17.7
58.3
CUMBERLAND TRACE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
1.9
11.3
5.4
81.2
18.8
49.6
DRAKES CREEK MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.1
2.4
5.8
2.2
89.5
10.5
21.8
GREENWOOD HIGH SCHOOL
0.3
3.3
4.3
1.7
90.5
9.5
15.6
HENRY F MOSS MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.0
1.4
18.3
5.0
75.3
24.7
69.6
LOST RIVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
1.6
13.8
8.7
75.9
24.1
74.8
NORTH WARREN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
0.0
5.3
1.0
93.4
6.6
55.6
OAKLAND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.4
12.1
7.0
80.5
19.5
77.0
RICH POND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.3
0.7
3.3
1.7
94.1
5.9
26.5
RICHARDSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.9
98.2
1.8
54.5
ROCKFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.2
4.6
0.6
94.7
5.3
38.0
WARREN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
0.1
1.2
16.7
4.3
77.7
22.3
46.2
WARREN COUNTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
1.9
23.1
10.6
64.3
35.7
87.0
WARREN EAST HIGH SCHOOL
0.2
0.2
9.6
2.0
87.9
12.1
44.5
WARREN EAST MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.2
1.2
7.4
2.5
88.7
11.3
56.0
WILLIAM NATCHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
7.5
5.2
3.6
83.7
16.3
23.1
WATAUGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.9
0.7
0.9
2.0
95.6
4.4
0.0
WHITE HOUSE HERITAGE SCHOOL
0.3
1.5
0.9
1.8
95.5
4.5
0.0
BEECH SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
0.3
1.7
8.1
2.2
87.7
12.3
0.0
CLYDE RIGGS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
0.0
4.1
2.1
93.8
6.2
0.0
GENE W. BROWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.9
1.9
12.2
8.4
76.7
23.3
0.0
GUILD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.6
0.6
20.0
13.2
65.7
34.3
0.0
HAROLD B. WILLIAMS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
0.3
1.6
1.1
96.7
3.3
0.0
HOWARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.2
1.0
23.4
11.9
63.4
36.6
0.0
HUNTER MIDDLE SCHOOL
0.2
1.5
9.5
1.1
87.7
12.3
0.0
INDIAN LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.3
1.0
1.2
1.0
96.3
3.7
0.0
JACK ANDERSON ELEMENTARY
0.1
3.1
6.2
1.3
89.3
10.7
0.0
MILLERSVILLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.7
1.0
8.9
3.3
86.1
13.9
0.0
PORTLAND HIGH SCHOOL
0.4
0.7
2.9
1.7
94.2
5.8
0.0
VENA STUART ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.0
1.0
29.8
10.9
58.4
41.6
0.0
WATT HARDISON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
0.3
0.0
4.3
2.3
93.1
6.9
0.0
WESTMORELAND HIGH SCHOOL
AVERAGE
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.9
0.0
9.1
0.4
2.3
99.1
87.4
0.9
12.6
0.0
46.3
*Diversity equals combined percentage of Native American, Asian, Black, and Hispanic students in the school
†Low SES equals combined percentage of students on Free Lunch and Reduced Lunch.
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 15 of 31
D. Dispositions Data (Academic Year 2007-08)
This 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. In fall 2007, all initial
programs began developing Program Assessment Plans that outline how each program plans to
collect mid-program level disposition data. These are being finalized throughout 2008 as all
programs begin the process of resubmitting Program Review Documents (aka folios) to the
EPSB as required part of our accreditation renewal process. As these forms and data collection
points are only now being added to the electronic accountability system, the first set of data has
become available. 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 at 3 or higher on each disposition
category.
Table 8 Proficiency Rates on Unit-Wide Dispositions Prior to Student Teaching
WKU Professional Education Dispositions
Program
Values
Values Personal
Values
Values
Values
Learning
Integrity
Diversity Collaboration Professionalism
Elementary Ed.
94%
99%
99%
99%
98%
Middle Grades Ed.
99%
98%
100%
100%
100%
Secondary Ed.
96%
100%
100%
94%
100%
P-12 Ed.
97%
99%
100%*
100%*
100%*
5-12 Ed.
100%
100%
100%*
100%*
100%*
Exceptional Ed.
94%
100%
100%*
100%*
100%*
IECE
100%*
100%*
†
†
†
Unit-Wide
94%
99%
100%
99%
98%
*Average based on N<10.
†Data not available.
Table 9 Proficiency Rates on Unit-Wide Dispositions during Student Teaching
WKU Professional Education Dispositions
Program
Values
Values Personal
Values
Values
Values
Learning
Integrity
Diversity Collaboration Professionalism
Elementary Ed.
98%
99%
100%
99%
97%
Middle Grades Ed.
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Secondary Ed.
98%
98%
100%
98%
98%
P-12 Ed.
91%
95%
100%
95%
95%
5-12 Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Exceptional Ed.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
IECE*
*
*
*
*
*
Unit-Wide
97%
99%
100%
99%
98%
*Cells with N < 5 not reported
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 16 of 31
E. Culminating Assessment Data (Academic Year 2007-08)
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). Tables 10 and 11 present the inter-rater
agreement results of two TWS scoring sessions where independent scorers judged the quality of
the TWS performances. Scorers were determined to be in agreement if they both/all scored the
TWS as 1/2 (below standard) or 3/4 (at/above standard). It should be noted that in the fall
scoring, when disagreement in scoring occurred between faculty and independent scorers, 88%
faculty scored the TWS lower. In the spring scoring, 68% faculty scored the TWS lower.
Table 10 Inter-rater Agreement on Teacher Work Sample Scores (Fall 2007 TWS)
A/B
Agree
Disagree
Total
N
120
37
157
%
76%
24%
100%
A/Faculty
N
%
117
75%
40
25%
157
100%
B/Faculty
N
%
124
79%
33
21%
157
100%
All
N
102
55
157
%
65%
35%
100%
A or B/Faculty
N
%
139
89%
18
11%
157
100%
If A&B/Faculty
N
%
102
85%
18
15%
120
100%
Table 11 Inter-rater Agreement on Teacher Work Sample Scores (Spring 2008 TWS)
A/B
Agree
Disagree
Total
N
156
45
201
%
78%
22%
100%
A/Faculty
N
%
130
65%
71
35%
201
100%
B/Faculty
N
%
135
67%
66
33%
201
100%
All
N
109
91
200
%
55%
46%
100%
A or B/Faculty
N
%
155
78%
45
23%
200
100%
If A&B/Faculty
N
%
110
70%
47
30%
157
100%
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 12 represents two-year proficiency rates by program area.
Table 12 Initial Preparation TWS Proficiency Rates
Program Type
2007-08 Rate
2006-07 Rate†
Elementary Ed.
89%
79%
Middle Grades Ed.
86%
56%
Secondary Ed.
73%
64%
P-12 Ed.
84%
68%
5-12 Ed.
80%
78%
Exceptional Ed.
96%
*
IECE
100%
*
Unit-Wide
86%
71%
*Data not available.
†Results are based on “independent scorers”; this and future reports will only include faculty scores.
Because faculty also score TWS at the indicator level, we are able to 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,
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 17 of 31
2 – Partially Met, and 3 – Met) on indicators aligned to a standard. Chart 1 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, AP – Assessment Plan, DFI – Design
for Instruction, IDM – Instructional Decision Making, ASL – Analysis of Student Learning, and
RSE – Reflection and Self-Evaluation.
Chart 1 Percentage by Program of Candidates who “Passed” Each TWS Factor
100%
90%
80%
TOTAL
ELED
MGE
70%
SECED
5-12
P-12
60%
50%
40%
30%
CF
LG
AP
DFI
IDM
ASL
RSE
Because the TWS indicators have been aligned to Kentucky Teacher Standards, we are able to
use these scores to ascertain candidate success in meeting each standard related to the TWS
(Chart 2 and Table 13).
Chart 2 Percentage by Program of Candidates who “Passed” Each Teacher Standard
100%
90%
TOTAL
80%
ELED
MGE
SECED
70%
5-12
P-12
60%
50%
40%
KTS1
KTS2
KTS4
KTS5
KTS6
KTS7
KTS9
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 18 of 31
Table 13 Percentage by Program of Candidates who “Passed” Each Teacher Standard
ELED
MGE
SECED
5-12
P-12
TOTAL
KTS1
92%
90%
96%
85%
74%
90%
KTS2
95%
96%
70%
74%
76%
87%
KTS4
92%
82%
95%
78%
74%
88%
KTS5
75%
80%
64%
81%
67%
74%
KTS6
81%
65%
86%
85%
71%
79%
KTS7
74%
92%
68%
93%
79%
77%
KTS9
74%
94%
57%
70%
83%
75%
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. With these concerns in
mind, last year the form was redesigned to more clearly align 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 14 reports the percentages of 2007-08 student teachers successful on each
standard. For program evaluation purposes, candidates are considered successful who average at
least 2.5 on a three point scale (1 – Not Met, 2 – Partially Met, and 3 – Met) on indicators
aligned to a standard.
Table 14 Student Teaching Evaluation Proficiency Rates by Kentucky Teacher Standards
Kentucky Teacher Standards
Program
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Elementary Ed.
98% 96% 98%
95%
93%
94%
95%
97% 100% 94%
Middle Grades Ed. 100% 98%
98%
98%
96%
96%
96% 100% 98%
98%
Secondary Ed.
94% 87% 89%
87%
87%
94%
80%
89% 100% 91%
P-12 Ed.
91% 82% 95%
82%
84%
86%
82%
89%
93%
82%
5-12 Ed.
96% 100% 96%
96%
96% 100% 80%
96% 100% 96%
Exceptional Ed.
100% 100% 100% 100% 92%
92% 100% 100% 100% 100%
IECE*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Unit-Wide
97% 94% 96%
93%
92%
94%
91%
95%
99%
92%
*Cells with N < 5 not reported
F. Exit and Follow Up Data
Praxis Results (2006-07 Cohort)
Tables 15 and 16 delineate the Educational Testing Services reports of the pass rates, on content
and Principles of Learning and Teaching and related exams respectively, of candidates (N=392)
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 19 of 31
who completed our programs in the 2006-07 academic year (the most recent year with complete
data). The last column allows for pass rate comparison of our candidates to our 2005-06 results.
Table 15 Pass Rates on Content Tests for Initial Teacher Preparation
Code
Candidate N
Program/Type of Assessment
Number
(2006-07)
Overall Academic Content Area Exam Statistics:
392
Elementary Education
ELEM ED CURR INSTRUC ASSESSMENT
011
1
ELEMENTARY ED CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
014
194
Middle Grades Education
MIDDLE SCHOOL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
049
24
MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS
069
17
MIDDLE SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES
089
39
MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE
439
16
Secondary Education
BIOLOGY CONTENT KNOWLEDGE PART 1
231
-BIOLOGY CONTENT ESSAYS
233
-BIOLOGY CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
235
2
CHEMISTRY CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
245
2
ENG LANG LIT COMP CONTENT
041
17
KNOWLEDGE
ENG LANG LIT COMP ESSAYS
042
15
MATHEMATICS: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
061
7
MATH PROOFS MODELS PROBLEMS PART 1
063
7
SOCIAL STUDIES: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
081
23
SOCIAL STUDIES: INTERPRET MATERIALS
083
23
P-12 Education
ART MAKING
131
4
ART CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
133
4
GERMAN CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
181
-HEALTH EDUCATION
550
-MUSIC CONCEPTS AND PROCESSES
111
9
MUSIC CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
113
10
PHYSICAL ED: CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
091
11
PHYSICAL ED ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
092
11
SPANISH CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
191
2
5-12 Education
AGRICULTURE
700
10
BUSINESS EDUCATION
100
5
FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES
120
6
TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION
050
1
Exceptional Education
SE STUDENTS W/MENTAL RETARDATION
321
12
SE APPLIC OF CORE PRINCIPLES ACROSS
352
10
EDUC. EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS: CK
353
29
SE BEHAVIORAL/EMOTIONAL
371
-ED EXCEPT STUDENTS: MILD/MOD. DISAB.
542
13
*2005-06 pass rate based on N<10. **Cells with N < 5 not reported
WKU Pass Rate
(2006-07)
92%
WKU Pass Rate
(2005-06)
97%
**
96%
100%
95%
96%
94%
92%
100%
95%
100%
96%
100%*
--**
**
100%*
100%*
---
100%
100%
87%
86%
100%
100%
91%
100%
--100%
100%
**
**
--100%
90%
100%
100%
**
86%*
100%*
100%*
100%*
86%*
86%*
100%*
100%*
34%*
100%
100%
100%
**
100%*
100%
100%
--
100%
100%
100%
-100%
100%
100%
100%*
100%
100%*
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 20 of 31
Table 16 Pass Rates on Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills Praxis II Test
N Taking
Assessment
(2006-07)
348
54
402
Type of Assessment
Aggregate – Professional Knowledge
Aggregate – Teaching Special Populations
Unit-wide
Institutional
Pass Rate
(2006-07)
96%
98%
96%
Institutional
Pass Rate
(2005-06)
99%
100%
99%
WKU Teacher Survey Results (Academic Year 2007-08)
Below are the results of the electronic WKU Teacher Survey sent to student teachers. Out of a
possible 401 student teachers, 326 (81%) 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 17 reports
student teacher results by program with averages below 3 highlighted.
Table 17 Average Scores on Teacher Standards Questions by Program
Kentucky
Teacher
Standard
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ELED
N=152
3.60
3.57
3.68
3.49
3.41
3.49
3.54
3.35
3.47
3.17
MGE
N=42
3.20
3.19
3.39
3.08
3.08
3.21
3.06
2.93
3.18
2.94
SECED
N=48
3.27
3.17
3.41
3.11
3.02
3.24
2.95
2.92
3.34
2.73
Program
P-12
5-12
N=42
N=18
3.38
3.07
3.23
3.16
3.43
3.43
3.29
3.21
3.12
2.85
3.02
3.46
3.10
3.07
2.98
2.82
3.17
3.39
2.93
2.83
SPED
N=6
3.33
3.43
3.60
3.40
3.46
3.79
3.33
3.38
3.33
3.21
IECE
N=18
3.35
3.49
3.46
3.31
3.01
3.10
3.22
3.19
3.35
2.78
Grand Total
N=326
3.42
3.39
3.54
3.33
3.22
3.34
3.29
3.15
3.36
3.01
Respondents were also able to provide explanation if they answered “poor” for any item. Table
18 presents respondent comments by program with any direct reference to a particular faculty
member replaced with XX.
Table 18 Unavailable
EPSB New Teacher Survey Results (2002-07)
Below are the results of the state EPSB New Teacher Survey. The scale for each item is similar
to the WKU Teacher Survey. The state interviews four groups of respondents regarding WKU’s
preparation of teachers: student teachers, interns (first year teachers), cooperating teachers who
work with student teachers, and resource teachers who work with first year teachers. Tables 1923 represent results for each of these groups and then for total respondents by year. Items in red
represent averages that fall below 3 “Good.”
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 21 of 31
Table 19 EPSB Survey Student Teacher Responses by Year
Student Teacher N
Survey Year
Design Units
Contextual Information
Aligned Assessment
Reliable Assessment
Formative Assessment
Connecting to Real Life
Instructing SPED children
Technology – Instruction
Instructional Variety
Methods of Inquiry
Interpreting Results
PG Plan
Reflection
Presenting Learning
Classroom Management
Critical Thinking
Collaboration
Technology – Instruction
Assessing PD Needs
Ethics
Content Knowledge
Soc/Emotional Problems
Disabilities
SPED Behavior Issues
OVERALL
245
200203
3.61
3.20
3.36
3.22
3.11
3.28
2.65
2.98
3.13
3.20
3.15
3.10
3.34
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.26
2.83
3.13
3.69
3.47
2.60
2.91
2.72
3.42
38
200304
3.42
3.11
3.16
3.11
3.18
3.32
2.84
2.92
3.16
3.21
3.16
3.32
3.39
2.97
3.13
3.32
3.11
2.82
3.13
3.61
3.58
2.76
3.18
2.87
3.11
241
200405
3.61
3.24
3.34
3.24
3.22
3.37
2.80
3.14
3.25
3.15
3.15
3.22
3.41
3.22
3.10
3.24
3.17
3.03
3.15
3.67
3.40
2.77
2.93
2.79
3.39
247
200506
3.56
3.25
3.36
3.30
3.28
3.45
2.88
3.31
3.31
3.26
3.23
3.19
3.40
3.26
3.11
3.30
3.40
3.20
3.23
3.64
3.52
2.89
3.01
2.89
3.44
243
200607
3.55
3.26
3.34
3.26
3.30
3.32
2.80
3.36
3.30
3.24
3.23
3.24
3.42
3.24
3.05
3.29
3.26
3.20
3.29
3.64
3.48
2.82
2.89
2.85
3.40
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 22 of 31
Table 20 EPSB Survey Intern Responses by Year
Intern N
Survey Year
Design Units
Contextual Information
Aligned Assessment
Reliable Assessment
Formative Assessment
Connecting to Real Life
Instructing SPED children
Technology – Instruction
Instructional Variety
Methods of Inquiry
Interpreting Results
PG Plan
Reflection
Presenting Learning
Classroom Management
Critical Thinking
Collaboration
Technology - Instruction
Assessing PD Needs
Ethics
Content Knowledge
Soc/Emotional Problems
Disabilities
SPED Behavior Issues
OVERALL
85
200203
3.34
2.91
3.14
3.05
2.95
3.11
2.59
2.87
3.07
2.92
2.99
3.08
3.16
2.75
3.00
3.05
3.14
2.68
3.06
3.53
3.31
2.75
3.04
2.74
3.15
97
200304
3.34
2.84
3.04
3.01
2.96
3.11
2.73
2.79
2.97
2.97
2.93
3.11
3.14
2.78
3.01
3.00
3.09
2.57
3.03
3.48
3.33
2.80
2.94
2.78
3.02
281
200405
3.45
3.11
3.23
3.15
3.15
3.23
2.79
3.06
3.16
3.05
3.06
3.19
3.26
2.98
3.07
3.20
3.26
2.95
3.16
3.49
3.38
2.77
2.98
2.80
3.25
177
200506
3.50
3.15
3.29
3.23
3.18
3.34
2.75
3.28
3.14
3.15
3.17
3.34
3.28
3.11
3.08
3.18
3.33
3.24
3.26
3.64
3.44
2.93
2.94
2.84
3.28
282
200607
3.40
3.14
3.24
3.20
3.18
3.23
2.95
3.20
3.17
3.13
3.14
3.31
3.39
3.16
3.06
3.18
3.28
3.11
3.24
3.55
3.40
2.91
3.06
2.86
3.26
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 23 of 31
Table 21 EPSB Survey Cooperating Teacher Responses by Year
Coop Teacher N
Survey Year
Design Units
Contextual Information
Aligned Assessment
Reliable Assessment
Formative Assessment
Connecting to Real Life
Instructing SPED children
Technology – Instruction
Instructional Variety
Methods of Inquiry
Interpreting Results
PG Plan
Reflection
Presenting Learning
Classroom Management
Critical Thinking
Collaboration
Technology – Instruction
Assessing PD Needs
Ethics
Content Knowledge
Soc/Emotional Problems
Disabilities
SPED Behavior Issues
OVERALL
383
200203
3.43
3.07
3.25
3.16
3.08
3.29
2.78
3.13
3.12
3.14
3.00
3.15
3.33
3.03
3.09
3.18
3.23
2.96
3.10
3.58
3.46
2.77
2.74
2.84
3.34
48
200304
3.56
3.25
3.52
3.29
3.29
3.48
3.08
3.17
3.21
3.33
3.23
3.35
3.44
3.15
3.23
3.35
3.46
3.25
3.35
3.71
3.63
3.23
3.31
3.13
3.48
353
200405
3.45
3.16
3.29
3.21
3.16
3.34
2.91
3.21
3.17
3.16
3.01
3.23
3.34
3.05
3.06
3.18
3.33
3.21
3.17
3.56
3.47
3.15
3.11
2.97
3.36
330
200506
3.42
3.08
3.27
3.15
3.17
3.22
2.80
3.21
3.14
3.11
3.09
3.23
3.31
3.07
3.06
3.15
3.29
3.17
3.24
3.61
3.42
2.93
2.98
2.87
3.33
379
200607
3.45
3.17
3.32
3.26
3.22
3.39
2.92
3.40
3.24
3.18
3.14
3.26
3.36
3.12
3.09
3.23
3.39
3.41
3.26
3.64
3.50
3.14
3.04
2.98
3.37
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 24 of 31
Table 22 EPSB Survey Resource Teacher Responses by Year
Resource Teacher N
Survey Year
Design Units
Contextual Information
Aligned Assessment
Reliable Assessment
Formative Assessment
Connecting to Real Life
Instructing SPED children
Technology – Instruction
Instructional Variety
Methods of Inquiry
Interpreting Results
PG Plan
Reflection
Presenting Learning
Classroom Management
Critical Thinking
Collaboration
Technology – Instruction
Assessing PD Needs
Ethics
Content Knowledge
Soc/Emotional Problems
Disabilities
SPED Behavior Issues
OVERALL
131
200203
3.43
3.13
3.20
3.12
3.12
3.31
2.95
3.14
3.09
3.12
3.01
3.29
3.35
3.04
3.05
3.16
3.38
3.10
3.25
3.57
3.43
3.15
3.17
2.98
3.38
133
200304
3.33
3.05
3.13
3.07
3.10
3.27
3.10
3.14
3.17
3.14
3.10
3.29
3.28
3.06
3.08
3.08
3.34
3.05
3.27
3.63
3.43
3.18
3.29
3.06
3.27
294
200405
3.44
3.16
3.27
3.17
3.13
3.33
2.99
3.22
3.19
3.17
3.05
3.29
3.37
3.05
3.13
3.22
3.37
3.20
3.23
3.59
3.48
3.13
3.12
3.02
3.34
260
200506
3.43
3.21
3.30
3.25
3.22
3.35
2.99
3.38
3.26
3.18
3.10
3.29
3.38
3.12
3.11
3.22
3.40
3.35
3.27
3.59
3.47
3.10
3.19
3.04
3.42
285
200607
3.46
3.18
3.30
3.24
3.20
3.37
3.03
3.41
3.25
3.21
3.16
3.27
3.35
3.16
3.14
3.24
3.39
3.37
3.29
3.58
3.51
3.20
3.21
3.02
3.40
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 25 of 31
Table 23 EPSB Survey Total WKU Responses by Year
TOTAL N
Survey Year
Design Units
Contextual Information
Aligned Assessment
Reliable Assessment
Formative Assessment
Connecting to Real Life
Instructing SPED children
Technology – Instruction
Instructional Variety
Methods of Inquiry
Interpreting Results
PG Plan
Reflection
Presenting Learning
Classroom Management
Critical Thinking
Collaboration
Technology - Instruction
Assessing PD Needs
Ethics
Content Knowledge
Soc/Emotional Problems
Disabilities
SPED Behavior Issues
OVERALL
844
200203
3.47
3.10
3.26
3.16
3.08
3.27
2.75
3.06
3.11
3.13
3.04
3.15
3.32
3.02
3.11
3.20
3.25
2.92
3.13
3.61
3.44
2.78
2.89
2.81
3.35
316
200304
3.38
3.03
3.17
3.09
3.10
3.26
2.95
3.01
3.11
3.12
3.07
3.25
3.27
2.98
3.09
3.12
3.25
2.91
3.19
3.59
3.45
3.02
3.17
2.96
3.20
1169
200405
3.48
3.16
3.28
3.19
3.16
3.31
2.88
3.16
3.19
3.14
3.07
3.23
3.34
3.07
3.09
3.21
3.29
3.11
3.18
3.57
3.44
2.97
3.05
2.91
3.34
1014
200506
3.47
3.17
3.30
3.22
3.21
3.33
2.86
3.29
3.21
3.17
3.14
3.25
3.34
3.14
3.09
3.21
3.35
3.24
3.25
3.62
3.46
2.96
3.04
2.91
3.37
1189
200607
3.46
3.19
3.30
3.24
3.22
3.33
2.93
3.35
3.24
3.19
3.16
3.27
3.38
3.17
3.09
3.23
3.34
3.29
3.27
3.60
3.48
3.04
3.06
2.93
3.36
Kentucky Teacher Internship Program Results (2006-07)
All candidates in our initial teacher preparation programs who enter the profession participate in
a year-long internship entitled the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP), During KTIP,
candidates are mentored and observed by their building principal, a resource teacher within the
school, 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 these are
assigned near the beginning of the internship and, thus, reflect how well we have prepared them.
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 graduates 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
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 26 of 31
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.
Year
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
Table 24 Percentage of Candidates Averaging 2 (First Cycle)
Kentucky Teacher Standards
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
95%
99%
98%
95%
100%
99%
99%
99%
99%
93%
98%
96%
95%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
96%
98%
95%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
97%
94%
94%
Table 25 Percentage of Candidates Averaging at least 2.5 (Last Cycle)
Kentucky Teacher Standards
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2004-05
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2005-06
100% 100%
99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2006-07
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
2007-08
100% 100% 100% 100%
99% 100% 100% 100%
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 27 of 31
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 towards 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_0708_Abridged.doc Page 28 of 31
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
91%
96%
97%
89%
92%
100%
94%
2 - Designs/Plans
92%
87%
94%
84%
100%
91%
3 - Learning Climate
95%
96%
94%
100%
96%
4 - Implements/Manages
92%
88%
93%
81%
100%
91%
5 -Assessment/Evaluation
94%
74%
92%
77%
100%
87%
6 - Technology
91%
79%
94%
81%
100%
89%
7 – Reflection
95%
77%
91%
86%
97%
89%
8 - Collaboration
98%
95%
75%
94%
91%
9 - Professional Development
92%
99%
86%
94%
89%
10 - Leadership
98%
92%
70%
75%
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.
87
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 29 of 31
C. Other Conceptual Framework Values Summary
Diversity
As described earlier, overall, in 80% of their field experiences candidates reported working with
at least one student with special needs and in 92% of their field experiences candidates reported
working with at least one student from a diverse ethnic group. Although these percentages are
high, they suggest that at least some candidates are able to progress through their preparation
program without working with diverse students. To address this challenge, all initial education
preparation programs have worked over the 2007-08 academic to develop 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 is the need 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:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
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 2007-08 based on the 2006-07 Annual Report and new decisions to be considered
based on the 2007-08 results.
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 30 of 31
Section 4. Key Decisions Made and to be Considered
It should be said again that the WKU Professional Education Unit’s ability to develop such a
comprehensive report is a testament to the incredible assessment and accountability efforts the
faculty and staff continue to make. Consequently, in some sense, we remain “victims of our own
success.” The more we are able to collect data about our students, the more we learn about what
we do well, but also where we need to improve. However, below is a listing of decisions and
changes that took place over the 2007-08 academic year based on based on the 2006-07 UnitWide Assessment Report, as well as decisions that remain to be made (highlighted) based on
challenges associated with developing the current report.
ƒ Mapping Critical Performances: Last year’s report indicated that some Kentucky Teacher
Standards are clearly assessed more often than others are and that there is variability in
coverage by program. Based on that finding, program coordinators have 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. To date, 90% of initial preparation programs have
completed a draft plan and 66% have finalized their plan. These plans need to be completed
as we move toward the Spring 2009 date for the resubmission of EPSB Program Review
Documents (aka, folio) based on the new EPSB criteria that include a clear program
assessment plan.
ƒ 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. However, programs still need to consider how often (each
semester? yearly?) they might monitor candidate progress and what steps should be taken
with candidates who are not making adequate progress.
ƒ
Monitoring Clinical Experiences: Although we have collected a large amount of data, last
year’s report reveal that there was no certainty that all candidates in all programs are
providing this information. Based on that finding, program coordinators have worked with
their faculty to develop Program Assessment Plans that map out when clinical experience
information will be collected from candidates. Furthermore, as diversity is a Conceptual
Framework value, within their Program Assessment Plans, programs have 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.
ƒ Establishing Acceptable TWS Individual Score and Program-Level Pass Rates: This
year 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.
Unit-Wide_Assessment_Report_0708_Abridged.doc Page 31 of 31
ƒ Collecting Impact on P-12 Student Learning Data: A procedure for collecting these data
remains to be established. The Associate Dean for Accountability & Research has ideas about
how this process could be formalized.
ƒ Reviewing Survey Results: Similar to last year, although Table 17 indicates that, overall,
student teachers feel adequately prepared to meet Kentucky Teacher Standards, variability
exists among programs. Program faculty should review these results, as well as candidate
comments, to ascertain potential program weaknesses. Furthermore, the unit and programs
should review the EPSB survey results (Table 23 in particular) for the same purpose.
ƒ Monitoring Dispositions: The Professional Education Council recently adopted “unit-wide”
dispositions and a dispositions assessment form. Again, in the Program Assessment Plans,
programs have begun identifying key points/clinical experiences where candidate dispositions
data will be collected. The electronic accountability system have been modified to allow for
entry of these data. Additionally, the PEC established a cutoff scores that candidates must
meet in order to progress through a program. However, the PEC or other decision-makers
have yet to develop policies for working with candidates scoring low on dispositions.
ƒ Setting Assessment Targets to Monitor Unit and Program Quality: Although this report
attests to our success in collecting assessment and other key candidate data, without setting
targets related to each data point it will continue to be difficult to evaluate unit and program
success. For example, regarding critical performances and the TWS, what should be the
minimum pass rate by Kentucky Teacher Standard of candidates in any program for the
program faculty to be able to claim that they successful in developing good teachers?
Similarly, regarding the WKU and EPSB Teacher Surveys, what question or standard average
over how many years is sufficient to suggest that the unit or programs are not adequately
preparing teachers in a particular area? The unit and programs need to establish programlevel, and unit-level targets to guide our decisions about the quality of our teacher preparation
programs.
ƒ 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.
ƒ
Bringing Advanced Preparation Programs on Board: Although this report provides a
comprehensive picture of initial preparation programs, similar data are needed for all
advanced preparation programs. The good news is that many advanced programs have been
collecting data for some time and are now articulating how these data reflect program and
Kentucky Teacher standards in Program Assessment Plans they are completing. These plans
need to be completed as we move toward the Spring 2009 date for the resubmission of EPSB
Program Review Documents (aka, folio) based on the new EPSB criteria that include a clear
program assessment plan.