School Counseling Graduate Program
School of Education and Allied Professional
University of Dayton
Completed by Angel R. Rhodes, PhD
Table of Contents
Topic
Levels of Assessment
Level One Assessment - Admission
Assessment Standards
Rubric A
Rubric B
Rubric C
Dayton Campus Level One Data Summary Table
Capital Campus Level One Data Summary Table
Level Two Assessment – Pre Practicum
Assessment Standards
Dayton Campus Level Two Data Summary Table
Capital Campus Level Two Data Summary Table
Level Three Assessment – Pre Internship
Assessment Standards
Rubric D
Rubric E
Dayton Campus Level Three Data Summary Table
Capital Campus Level Three Data Summary Table
Level Four Assessment – Exit From Internship
Assessment Standards
Dayton Campus Level Three Data Summary Table
Capital Campus Level Three Data Summary Table
Level Five Assessment – Program Completion
Assessment Standards
Rubric F
Rubric G
Rubric H
Rubric I
Page
3
3
4
5
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
19
20
21
22
25
26
28
1
Dayton Campus Level Five Data Summary Table
Capital Campus Level Five Data Summary Table
Disposition Assessment
Assessment Standards
Rubric J
Rubric K
Dayton Campus Disposition Data Summary Table
Capital Campus Disposition Data Summary Table
31
33
35
36
38
41
44
2
LEVEL ONE ASSESSMENT STANDARDS - ADMISSION
SCHOOL COUNSELING GRADUATE PROGRAM
1. ADMISSION
GPA
Recommendation Letters
Extemporaneous Essay Score
Dispositions
 All Children Can Learn
 Fairness
Interview : Oral Communication Skills
Composite Score/Average
Unacceptable
1 Point
Acceptable
2 Points
Target
3 Points
Below 2.75
One does not recommend; or none
highly recommend
Below 2.0
See Rubric A
Below 2.0
See Rubric B
2.75 – 3.5
one highly recommends and others
recommend
2.0 – 2.4
See Rubric A
2.0 - 2.4
See Rubric B
Above 3.5
One or more Highly Rec. & others
recommend
2.5 – 3.0
See Rubric A
2.5 – 3.0
See Rubric B
Below 2.0
See Rubric C
Score below 2.0
do not accept
2.0 – 2.4
See Rubric C
2.0 to 2.4
Consider for acceptance
2.5 – 3.0
See Rubric C
2.5 to 3.0
Consider for acceptance
Rubric A: Extemporaneous Essay
Admission Group Interview
School Counseling Graduate Program, University Of Dayton
Evaluation
Domains
Unacceptable
1-point
Acceptable
2-points
Target
3-points
A. Sentence Structure
DID NOT have proper sentence structure on
at least 95% of the sentences in the essay
DID NOT have proper paragraph structure
with opening sentence, body, closing
sentence
DID have proper sentence structure on at
least 95% of the sentences in the essay
DID have proper paragraph structure with
opening sentence, body, and closing
sentence
Had proper sentence structure on at least
99% of the sentences in the essay
DID have proper paragraph structure with
opening sentence, body, closing sentence,
and strong transitions
D. Logic flow
DID NOT have proper punctuation in at
least 98% of the sentences in the essay
Is missing introduction, body or conclusion
paragraphs; or discussion does not make
sense; or topics jump around
DID have proper punctuation in at least 98%
of the sentences in the essay
Has introduction, body, and conclusion
paragraphs; discussion has a reasonable
logical flow and makes sense.
Average of all section
Below 2.0
2.0 – 2.4
Had proper punctuation in 100% of the
sentences in the essay
Has introduction, body, transitions and
conclusion paragraphs, has exceptional
logic flow with smooth transitions between
different thoughts and directions
2.5 – 3.0
B. Paragraph Format
C. Punctuation
3
Rubric B: Dispositions
Admission Group Interview
School Counseling Graduate Program, University Of Dayton
Evaluation
Domains
Unacceptable
1-point
Acceptable
2-points
Target
3-points
A. Dispositions:
during the interview, in speaking, writing
and action, the applicant DID NOT
demonstrate the dispositions that all
children can learn AND fairness (positive
regard, equality, concern and respect for all
children)
during the interview. in speaking, writing
and action, the applicant DID demonstrate
the dispositions that all children can learn
AND fairness (positive regard, equality,
concern and respect for all children)
during the interview, in speaking, writing and action,
the applicant DID demonstrate the dispositions that
all children can learn AND fairness (positive regard,
equality, concern and respect for all children);
further, the applicant has a record of being an
advocate for at-risk, or ESL children, or for children
with disabilities
1. All Children Can Learn
and
2. Fairness
4
Rubric C: Oral Interview
Admission Group Interview
School Counseling Graduate Program, University Of Dayton
Evaluation of Interview
Interpersonal Relationship Skills
Communication Skills
Communication Skills
Emotional Stability
Unacceptable
1 points
Was rude/inconsiderate, talked over
people, was reserved, had little
participation, or shared too much personal
information
Did not make eye contact with others,
made few contributions to the discussion.
Had trouble expressing him/herself and
communicating thoughts
did not stay on topic, made comments that
were not relevant to the discussion, made
comments that were inappropriate or
unrelated or avoided making comments
was negative, pessimistic, hostile, rude,
agitated, overly shy, inhibited, depressed,
needy, excessively nervous, or anxious
acceptable
2 points
Was polite and participated in a give-andtake exchange
Target
3 points
Was polite and took a leadership role to
facilitate discussion in a give-and-take
exchange
made eye contact with others and engaged
in discussion. Had no trouble expressing
him/herself and communicating thoughts
made eye contact with others, engaged in
and initiated discussion. Expressed
him/herself with complete ease and
communicating thoughts readily
stayed on topic in discussion, comments
were relevant and appropriate to the topic,
introduced new ideas that were in line
with the thread of the discussion
was kind, completely comfortable, relaxed
with no signs of nervousness, and did not
display any indicators of emotional
instability
has experience in school, understands the
school counselors role, has worked with
school counselors in a professional setting
has a concern for at risk, marginalized,
poverty level, failing, and/or minority
student issues and success. Has ideas or
plans for approaching diverse populations
2.5 – 3.0
stayed on topic in discussion, comments
were relevant and appropriate to the topic
Understanding of Schools & the school
counselors role
does not have an understanding of schools
and the school counselors role
was kind, considerate, comfortable and did
not display any indications of emotional
instability. May have minor signs of
nervousness expected with any interview
displays a preliminary understanding of
schools and the school counselors role
Diversity
does not show a concern for at risk,
marginalized, poverty level, failing, and/or
minority student issues and success
has a concern for at risk, marginalized,
poverty level, failing, and/or minority
student issues and success
Average of All Sections
below 2.0
2.0 – 2.4
5
DAYTON CAMPUS
LEVEL ONE DATA SUMMARY TABLE – Admission
For School Counseling Masters Degree Candidates
% of Candidates
w/ Unacceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Acceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Target Score
Problems
2006
0%
n= 0
100 %
n= 9
0%
n= 0
Data were in line with faculty expectations
and standards.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
2007
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 12
0%
n=0
Data were in line with faculty expectations
and standards.
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
2008
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 22
0%
n=0
2006
0%
n= 0
100 %
n= 9
0%
n= 0
Faculty determined that disposition
standards were informal and lacked
objective criteria
Data from 2006 were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
2007
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 12
0%
n=0
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
The solution was to remove the application
online essay and replace it with an
extemporaneous essay completed by
applicants invited to the group interview.
Level One
Composite
Score:
GPA, rec.
letters, oral
communication
skills, writing
skills,
dispositions
In 2007, the faculty became concerned
when they saw a significant difference
between the writing skills demonstrated in
several application essays and the writing
Solution
Graduation Year
Level One
Admission
Assessment:
DispositionsAll Children
Can Learn and
Fairness
How the problem
was addressed
Assessment Level
Candidates Are Assessed Five Times: Level 1: Admission; Level 2: Pre-Practicum, Level 3: Pre-Internship, Level 4: Exit from Internship, and Level 5: Program Completion
It was determined that a Disposition Rubric
would be implemented beginning Spring
Semester 2009 (Rubric B)
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
6
skills the candidates demonstrated in their
first courses after acceptance. There was
concern that applicants were getting help to
write their application essays and thus the
essay did not reflect the applicant’s true
writing abilities.
2008
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 22
0%
n=0
Faculty determined that level one standards
for the Oral Interview and Extemporaneous
Essay lacked objective criteria
The new extemporaneous essay addresses
the disposition “all children can learn.”
Currently, the writing skills demonstrated in
the extemporaneous essays are reflected in
the candidates’ first courses after
acceptance.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that Oral Interview and
Extemporaneous Essay Rubrics would be
implemented in Spring Semester 2009
7
CAPITAL CAMPUS
LEVEL ONE DATA SUMMARY TABLE – Admission
For School Counseling Masters Degree Candidates
% of Candidates
w/ Unacceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Acceptable Score
% of Candidates
w/ Target Score
Problems
2006
0%
n=0
100 %
n= 26
0%
n=0
Data were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
2007
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 34
0%
n=0
Data were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
2008
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 47
0%
n=0
2006
0%
n=0
100 %
n= 26
0%
n=0
Faculty determined that disposition
evaluation standards were informal and
lacked objective criteria
Data from 2006 were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that a Disposition Rubric
would be implemented beginning Spring
Semester 2009
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
2007
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 36
0%
n=0
In 2007, the faculty became concerned
when they saw a significant difference
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
The solution was to remove the application
online essay and replace it with an
Level One
Composite
Score:
GPA, rec.
letters, oral
communication
skills, writing
skills,
dispositions
Solution
Graduation Year
Level One
Admission
Assessment:
DispositionsAll Children
Can Learn and
Fairness
How the problem
was addressed
Assessment Level
Candidates Are Assessed Five Times: Level 1: Admission; Level 2: Pre-Practicum, Level 3: Pre-Internship, Level 4: Exit from Internship, and Level 5: Program Completion
8
2008
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 47
0%
n=0
between the writing skills demonstrated
in several application essays and the
writing skills the candidates demonstrated
in their first courses after acceptance.
There was concern that applicants were
getting help to write their application
essays and thus the essay did not reflect
the applicant’s true writing abilities.
program meetings.
extemporaneous essay completed by
applicants invited to the group interview.
The new extemporaneous essay addresses
the disposition “all children can learn.”
Currently, the writing skills demonstrated in
the extemporaneous essays are reflected in
the candidates’ first courses after
acceptance.
Faculty determined that level one
standards for the Oral Interview and
Extemporaneous Essay lacked objective
evaluation criteria
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that Oral Interview and
Extemporaneous Essay Rubrics would be
implemented in Spring Semester 2009
9
LEVEL TWO ASSESSMENT STANDARDS - PRE-PRACTICUM
SCHOOL COUNSELING GRADUATE PROGRAM
2. PRE-PRACTICUM
GPA for practicum prerequisites: Introduction to School
Counseling; Counseling Theory, Counseling Skills,
Group Counseling, Program Development &
Implementation
Counseling Skills Evaluation
Group Counseling Skills Evaluation
Composite Score/Average of the above assessments
Unacceptable
1 Point
Acceptable
2 Points
Target
3 Points
below 2.5 GPA
2.5 to 3.9
All Prerequisites completed with
a grade of A or B in the classes
4.0 GPA
All prerequisites completed with
a grade of A in the classes
Grade below B (below 80) in the
Counseling Skills class
Grade below B, (below 80) in
the Group Counseling class
Do not move to Practicum
(below 2.0)
Grade = B, 80 to 89, in the
Counseling Skills class
Grade = B, 80 to 89, in the
Group Counseling class
Move to Practicum
(2.0 to 2.4)
Grade = A, 90 to 100, in the
Counseling Skills class
Grade = A, 90 to 100, in the
Group Counseling class
Move to Practicum
(2.5 or higher)
10
DAYTON CAMPUS
LEVEL TWO DATA SUMMARY TABLE – Pre-Practicum
For School Counseling Masters Degree Candidates
Graduation Year
% of Candidates
w/ Unacceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Acceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Target Score
How the problem
was addressed
Solution
Level Two PrePracticum
Composite
Score:
Knowledge
and Skills
2006
0%
n= 0
100 %
n= 9
0%
n= 0
Based on the 2006 data, faculty determined
that students needed to be moving closer to
the target range for skills at the prepracticum assessment.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
The solution was to “redesign” the
Counseling Skills class to enhance
candidates’ counseling skill development.
2007
0%
n=0
8.33 %
n= 1
91.67
%
n= 11
The 2007 did show the expected changes in
the pre-practicum counseling skills.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
2008
0%
n=0
0%
n=0
100%
n =22
1.) Data from 2008 were in line with faculty
expectations.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that change would be
made to the Level Two assessment to
strengthen the evaluation.
Rubrics for Counseling Skills and Group
Counseling Skills will be implemented Fall
2009
Problems
Assessment Level
Candidates Are Assessed Five Times: Level 1: Admission; Level 2: Pre-Practicum, Level 3: Pre-Internship, Level 4: Exit from Internship, and Level 5: Program Completion
2.) The faculty determined that data, more
detailed than course grades, is needed for
the Counseling Skills and Group
Counseling Skills assessments
11
CAPITAL CAMPUS
LEVEL TWO DATA SUMMARY TABLE – Pre-Practicum
For School Counseling Masters Degree Candidates
% of Candidates
w/ Unacceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Acceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Target Score
Problems
2006
0%
n=0
11.54 %
n=3
88.46%
n = 23
Data from 2006 were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
2007
0%
n=0
17.65 %
n=6
82.35%
n = 28
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
The solution was to “redesign” the
Counseling Skills class to enhance
candidates’ counseling skill development.
2008
0%
n=0
27.66 %
n = 13
72.34%
n = 34
Based on the 2007 data, the faculty
determined that students needed to be
moving closer to the “target” range for
counseling skills at the pre-practicum
assessment.
1.) Unlike the Dayton campus, the 2008
data for the Capital Campus did not show
the expected changes in the pre-practicum
counseling skills. Anecdotal information
from practicum instructors showed that
there had been small improvements in
counseling skills demonstrated in class;
however, this did not show up in the data
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
1.) One possible reason for the difference in
scores for the two campuses is a weakness
in the Data collection point. The faculty will
continue to watch and evaluate the situation.
Further, rubrics will replace course grades
Solution
Graduation Year
Level Two PrePracticum
Composite
Score:
Knowledge
and Skills
How the problem
was addressed
Assessment Level
Candidates Are Assessed Five Times: Level 1: Admission; Level 2: Pre-Practicum, Level 3: Pre-Internship, Level 4: Exit from Internship, and Level 5: Program Completion
2.) Rubrics for Counseling Skills and
Group Counseling Skills will be
implemented fall 2009
2.) The faculty determined that data, more
detailed than course grades, is needed for
the Counseling Skills and Group
Counseling Skills assessments
12
LEVEL THREE ASSESSMENT STANDARDS - PRE-INTERNSHIP
SCHOOL COUNSELING GRADUATE PROGRAM
3. PRE-INTERNSHIP
GPA
Site Supervisor Practicum Evaluation of Knowledge and
Skills Competency
University Practicum Instructor Evaluation
Average
Unacceptable
1 Point
Acceptable
2 Points
Target
3 Points
Below 2.5
Prior to Winter 09 Practicum grade is below 80.
2.5 – 3.5
Prior to Winter 09 Practicum grade is between
80 – and 89.
3.51 – 4.0
Prior to Winter 09 Practicum grade is above 89.
Beginning Winter 2009:
Average score on Site
Supervisor Practicum
Evaluation is below 4.0 (See
Rubric A below)
Prior to Winter 09 Practicum course grade is
below 80
Beginning Winter 2009:
Average on site supervisor
evaluation is between 4.0 and
5.5 (See Rubric A below)
Beginning Winter 2009:
Average on Site supervisor
evaluation is between 5.6 and
6.0. (See Rubric A below)
Prior to Winter 09 Practicum course grade is
80 to 89
Prior to Winter 09 Practicum course grade is
90 to 100
Beginning Winter 2009:
Average score on University
Instructor Practicum
Evaluation is below 2.0 (See
Rubric B below)
Do not move to Internship
(below 2.0)
Beginning Winter 2009:
Average score on University
Instructor Practicum
Evaluation is between 2.0 and
2.5 (See Rubric B below)
Move to Internship (2.0 – 2.4)
Beginning Winter 2009:
Average score on University
Instructor Practicum
Evaluation is between 2.6 and
3.0 (See Rubric B below)
Move to Internship
(2.5 or higher)
13
RUBRIC D
PRACTICUM SITE SUPERVISOR EVALUATION
Competency Assessment Levels:
1. Unsatisfactory – Candidate has not shown initiative in developing this skill.
2. Novice / Beginning – Candidate is in the initial stages of development and has demonstrated beginning knowledge/skill under supervision.
3. Progressing – Candidate is developing this skill, and is beginning work in this area independently, as well as with supervision. Candidate is beginning to
show initiative in developing this skill further.
4. Competent - Candidate understands and has used the skill. Works Independently and shows initiative in this area.
5. Proficient – Candidate has attained mastery of the skill and independently performs the skill. Candidate shows initiative and is ready for employment in
the field of school counseling. I am willing to verify this skill when writing a letter of recommendation.
6. Exceptional – Candidate demonstrates skill levels and initiative above and beyond expectation.
7. Not Applicable, Not Observed, or No Opportunity, as yet
Evaluation Item
Competency
Level
A. Counseling and Coordination
1. Understands referral process for counseling in the school.
2. Demonstrates understanding of a standard procedural counseling process
(e.g. establishing the helping relationship, explaining confidentiality and other informed consent issues).
3. Understands record-keeping procedures and referrals for off-site services.
4. Understands procedure for coordinating and consulting with community referral sources.
5. Responds appropriately in a crisis.
6. Uses appropriate guidance techniques in the classroom.
7. Skillfully facilitates small and/or large groups.
8. Practices according to professional and ethical standards
B. Collaborating and Consulting
1. Communicates effectively with co-workers.
2. Works effectively with faculty and staff to address student behavior and learning needs.
3. Is able to discuss the counselor's role as a consultant when serving on school intervention teams.
C. Program Administration/Assessment and Use of Data
1. Is able to discuss how guidance programs are integrated with the school curriculum and overall mission.
14
2. Is able to discuss methods for determining school wide needs to be addressed by classroom guidance or small group curricula.
3. Is able to discuss procedures for planning and initiating additions to the guidance program such as classroom guidance or group curricula.
4. Is able to discuss how data is collected and compiled (e.g., grades, enrollment, attendance, retention, disciplinary actions, and placement)
at school site.
D. Leadership & Advocacy
1. Is able to discuss ideas about the counselor’s role in developing and implementing school-wide programs that enhance student success in
school.
2. Has a positive impact on student learning or academic achievement within the school
3. Is able to discuss ideas about utilizing outcome data to advocate for program viability.
4. Demonstrates the disposition that all children can learn.
5. Treats all children with fairness and concern
E. Professionalism
1. Knows when to consult with supervisor for assistance and feedback.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Accepts feedback and recognizes constructive criticism.
Demonstrates appropriate organizational and time management skills.
Demonstrates appropriate oral and written communications skills.
Self presentation is consistently professional regarding manner of attire and interpersonal interactions.
Is prepared for scheduled activities and shares prepared materials with the site-supervisor.
Is always on time and treats the clinical experience as a job.
AVERAGE SCORE FOR ALL SECTIONS
Additional Comments:
15
RUBRIC E
FOR PRACTICUM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION BEING IMPLEMENTED BEGINNING FALL 2009
Standard
Unacceptable
1-point
through assignments and time in the
school, candidate DID NOT have a
positive impact on student learning
and the school
Acceptable
2-points
through assignments and time in the
school, candidate DID have a positive
impact on student learning and the
school
Candidate Growth
Candidate DID NOT grow
professionally at the expected level; or
did not incorporate feedback, or did
not act in a responsible manner during
the semester
Candidate DID grow professionally at
the expected level; and DID
incorporate feedback, and DID act in a
responsible manner during the
semester
Class Work
Was NOT organized, or class
assignments were of poor quality, or
did NOT participate consistently in
class, or was tardy or absent
consistently
Candidate is not ready for internship
Was organized, and class assignments
were of good quality, and participated
consistently in class, and was not tardy
or absent
Has a positive impact on learning and
the school.
Readiness for Internship
Average Score
Below 2.0
Do not move on to internship
Candidate is ready for internship and
has demonstrated the expected level of
counseling skills
2.0 to 2.5
Move to internship
Target
3-points
through assignments and time in the
school, candidate DID have a positive
impact on student learning and the
school; and the candidate collected
data and shared data with supervisors
and other candidates documenting this
positive impact
Candidate DID grow professionally at
an exceptional level; and DID
incorporate feedback, and DID act in a
responsible manner during the
semester; overall growth was
exceptional – in the top 5% of
candidates
Was organized, and class assignments
were of excellent quality, and
participated consistently in class, and
took a leadership role in class, and was
not tardy or absent
Candidate is ready for internship and
has exhibited exceptional counseling
and leadership skills
2.6 to 3.0
Move to internship
16
DAYTON CAMPUS
LEVEL THREE DATA SUMMARY TABLE – Pre-Internship
For School Counseling Masters Degree Candidates
% of Candidates
w/ Unacceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Acceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Target Score
Problems
2006
0%
n=0
0%
n= 0
100 %
n= 9
Data from 2006 were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
2007
0%
n=0
0%
n= 0
100 %
n= 12
Data from 2007 were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
2008
0%
n=0
0%
n=0
100%
n = 22
1. It was determined that a Rubric needed
to be created to assess University
Instructor Evaluation instead of relying
on the candidates grade in the class
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
2. A student must have a satisfactory site
supervisor evaluation to pass the
practicum class. Prior to winter 2009, the
grade in practicum was used to reflect the
site supervisor evaluation. The faculty
determined that this is a weakness in the
data collection
Solution
Graduation Year
Level Three
Pre-Internship
Composite
Score:
Knowledge
and Skills
How the problem
was addressed
Assessment Level
Candidates Are Assessed Five Times: Level 1: Admission; Level 2: Pre-Practicum, Level 3: Pre-Internship, Level 4: Exit from Internship, and Level 5: Program Completion
1. A rubric for the University Instructor is
being will be implemented in Fall 2009
2. Beginning Fall 2009, the average score
for the site supervisor evaluation form
(Rubric B) will be collected for this
assessment point.
Below 4.0 = Unacceptable
4.0 to 5.49 = Acceptable
5.5 to 6.0 = Target
17
CAPITAL CAMPUS
LEVEL THREE DATA SUMMARY TABLE – Pre-Internship
For School Counseling Masters Degree Candidates
% of Candidates
w/ Unacceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Acceptable Score
% of Candidates
w/ Target Score
Problems
2006
0%
n=0
11.54 %
n=2
88.46 %
n = 23
Data from 2006 were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
2007
0%
n=0
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 34
Data from 2007 were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
2008
0%
n=0
6.38 %
n=3
93.62 %
n = 44
1. It was determined that a Rubric needed
to be created to assess University
Instructor Evaluation instead of relying
on the candidate’s grade in the class
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
2. There is concern over the drop in
“Target” scores for 2008.
3. A student must have a satisfactory site
supervisor evaluation to pass the
practicum class. Prior to winter 2009, the
grade in practicum was used to reflect the
site supervisor evaluation. The faculty
determined that this is a weakness in the
data collection
Solution
Graduation Year
Level Three
Pre-Internship
Composite
Score:
Knowledge
and Skills
How the problem
was addressed
Assessment Level
Candidates Are Assessed Five Times: Level 1: Admission; Level 2: Pre-Practicum, Level 3: Pre-Internship, Level 4: Exit from Internship, and Level 5: Program Completion
1. A rubric for the University Instructor is
being created to be implemented in Fall
2009
2. After review, there is no are no apparent
reasons for the drop in target scores. The
faculty will continue to watch and
investigate during 2009
3. Beginning Fall 2009, the average score
for the site supervisor evaluation form will
be collected for this assessment point.
Below 4.0 = Unacceptable
4.0 to 5.49 = Acceptable
5.5 to 6.0 = Target
18
LEVEL FOUR ASSESSMENT STANDARDS – EXIT FROM INTERNSHIP
SCHOOL COUNSELING GRADUATE PROGRAM
4. EXIT FROM INTERNSHIP
Exit from Internship
Unacceptable
1 Point
Acceptable
2 Points
Target
3 Points
Candidate earned a grade
below 80 in one or more
sections of internship.
Candidate completed 600hours of internship and
earned a grade of 80 or better
in each section of internship.
There is no Target option
DAYTON CAMPUS
LEVEL FOUR DATA SUMMARY TABLE – Exit From Internship
For School Counseling Masters Degree Candidates
% of Candidates
w/ Unacceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Acceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Target Score
Problems
2006
0%
n=0
100 %
n= 9
100 %
n= 9
Data from 2006 were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
2007
0%
n=0
100 %
n= 12
100 %
n= 12
Data from 2007 were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
2008
0%
n=0
100%
n = 22
100%
n = 22
1. It was determined that the level Four
assessment may be better utilized by
transferring some of the data collected for
program completion (Level 5) into the
Level 4 data collection and analysis
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
Solution
Graduation Year
Level Four:
Exit from
Internship
How the problem
was addressed
Assessment Level
Candidates Are Assessed Five Times: Level 1: Admission; Level 2: Pre-Practicum, Level 3: Pre-Internship, Level 4: Exit from Internship, and Level 5: Program Completion
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
Further discussion will take place in the fall
of 2009 to determine if any changes need to
be made in determining whether data that is
collected should be a part of the analysis in
levels 4 or 5.
19
CAPITAL CAMPUS
LEVEL FOUR DATA SUMMARY TABLE – Exit from Internship
For School Counseling Masters Degree Candidates
% of Candidates
w/ Unacceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Acceptable Score
% of Candidates
w/ Target Score
Problems
2006
0%
n=0
100%
n = 25
0%
n=0
Data from 2006 were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
2007
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 34
0%
n=0
Data from 2007 were in line with faculty
expectations and standards.
2008
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 47
0%
n=0
1. It was determined that the Level Four
assessment may be better utilized by
transferring some of the data collected for
program completion (Level 5) into the
Level 4 data collection and analysis
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
Solution
Graduation Year
Level Four:
Exit from
Internship
How the problem
was addressed
Assessment Level
Candidates Are Assessed Five Times: Level 1: Admission; Level 2: Pre-Practicum, Level 3: Pre-Internship, Level 4: Exit from Internship, and Level 5: Program Completion
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
It was determined that no changes were
needed at this level
Further discussion will take place in the fall
of 2009 to determine if any changes need to
be made in determining whether data that is
collected should be a part of the analysis in
Levels 4 or 5. There are no changes in the
specific data to be collected. Only
consideration of which Level is best suited
for the collected data.
20
LEVEL FIVE ASSESSMENT STANDARDS – PROGRAM COMPLETION
SCHOOL COUNSELING GRADUATE PROGRAM
5. PROGRAM COMPLETION
GPA
Career Counseling Module
Academic Counseling Module
Personal/Social Counseling Module
Site Supervisor Internship Evaluation of Knowledge,
Skills, and Dispositions
All Children Can Learn
Fairness
Unacceptable
1 Point
Acceptable
2 Points
Target
3 Points
Below 2.5
Prior to Fall 2008:Module
Grade below B, below 80
2.5 – 3.5
Prior to Fall 2008:Module
Grade = B, 80-89
3.51 – 4.0
Grade = A, 90 – 100
(See Rubric-C below)
Beginning Spring 2009
Below 2.0 average on RubricH
Prior to Fall 2008:Module
Grade below B, below 80
Beginning Spring 2009
Between 2.0 and 2.69 average
on Rubric-H
Prior to Fall 2008:Module
Grade = B, 80-89
Beginning Spring 2009
Between 2.7 and 3.0 average on
Rubric-H
Grade = A, 90 – 100
(See Rubric-C below)
Beginning Spring 2009
Below 2.0 average on RubricH
Prior to Fall 2008:Module
Grade below B, below 80
Beginning Spring 2009
Between 2.0 and 2.69 average
on Rubric-H
Prior to Fall 2008:Module
Grade = B, 80-89
Beginning Spring 2009
Between 2.7 and 3.0 average on
Rubric-H
Grade = A, 90 – 100
(See Rubric-C below)
Beginning Spring 2009
Below 2.0 average on RubricH
Prior to Winter 2009, Average
score on “Rubric F” is below
4.0
Beginning Spring 2009
Between 2.0 and 2.69 average
on Rubric-H
Prior to Winter 2009, Average
score on “Rubric F” is above
4.0
Beginning Spring 2009
Between 2.7 and 3.0 average on
Rubric-H
Prior to Winter 2009, there was
no option for Target scores
Beginning Winter 2009,
average score from “Rubric F”
is less than 4.0
Prior to Fall 2009 – Internship
course grade is below 80.
Beginning Winter 2009,
average score from “Rubric F”
is between 4.0 and 5.4
Prior to Fall 2009 - Internship
course grade is 80 and above.
Beginning Winter 2009, average
score from “Rubric F” is 5.5 to
6.0
Prior to Fall 2009, there was no
option for Target scores
Beginning Fall 2009: Rubric F
Item D-4 on Internship Site
Supervisor Evaluation Score is
Below 4.0
Beginning Fall 2009: Rubric F
Item D-4 on Internship Site
Supervisor Evaluation Score is
between 4.0 and 5.5
Prior to Fall 2009 – Internship
Prior to Fall 2009 - Internship
Beginning Fall 2009: Rubric F
Item D-4 on Internship Site
Supervisor Evaluation Score is
between 5.5 and 6.0
Prior to Fall 2009, there was no
21
599 Instructor Evaluation
700/Senior Project
Average = Composite score for all of above
course grade is below 80.
course grade is 80 and above.
option for Target scores
Beginning Fall 2009: Rubric F
Item D-5 Score is Below 4.0
Beginning Fall 2009: rubric F
Item D-5 Score is between 4.0
and 5.5
Prior to Fall 2009 – Internship
course grade is 80 to 89
Beginning Fall 2009: Rubric F
Item D-5 Score is between 5.5
and 6.0
Prior to Fall 2009 – Internship
course grade is 90 to 100
Beginning Fall 2009, Average
score on Rubric G is between
2.0 and 2.5.
Project Grade = B
Rubric I
Recommended for graduation
(2.0 to 2.4)
Beginning Fall 2009, Average
score on Rubric G is between 2.6
and 3.0.
Project Grade = A
Rubric I
Recommended for graduation
(2.5 and above)
Prior to Fall 2009 – Internship
Course Grade is below 80
Beginning Fall 2009, Average
score on Rubric G is below
2.0.
Project Grade below B
Rubric I
Not recommended for
graduation
(below 2.0)
RUBRIC F
Rubric For Internship Site Supervisor Evaluation
Competency Assessment Levels: (It is expected that students will begin in the “Novice/Beginning” area. By the end of an internship, the expected level in
all areas should at least be “Competent.”)
1. Unsatisfactory – Student has not shown initiative in developing this skill.
2. Novice / Beginning – Student is in the initial stages of development and has demonstrated beginning knowledge/skill under supervision.
3. Progressing – Student is developing this skill, and is beginning work in this area independently, as well as with supervision. Student is beginning to
show initiative in developing this skill further.
4. Competent - Student understands and has used the skill. Works Independently and shows initiative in this area.
5. Proficient – Student has attained mastery of the skill and independently performs the skill. Student shows initiative and is ready for employment in the
field of school counseling. I am willing to verify this skill when writing a letter of recommendation.
6. Exceptional – Student demonstrates skill levels and initiative above and beyond expectation.
7. Not Applicable, Not Observed, or No Opportunity, as yet
Areas of Competence
A. Counseling and Coordination
1. Utilizes referral process for counseling in the school.
2. Demonstrates understanding of a standard procedural counseling process
(e.g. establishing the helping relationship, explaining confidentiality and other informed consent issues).
Level
22
3. Utilizes brief, solution-focused counseling techniques appropriate to school setting.
4. Develops counseling goals & action plans for students' problems related to behavior, career, academic achievement, and/or social/relationship
issues.
5. Utilizes record-keeping procedures and referrals for off-site services.
6. Coordinates and consults with community referral sources.
7. Responds appropriately in a crisis.
8. Uses appropriate guidance techniques in the classroom.
9. Skillfully facilitates small and large groups.
10. Demonstrates proficiency in at least one internship experience with students from
(a) different ethnic groups than the intern’s
(b) ESL students
(c) students with exceptionalities
(d) students from different SES groups than the interns
11. Practices according to professional and ethical standards and school board policy.
B. Collaborating and Consulting
1. Communicates effectively with co-workers.
2. Works effectively with faculty and staff to address student behavior and learning needs.
3. Works effectively with faculty to develop strategies to enhance learning in the classroom.
4. Performs in the counselor's role as a consultant when serving on school intervention teams.
C. Program Administration/Assessment and Use of Data
1. Has demonstrated how guidance programs are integrated with the school curriculum and overall mission.
2. Promotes methods for determining school-wide needs to be addressed by classroom guidance or small group curricula.
3. Is actively involved in designing procedures for planning and initiating additions to the guidance program such as classroom guidance or
group curricula.
4. Discusses and understands how data is collected and compiled (e.g., grades, enrollment, attendance, retention, disciplinary actions, and
placement) at school site.
D. Leadership & Advocacy
1. Has assisted the counselor in developing and implementing school-wide programs that enhance student success in school.
2. Has had a positive impact on student learning and academic achievement
3. Utilizes outcome data to advocate for program viability.
4. Demonstrates the belief that all children can learn
5. Treats all children with fairness (positive regard, attention, equality, concern and respect)
E. Professionalism
1. Consult with supervisor for assistance and feedback.
2. Accepts and incorporates feedback and suggestions.
3. Demonstrates appropriate organizational and time management skills.
4. Demonstrates appropriate oral and written communications skills.
23
5. Self-presentation is consistently professional regarding manner of attire and interpersonal interactions.
6. Is prepared for upcoming activities and shares prepared materials with the site-supervisor.
7. Is always on time and treats the clinical experience as a job.
AVERAGE SCORE
Additional Comments
24
RUBRIC G
FOR INTERNSHIP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION BEING IMPLEMENTED BEGINNING FALL 2009
Standard
Unacceptable
1-point
through assignments and time in the
school, candidate DID NOT have a
positive impact on student learning
and the school
Acceptable
2-points
through assignments and time in the
school, candidate DID have a positive
impact on student learning and the
school
Candidate Growth
Candidate DID NOT grow
professionally at the expected level; or
did not incorporate feedback, or did
not act in a responsible manner during
the semester
Candidate DID grow professionally at
the expected level; and DID
incorporate feedback, and DID act in a
responsible manner during the
semester
Class Work
Was organized, and class assignments
were of good quality, and participated
consistently in class, and was not tardy
or absent
Readiness for next Section of
Internship, or Graduation
Was NOT organized, or class
assignments were of poor quality, or
did NOT participate consistently in
class, or was tardy or absent
consistently
Candidate is not ready for next section
of internship, or graduation
Average Score
Below 2.0
Has a positive impact on learning and
the school.
Candidate is ready for next level of
internship and has demonstrated the
expected level of counseling skills,
knowledge, advocacy, leadership, and
consultation
2.0 to 2.5
Target
3-points
through assignments and time in the
school, candidate DID have a positive
impact on student learning and the
school; and the candidate collected
data and shared data with supervisors
and other candidates documenting this
positive impact
Candidate DID grow professionally at
an exceptional level; and DID
incorporate feedback, and DID act in a
responsible manner during the
semester; overall growth was
exceptional – in the top 5% of
candidates
Was organized, and class assignments
were of excellent quality, and
participated consistently in class, and
took a leadership role in class, and was
not tardy or absent
Candidate is ready for internship and
has exhibited exceptional counseling,
leadership knowledge, advocacy, and
consultation skills
2.6 to 3.0
25
RUBRIC H
Rubric for Internship Group Counseling Module
Evaluation Item
Unacceptable
1-Point
Did not include all components of the
module outline
Acceptable
2-Points
Included all components of the module
outline
2. Purpose and
Identified Problem
The problem is NOT clearly identified, or
the purpose of the intervention is NOT
clearly defined, or is NOT in-line with the
expected work of a school counselor
The problem is clearly identified, and the
purpose of the intervention is clearly
defined and is in-line with the expected
work of a school counselor
3. ASCA Standards
Did not identify at least one ASCA
standard and at least three ASCA
competencies
Target population is not well defined
At least one ASCA standard and at least
three ASCA competencies identified
1. Required
Module Outline
4. Target
Population
5. Preparations and
Resources
6. Strategies and
Intervention
7. Assessment
Instrument
All materials for the module are NOT
included, identified, organized, printed
with good quality printer distributed to the
instructor and each internship candidate in
the class
Strategies were not clear in print or in the
class presentation of the module, or
intervention did not seem appropriate for
the problem, or intervention was poorly
planned, or poorly implemented, or
intervention strategies were not clear
Instrument was not comprehensive, or did
not measure the intervention, or did not
collect numeric data
Target
3-Points
Included all required components of the
module outline, and made a significant
addition to the required outline components
The problem is clearly identified, and the
purpose of the intervention is clearly
defined and is in-line with the expected
work of a school counselor, and the
candidate identifies how this problem left
unattended can have a negative impact on
academics
At least one ASCA standard and at least
five ASCA competencies identified
Target population is somewhat defined
with age, gender, problem they are
experiencing
Target population is somewhat very well
defined with age, gender, problem they are
experiencing, SES, cultural identifiers, and
other relevant identifiers
All materials needed to implement the
All materials for the module are included,
module are included, identified, organized, identified, organized, printed with good
printed with good quality printer
quality printer distributed to the instructor,
distributed to the instructor and each
site supervisor, and each internship
internship candidate in the class
candidate in the class
Strategies were clear in print of the module, Strategies were clear in print and in the
and intervention was appropriate for the
internship class presentation of the module,
problem, and intervention was well planned and intervention was appropriate for the
and implemented. Class presentation of
problem, and intervention was well planned
module may not have been clear.
and implemented, during the internship
class the candidate clearly taught the class
how to implement this same intervention
Provided a comprehensive instrument that
Provided a comprehensive instrument that
the candidate created, that collected
the student created or that was created by
numeric data to measure the effectiveness
another author with strong reliability and
of at least 70% of the intervention
validity, that collected numeric data to
26
8. Results
Results from the intervention did NOT
show a positive impact on students and did
not link to academics
Results from the intervention did show a
positive impact on students, and candidate
discussed these results in internship class
and was able to link to academics
9. Reflection
Candidate did NOT provide strong
reflection on his/her growth, successes and
failures during the internship class
presentation
In internship class presentation, candidate
provided strong reflection on his/her
growth, successes and failures during the
intervention.
10. Average Score
Below 2.0
2.0 to 2.59
measure the effectiveness of the complete
intervention
Results did show a positive impact on
students, and candidate discussed these
results in internship class and was able to
link to academics, and link results of this
intervention to results seen in other studies
in the literature
In internship class presentation, candidate
provided reflection on his/her growth,
successes and failures during the
intervention, and provided suggestions for
future implementation of this intervention.
2.6 to 3.0
27
RUBRIC I
Evaluation of 700/Senior Project
Application
of research to
the question
1.1
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
1.2
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
1.3
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
Needs Development
(1)
Competent (2)
Outstanding (3)
Poor connections
made between context
of article and problem
question
Demonstrates
adequate review of
relevant literature
Demonstrates
adequate review of
literature reflecting
multiple different
aspects of the topic
_________________
Inability to describe
the essence of the
article.
_________________
Adequate explanation
of articles relationship
to topic of project
_________________
_________________
_________________
Each article clearly
linked to in some
detail to the key
elements of the
project
_________________
Incomplete review of
professional literature
A thorough
representation of
appropriate literature
(10-15 articles)
Needs Development
(1)
Competent (2)
Outstanding (3)
_________________
Purpose and goal are
described outcomes
identified
__________________
Fragmented or
An adequate plan
An extensive rational
for purpose and goal
with detailed
description of
outcomes
_________________
Plan is linked to
specific details in
On extensive list of
20 or more of recent
recourses
Total of all
Ratings _______
Average Rating
Design and
organization
of project
2.1
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
Poorly articulated
purpose and goal
28
unclear description of
how to proceed
project plan
designed to
implement steps &
provide objectives
_________________
__________________
Data collection
techniques inadequate
or inappropriate
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
An adequate and
technically
appropriate approach
to data collection
__________________
_________________
2.4
Paper poorly
described or analyzed
Results presented and
organized
Needs Development
(1)
Competent (2)
2.2
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
2.3
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
research
Identify literature
based methods of
achieving objectives
_________________
A well designed
approach to data
collection including
solid justification or
tools
__________________
Results described in
context of previous
literature
Total of all
Ratings _______
Average Rating
Outstanding (3)
29
Quality of
written paper
3.1
Poor organization or
materials
__________________
Materials organized
according to course
guide lines
__________________
Clear organization,
sub headings used.
Process very logically
sequenced
_________________
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
APA style poor or not
followed
__________________
APA style followed
adequately
_________________
APA style followed
very closely in all
areas
__________________
3.3
Table of contents,
chapters or essential
points missing
__________________
All essential chapters
are present
__________________
All parts present and
well developed
__________________
Writing clear and
addresses to all rules
of grammar
Writing is clear and
follows rules of
grammar and displays
complex sentence
structure
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
3.2
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
3.4
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
Mechanics of writing:
grammar, word
choice, syntax, etc.
poorly presented
Total of all
Ratings _______
Average Rating
Section 1 ________
Section 2 ________
Section 3 ________
Total of all Ratings _________ / 3
Total Average Rating ____________
Final Score Below 2.0 = Needs Improvement/Unacceptable – Grade = F
Final Score 2.0 – 2.5 = Competent/Acceptable – Grade = B
Final Score 2.6 – 3.0 = Outstanding/Target – Grade = A
30
DAYTON CAMPUS
LEVEL FIVE DATA SUMMARY TABLE – PROGRAM COMPLETION
For School Counseling Masters Degree Candidates
0%
n= 0
33.33 %
n= 3
66.67 %
n= 6
2006 Data showed that candidates were
completing their required internship
hours; however, there were no student
intervention assignments where the site
supervisor and internship instructor could
assess the candidate’s ability to identify a
student problem, then create and
implement an intervention.
This problem was
discussed in Counselor
Education program
meetings.
2007
0%
n=0
41.67 %
n=5
58.33 %
n=7
1. The faculty noticed the drop in
“Target” scores.
This problem was
discussed in the
Counselor Education
program meetings.
2. The faculty became concerned that
they could not specifically assess the
candidates’ impact on the school setting
where they were conducting their
internship.
2008
0%
n=0
56.52 %
n = 12
43.48 %
n = 10
1. The 2008 data showed that candidates’
were meeting expectations and having a
positive impact on students and the
school where they were conducting their
internship. Faculty realized that although
gaining experience with diverse students
was highly encouraged and informally
Solution
% of Candidates
w/ Target Score
How the problem
was addressed
% of Candidates
w/ Acceptable
Score
2006
Problems
% of Candidates
w/ Unacceptable
Score
Level Five
Program
Completion
Composite
Score:
Knowledge,
Skills and
Dispositions
Graduation Year
Assessment
Level
Candidates Are Assessed Five Times: Level 1: Admission; Level 2: Pre-Practicum, Level 3: Pre-Internship, Level 4: Exit from Internship, and Level 5: Program Completion
The solution was to create an assignmentdriven internship where each candidate had
to complete three counseling modules by
the end of internship. For each module, the
candidate identifies a student problem and
then creates and implements an intervention
to address the problem. The assignment
driven internship was implemented Summer
Semester 2007.
1. The drop in Target scores appears to
reflect the more rigorous internship
assignments and counseling modules that
were implemented. Faculty felt no changes
were needed
2. The solution was to add a mandatory
pretest and posttest evaluation to each
counseling module assignment.
The faculty discussed
this problem in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
1. The solution was to add a section onto
the Site Supervisor Evaluation form that
completely assesses the candidate’s skills in
working with diverse students. This will be
implemented in Fall 2009. See Item Rubric
F item A-10 on the Site Supervisor
Evaluation
31
assessed, they had no hard data to make
certain that candidates were gaining
experience with students outside of the
candidate’s socioeconomic level,
ethnicity, gender, and with students who
are English learners, have disabilities or
other exceptionalities.
2. Beginning Summer 2009 on the Site
Supervisor Evaluation (Rubric F)
Unacceptable = average below 4.0
Acceptable = average 4.0 to 4.5
Target = average 5.5 to 6.0
2. Faculty determined that there needed to
be a “target level” for the site supervisor
assessment.
3. Faculty could not determine a reason for
the drop in Target Scores and will continue
to monitor this.
3. Faculty noticed the drop in Target
Scores.
4.. The rubric for the 700/Senior project is
being evaluated and the revised version will
be implemented Fall 2009.
4 Faculty determined that the evaluation
criteria for assessing the 700/Senior
Project needed to be strengthened.
5. Faculty determined that disposition
standards were informal and lacked
objective criteria. This disposition was
addressed overall in the internship course
grading; however, there was no specific
item that measured this disposition
5. It was determined that a specific item
would be added to the Site Supervisor’s
Internship Evaluation to assess the
dispositions or Fairness and All Children
Can Learn - see Rubric F items D-3 and D4. This will be implemented beginning Fall
2009
32
CAPITAL CAMPUS
LEVEL FIVE DATA SUMMARY TABLE – Program Completion
For School Counseling Masters Degree Candidates
% of Candidates
w/ Acceptable
Score
% of Candidates
w/ Target Score
0%
n=0
92.30 %
n = 24
7.70 %
n=2
2006 Data showed that candidates were
completing their required internship
hours; however, there were no
intervention assignments where the site
supervisor and internship instructor could
assess the candidate’s ability to identify a
student problem, then create and
implement an intervention.
This problem was
discussed in Counselor
Education program
meetings.
2007
0%
n=0
88.24%
n = 30
11.76%
n =4
The 2007 data showed that candidates
were meeting expectations. However,
faculty became concerned that they could
not specifically assess the candidate’s
impact on the school setting where they
were conducting their internship.
This problem was
discussed in the
Counselor Education
program meetings.
2008
0%
n=0
93.61 %
n = 44
6.38%
n=3
1. The faculty noticed the drop in
“Target” scores.
The faculty discussed
these problems in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
2. The 2008 data showed that candidates’
were meeting expectations and having a
positive impact on students and the
school where they were conducting their
internship. Faculty realized that although
gaining experience with diverse students
was highly encouraged and informally
Solution
% of Candidates
w/ Unacceptable
Score
2006
How the problem
was addressed
Graduation Year
Level Five
Program
Completion
Composite
Score:
Knowledge,
Skills and
Dispositions
Problems
Assessment Level
Candidates Are Assessed Five Times: Level 1: Admission; Level 2: Pre-Practicum, Level 3: Pre-Internship, Level 4: Exit from Internship, and Level 5: Program Completion
The solution was to create an assignmentdriven internship where each candidate had
to complete three counseling modules by
the end of internship. For each module, the
candidate identifies a student problem and
then creates and implements an intervention
to address the problem. The assignment
driven internship was implemented Summer
Semester 2007.
The solution was to add a mandatory pretest
and posttest evaluation to each counseling
module assignment.
1. The drop in Target scores appears to
reflect the more rigorous data analysis for
the counseling modules that were
implemented. Faculty felt no changes were
needed
2. The solution was to add a section onto
the Site Supervisor Evaluation form (See
item Rubric F item A-10) that completely
assesses the candidate’s skills in working
33
assessed, they had no hard data to make
certain that candidates were gaining
experience with students outside of the
candidate’s socioeconomic level,
ethnicity, gender, and with students who
are English learners, have disabilities or
other exceptionalities.
3. Faculty determined that there needed to
be a “target level” for the site supervisor
assessment.
4. Faculty determined that the evaluation
criteria for the 700 Project needed to be
strengthened
5. Faculty determined that disposition
standards were informal and lacked
objective criteria. This disposition was
addressed overall in the internship course
grading; however, there was no specific
item that measured this disposition
with diverse students. This will be
implemented in Winter 2009.
3. Beginning Summer 2009 on the Site
supervisor evaluation
Unacceptable = average below 4.0
Acceptable = average 4.0 to 4.5
Target = average 5.5 to 6.0
4. The rubric for the 700/Senior project is
being evaluated and the revised version will
be implemented Fall 2009.
5. It was determined that a specific item
would be added to the Site Supervisor’s
Internship Evaluation to assess the
dispositions or Fairness and All Children
Can Learn - see Rubric F items D-3 and D4. This will be implemented beginning Fall
2009
34
DISPOSITION ASSESSMENT STANDARDS
SCHOOL COUNSELING GRADUATE PROGRAM
There are 6 Dispositions assessed in the school counseling program
1. Embrace diversity for the promotion of social justice
2. Engage in building community
3. Develop as a scholar practitioner
4. Engage in critical reflection
5. All Children Can Learn
6. Fairness
DISPOSITIONS
1. Embrace diversity for the
promotion of social justice
Evaluation Item
All Children Can Learn
(from final internship grade)
2. Engage in building
community
1. Embrace diversity for
the promotion of social
justice
Fairness (from final
internship grade)
Unacceptable
1 Point
Acceptable
2 Points
Target
3 Points
Prior to Winter 2009 – Internship
course grade is below 80.
Prior to Winter 2009 - Internship
course grade is 80 and above.
Prior to Winter 2009, there was no
option for Target scores
Beginning Winter 2009: Item D-4
on Rubric J: Internship Site
Supervisor Evaluation Score is
Below 4.0.
Beginning Winter 2009: Item D-4
on Rubric J: Internship Site
Supervisor Evaluation Score is
between 4.0 and 5.5
Beginning Winter 2009: Item D-4
on Rubric J: Internship Site
Supervisor Evaluation Score is
between 5.5 and 6.0
Prior to Winter 2009 – Internship
course grade is below 80.
Prior to Winter 2009 - Internship
course grade is 80 and above.
Prior to Winter 2009, there was no
option for Target scores
Beginning Fall 2009: Item D-5 on
Rubric J: Internship Site Supervisor
Evaluation Score is Below 4.0
Beginning Fall 2009: Item D-5
Rubric J: Internship Site Supervisor
Evaluation Score is between 5.5 and
6.0
Project Grade is 90 – 100
See Rubric K
3. Develop as a scholar
practitioner
700/Senior Project
Project Grade below 80
See Rubric K
Beginning Fall 2009: Item D-5
Rubric J: Internship Site Supervisor
Evaluation Score is between 4.0 and
5.5
Project Grade is 80-89
See Rubric K
4. Engage in critical
reflection
700/Senior Project
Project Grade below 80
See Rubric K
Project Grade is 80-89
See Rubric K
Project Grade is 90 – 100
See Rubric K
5. All Children Can Learn
All Children Can Learn
(from final internship grade)
Prior to Winter 2009 – Internship
course grade is below 80.
Prior to Winter 2009 - Internship
course grade is 80 and above.
Prior to Winter 2009, there was no
option for Target scores
Beginning Fall 2009: Rubric J Item
D-4 on Internship Site Supervisor
Beginning Fall 2009: Rubric J Item
D-4 on Internship Site Supervisor
Beginning Fall 2009: Item Rubric J
2. Engage in building
community
35
6. Fairness
Fairness (from final
internship grade)
Evaluation Score is Below 4.0
Evaluation Score is between 4.0 and
5.5
Prior to Winter 2009 – Internship
course grade is below 80.
Prior to Winter 2009 - Internship
course grade is 80 and above.
D-4 on Internship Site Supervisor
Evaluation Score is between 5.5 and
6.0
Prior to Winter 2009, there was no
option for Target scores
Beginning Fall 2009:Rubric J Item
D-5 Score is Below 4.0
Beginning Fall 2009: Rubric J Item
D-5 Score is between 4.0 and 5.5
Beginning Fall 2009: Rubric J Item
D-5 Score is between 5.5 and 6.0
RUBRIC J
Rubric For Internship Site Supervisor Evaluation
Competency Assessment Levels: (It is expected that students will begin in the “Novice/Beginning” area. By the end of an internship, the expected level in
all areas should at least be “Competent.”)
8. Unsatisfactory – Student has not shown initiative in developing this skill.
9. Novice / Beginning – Student is in the initial stages of development and has demonstrated beginning knowledge/skill under supervision.
10. Progressing – Student is developing this skill, and is beginning work in this area independently, as well as with supervision. Student is beginning to
show initiative in developing this skill further.
11. Competent - Student understands and has used the skill. Works Independently and shows initiative in this area.
12. Proficient – Student has attained mastery of the skill and independently performs the skill. Student shows initiative and is ready for employment in the
field of school counseling. I am willing to verify this skill when writing a letter of recommendation.
13. Exceptional – Student demonstrates skill levels and initiative above and beyond expectation.
14. Not Applicable, Not Observed, or No Opportunity, as yet
Areas of Competence
A. Counseling and Coordination
1. Utilizes referral process for counseling in the school.
2. Demonstrates understanding of a standard procedural counseling process
(e.g. establishing the helping relationship, explaining confidentiality and other informed consent issues).
3. Utilizes brief, solution-focused counseling techniques appropriate to school setting.
4. Develops counseling goals & action plans for students' problems related to behavior, career, academic achievement, and/or social/relationship
issues.
5. Utilizes record-keeping procedures and referrals for off-site services.
6. Coordinates and consults with community referral sources.
7. Responds appropriately in a crisis.
8. Uses appropriate guidance techniques in the classroom.
Level
36
9. Skillfully facilitates small and large groups.
10. Demonstrates proficiency in at least one internship experience with students from
(a) different ethnic groups than the intern’s
(b) ESL students
(c) students with exceptionalities
(d) students from different SES groups than the interns
11. Practices according to professional and ethical standards and school board policy.
B. Collaborating and Consulting
1. Communicates effectively with co-workers.
2. Works effectively with faculty and staff to address student behavior and learning needs.
3. Works effectively with faculty to develop strategies to enhance learning in the classroom.
4. Performs in the counselor's role as a consultant when serving on school intervention teams.
C. Program Administration/Assessment and Use of Data
1. Has demonstrated how guidance programs are integrated with the school curriculum and overall mission.
2. Promotes methods for determining school-wide needs to be addressed by classroom guidance or small group curricula.
3. Is actively involved in designing procedures for planning and initiating additions to the guidance program such as classroom guidance or
group curricula.
4. Discusses and understands how data is collected and compiled (e.g., grades, enrollment, attendance, retention, disciplinary actions, and
placement) at school site.
D. Leadership & Advocacy
1. Has assisted the counselor in developing and implementing school-wide programs that enhance student success in school.
2. Has had a positive impact on student learning and academic achievement
3. Utilizes outcome data to advocate for program viability.
4. Demonstrates the belief that all children can learn
5. Treats all children with fairness (positive regard, attention, equality, concern and respect)
E. Professionalism
1. Consult with supervisor for assistance and feedback.
2. Accepts and incorporates feedback and suggestions.
3. Demonstrates appropriate organizational and time management skills.
4. Demonstrates appropriate oral and written communications skills.
5. Self-presentation is consistently professional regarding manner of attire and interpersonal interactions.
6. Is prepared for upcoming activities and shares prepared materials with the site-supervisor.
7. Is always on time and treats the clinical experience as a job.
AVERAGE SCORE
37
RUBRIC K
700/Senior Project Rubric
Application
of research to
the question
1.1
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
1.2
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
1.3
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
Needs Development
(1)
Competent (2)
Outstanding (3)
Poor connections
made between context
of article and problem
question
Demonstrates
adequate review of
relevant literature
Demonstrates
adequate review of
literature reflecting
multiple different
aspects of the topic
_________________
Inability to describe
the essence of the
article.
_________________
Adequate explanation
of articles relationship
to topic of project
_________________
_________________
_________________
Each article clearly
linked to in some
detail to the key
elements of the
project
_________________
Incomplete review of
professional literature
A thorough
representation of
appropriate literature
(10-15 articles)
Needs Development
(1)
Competent (2)
Outstanding (3)
Purpose and goal are
described outcomes
identified
__________________
An extensive rational
for purpose and goal
with detailed
description of
outcomes
_________________
On extensive list of
20 or more of recent
recourses
Total of all
Ratings _______
Average Rating
Design and
organization
of project
2.1
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
Poorly articulated
purpose and goal
_________________
38
Fragmented or
unclear description of
how to proceed
project plan
An adequate plan
designed to
implement steps &
provide objectives
_________________
__________________
2.3
Data collection
techniques inadequate
or inappropriate
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
An adequate and
technically
appropriate approach
to data collection
__________________
_________________
2.4
Paper poorly
described or analyzed
Results presented and
organized
Needs Development
(1)
Competent (2)
2.2
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
Plan is linked to
specific details in
research
Identify literature
based methods of
achieving objectives
_________________
A well designed
approach to data
collection including
solid justification or
tools
__________________
Results described in
context of previous
literature
Total of all
Ratings _______
Average Rating
Outstanding (3)
39
Quality of
written paper
3.1
Poor organization or
materials
__________________
Materials organized
according to course
guide lines
__________________
Clear organization,
sub headings used.
Process very logically
sequenced
_________________
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
APA style poor or not
followed
__________________
APA style followed
adequately
_________________
APA style followed
very closely in all
areas
__________________
3.3
Table of contents,
chapters or essential
points missing
__________________
All essential chapters
are present
__________________
All parts present and
well developed
__________________
Writing clear and
addresses to all rules
of grammar
Writing is clear and
follows rules of
grammar and displays
complex sentence
structure
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
3.2
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
3.4
Scholar
Practitioner
Rating ________
Mechanics of writing:
grammar, word
choice, syntax, etc.
poorly presented
Total of all
Ratings _______
Average Rating
Section 1 ________
Section 2 ________
Section 3 ________
Total of all Ratings _________ / 3
Total Average Rating ____________
Final Score Below 2.0 = Needs Improvement/Unacceptable
Final Score 2.0 – 2.5 = Competent/Acceptable
Final Score 2.6 – 3.0 = Outstanding/Target
40
DAYTON CAMPUS
DISPOSITIONS DATA SUMMARY TABLE
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
2007
0%
n=0
66.67 %
n=8
33.33 %
n=4
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
2008
0%
n=0
78.26 %
n = 18
21.74%
n=5
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Faculty determined
that disposition
standards were
informal and
lacked objective
criteria.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that an item
would be added to the Site
Supervisor’s Internship Evaluation
to assess this disposition. This Will
be implemented fall 2009. See item
in D-3 from Rubric J
2006
0%
n=0
66.67 %
n=6
33.33%
n=3
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
2007
0%
n=0
66.67 %
n=8
33.33 %
n=4
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
2006
Solution
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
Disposition:
All Children
Can Learn
How the
problem was
addressed
% of Candidates
w/ Target Score
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
1. Embrace diversity
for the promotion of
social justice
Problems
% of Candidates
w/ Acceptable
Score
33.33 %
n=3
Graduation
Year
66.67 %
n=6
Assessment
Level
0%
n=0
SOEAP
Conceptual
Framework
Unit Goal
% of Candidates
w/ Unacceptable
Score
For School Counseling Masters Degree Candidates
2. Engage in building
community
1. Embrace diversity
for the promotion of
social justice
Disposition:
Fairness
2. Engage in building
community
41
3. Develop as a scholar
practitioner
4. Engage in Critical
Reflection
5. All Children Can
Learn
700/Senior
Project
700/Senior
Project
2008
0%
n=0
69.57 %
n = 16
30.43 %
n=7
2006
0%
n=0
33 %
n=3
67 %
n=6
2007
0%
n=0
42 %
n=5
58 %
n=7
2008
0%
n=0
26 %
n=6
74 %
n = 17
2006
0%
n=0
33 %
n=3
67 %
n=6
2007
0%
n=0
42 %
n=5
58 %
n=7
2008
0%
n=0
26 %
n=6
74 %
n = 17
2006
0%
n=0
100 %
n=9
0%
n=0
2007
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 12
0%
n=0
standards.
Faculty determined
that disposition
standards were
informal and
lacked objective
criteria
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Faculty determined
that the evaluation
criteria for the 700
Project needed to
be strengthened
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that an item
would be added to the Site
Supervisor’s Internship Evaluation
to assess this disposition. This will
be implemented fall 2009. See item
D-4 in Rubric J
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
The rubric for the 700/Senior
project is being evaluated and the
revised version will be
implemented Fall 2009.
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Faculty determined
that the evaluation
criteria for the 700
Project needed to
be strengthened
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
The rubric for the 700/Senior
project is being evaluated and the
revised version will be
implemented Fall 2009.
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
42
6. Fairness
2008
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 23
0%
n=0
2006
0%
n=0
0%
n=0
2007
0%
n=0
0%
n=0
2008
0%
n=0
0%
n=0
standards.
Faculty determined
that disposition
standards were
informal and
lacked objective
criteria. This
disposition was
addressed overall
in the internship
course grading;
however, there was
no specific item
that measured this
disposition
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Faculty determined
that disposition
standards were
informal and
lacked objective
criteria. This
disposition was
addressed overall
in the internship
course grading;
however, there was
no specific item
that measured this
disposition
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that a specific
item would be added to the Site
Supervisor’s Internship Evaluation
to assess this disposition – see
Rubric J item D-3. This will be
implemented beginning fall 2009
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that a specific
item would be added to the Site
Supervisor’s Internship Evaluation
to assess this disposition – see
Rubric I item D-3. This will be
implemented beginning fall 2009
43
CAPITAL CAMPUS
DISPOSITIONS DATA SUMMARY TABLE
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
2007
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 36
0%
n=0
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
2008
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 47
0%
n= 0
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Faculty determined
that disposition
standards were
informal and
lacked objective
criteria.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that an item
would be added to the Site
Supervisor’s Internship Evaluation
to assess this disposition. This will
be implemented fall 2009. See item
in D-3 in Rubric J
2006
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 26
0%
n=0
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
2006
Solution
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
Disposition:
All Children
Can Learn
How the problem
was addressed
% of Candidates
w/ Target Score
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
1. Embrace diversity
for the promotion of
social justice
Problems
% of Candidates
w/ Acceptable Score
0%
n=0
Graduation Year
100 %
n = 26
Assessment Level
0%
n=0
SOEAP
Conceptual
Framework Unit
Goal
% of Candidates
w/ Unacceptable
Score
For School Counseling Masters Degree Candidates
2. Engage in building
community
- Develop as a scholar
practitioner
- Engage in critical
reflection
1. Embrace diversity
for the promotion of
social justice
Disposition:
Fairness
44
2. Engage in building
community
3. Develop as a Scholar
Practitioner
4. Engage in Critical
Reflection
5. All Children Can
Learn
2007
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 36
0%
n=0
2008
0%
n=0
100 %
n= 47
0%
n= 0
2006
0%
n=0
23 %
n=6
77 %
n = 20
2007
0%
n=0
19 %
n=7
81 %
n = 29
2008
0%
n=0
26 %
n = 12
74 %
n = 35
2006
0%
n=0
23 %
n=6
77 %
n = 20
2007
0%
n=0
19 %
n=7
81 %
n = 29
2008
0%
n=0
26 %
n = 12
74 %
n = 35
2006
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 26
0%
n=0
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Faculty determined
that disposition
standards were
informal and
lacked objective
criteria
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Faculty determined
that the evaluation
criteria for the 700
Project needed to
be strengthened
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that an item
would be added to the Site
Supervisor’s Internship Evaluation
to assess this disposition. This will
be implemented fall 2009. See item
in D-4 in Rubric J
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
The rubric for the 700/Senior
project is being evaluated and the
revised version will be
implemented Fall 2009.
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Faculty determined
that the evaluation
criteria for the 700
Project needed to
be strengthened
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
The rubric for the 700/Senior
project is being evaluated and the
revised version will be
implemented Fall 2009.
Data were in line
with faculty
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
45
6. Fairness
2007
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 36
0%
n=0
2008
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 47
0%
n=0
2006
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 26
0%
n=0
2007
0%
n=0
100 %
n = 36
0%
n=0
2008
0%
n=0
100 %
n= 47
0%
n=0
expectations and
standards.
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Faculty determined
that disposition
standards were
informal and
lacked objective
criteria. This
disposition was
addressed overall
in the internship
course grading;
however, there was
no specific item
that measured this
disposition
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Data were in line
with faculty
expectations and
standards.
Faculty determined
that disposition
standards were
informal and
lacked objective
criteria. This
disposition was
addressed overall
in the internship
course grading;
however, there was
no specific item
that measured this
disposition
program meetings.
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that a specific
item would be added to the Site
Supervisor’s Internship Evaluation
to assess this disposition – see
Rubric J item D-3. This will be
implemented beginning fall 2009
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that no changes
were needed at this level
This was discussed in
Counselor Education
program meetings.
It was determined that a specific
item would be added to the Site
Supervisor’s Internship Evaluation
to assess this disposition – see
Rubric J item D-4. This will be
implemented beginning fall 2009
46
47