School of Education
Program Review Rejoinder
for
Special Education: Mild Intervention
January 2009
The reviewers of our Special Education: Mild Intervention Program Review documents
cited two conditions, #7 and #8. Our Rejoinder to these conditions follows each cited
condition.
7. How effectively does the coursework provide a candidate the content needed
to impact P-12 student learning as it relates to the Indiana Academic
Standards?
Highly effective
X
X
Course work prepares candidates very well
to impact P-12 student learning as related to
the Indiana Academic Standards.
Moderately effective Course work prepares candidates moderately
well to impact P-12 student learning as
related to the Indiana Academic Standards.
Somewhat effective Course work prepares candidates
insufficiently to impact P-12 student learning
as related to the Indiana Academic Standards.
Not effective
Course work does not prepare candidates to
impact P-12 student learning as related to
the Indiana Academic Standards.
Rationale:
(Moderately effective): There is one entire class on teaching methods for
reading and math content areas. Several other classes include methods for use
1
with students with disabilities in general education classrooms. This reader is
inferring and Indiana P-12 learning standards are addressed in these classes,
but this is not explicitly stated anywhere in either document one or two. No
mention of the P-12 content standards is made in either of these documents.
(Somewhat effective): My understanding was that this was part of or
endorsement to a general education program. Therefore, not having access to
the coursework of the gen. ed. curriculum, some of which are prerequisites to
the Spced courses, I could only assume academic standards were addressed in
that coursework as I did not see it addressed specifically in the special
education courses presented. Therefore, this question was difficult to score
accurately.
IPFW’S RESPONSE:
The students enrolled in the Mild Intervention program are also enrolled in the
general education teacher preparation program. All students complete courses that
cover language arts, math, science, and social studies methods. For courses in
elementary education please see the website
http://www.ipfw.edu/educ/students/advising/undergraduate.shtml. At this site you can
look at the courses required for the Early Childhood Concentration (Pre-K-3) and the
Middle Childhood Concentration (4-6). For courses in the secondary education
programs for example social studies, chemistry, etc. see the website
http://www.ipfw.edu/educ/students/advising/undergraduate.shtml. At this site you can
look at the courses required for the Early Adolescence Concentration (6-8) and the
Adolescence/Young Adulthood Concentration (9-12) with the corresponding content
areas on the advising site.
All of these elementary and secondary initial teacher preparation programs underwent
a program review in spring 2008. The early childhood, elementary (EC/MC), and
Chemistry (secondary) programs were approved while the remaining secondary
programs were all approved with conditions.
In our original program review document (2), we offered assessment data regarding
candidates’ content knowledge in special education: EDUC K370 Research article
review and paper on Learning Disabilities and EDUC K453 Behavior Modification
Plan. Both of these assessments provided clear evidence of strong content knowledge
on important components within special education. Taking this information together
with the fact that the elementary and secondary initial teacher preparation programs
have been approved (with or without conditions), we believe that we have
demonstrated that our candidates possess the content needed to positively impact P12 student learning.
Additionally, the special education methods course (EDCU K352) expands the
content knowledge from the initial certification courses and covers adaptations and
modifications of the strategies to meet the diverse learning need of P-12 students with
mild disabilities. The EDUC K352 course originally required only language arts and
2
math lessons with adaptations and strategy modifications. Based on feedback gained
during the program review, this assignment was modified to require candidates to
complete four lesson plans for a P-12 student with mild disabilities. The lesson plans
will cover the areas of language arts, math, science, and social studies. The lesson
plans and objectives must correlate to the Indiana State Standard for that specific
content area. The new assignment sheet is inserted below in this document. We agree
that the previous assignments may have been limiting to our candidates. The new
requirements to complete a lesson within each of the 4 major content areas will
strengthen their knowledge base and skills.
EDUC K352/ EDUC K536
Case Study Assignment
Fall 2008
Over the next 16 weeks you will work (30 hours) with a student identified as having a
learning disability, mild mental disability, or emotional disability. This student should be
in grades1-12. Complete the Case Study assignment which is composed of 5 parts:
(1) Partial Individualized Education Plan (electronic format)
(2) 4 Lesson Plans based on informal assessments (content of Language Arts, Math,
Science and Social Studies)
(3) Class Presentation
(4) Reflection based on CEC Standard #4
(5) Completed Field Experience Log with documented 30 hours
Partial Individualized Education Plan (electronic format) (51 points total)
You will complete an IEP for the target student in an electronic format. This can be with
the format that your school uses or you will use ISTART7 (supported by the state) and I
will provide access codes.
You will complete a lesson and write a goal for each of the 4 areas:1 Language Arts, 1
science, 1 Social Studies and 1 Math content.
Included parts of the IEP:
Demography as in Student Name (fictional), age, grade (1 pt)
Evaluation information/student data (Present level of educational performance) (25 pts)
Eligibility Area of exceptionality (1 pt)
Measurable annual goal in each of the 4 areas aligned with IN State Standard(s) (15 pts)
Special Education related services, supplemental aids, accommodations (9 pts)
Lesson Plan Format: (26 points each X 4 =104 points)
TITLE: The title of the lesson (1 pt)
GOAL: What should the student know after the lesson is taught? Indiana State Standard
that addresses the goal. (4 pts)
3
MATERIALS: Describe the materials you will need to conduct the lesson. (4 pts)
PROCEDURES AND METHODS: Write your procedure and methods. Please make
sure you describe the activity enough so that someone observing you can follow the plan.
(12 pts)
EVALUATION: Discuss your assessment methodology. Complete an informal
assessment with the student for each objective. The pre- and post-test should have 6-10
items and be included with the lesson plan. You will turn in the original student pre and
post test with the lesson plans. (5 pts)
Example:
Goal: Jason will pronounce 6 sets of 2-letter initial blends (bl, br, cl, cr, fl, fr) and
recognize appropriate words with blends and consonant sounds.
IN Standard 2.1.1 Demonstrate an awareness of the sounds that are made by different
letters by: distinguishing beginning, middle, and ending sounds in words.
rhyming words.
clearly pronouncing blends and vowel sounds.
Presentation (25 points) Choose 1 lesson plan to present (LA or math or SS or science)
You will prepare either overheads or a PowerPoint presentation.
Include Students name, age, grade level (2 pts)
Brief description of present level of educational performance (9 pts)
Brief description of the assessment, the goal, and the lesson. (14 pts)
For each presentation you will provide enough copies of your lesson plan to distribute to
class members.
Grading: 190 points total
Expanded Present Level of Performance
51 points
4 Lesson Plans (26 points each)
104 points
Presentation
25 points
Reflection (format provided)
10 points
Total 190 points
Part 1: IEP and Language Arts and Social Studies Lesson Plan
Part 2: Math and Science Lesson Plan (resubmit the IEP if same student, if different
student new IEP)
Presentation of 1 lesson plan and copies for classmates due at designated time
1 Reflection due with Language Arts or Social Studies or Math or Science Lesson plan.
Completed Field Experience Log DUE by final exam time.
4
Resources to assist with the Case Study Assignment
We have included new data to support the program sustainability. The chart below is
taken from the originally submitted document 2 section C.1. with updated data provided.
C.1 Assessment Data Document
This table is included in the rejoinder because we are able to report additional data for
candidates who completed courses during the summer and fall semesters. We have
selected to include data which refer directly to content knowledge and the pedagogical
content knowledge as they align to questions # 7 and 8 being addressed in this rejoinder.
Element
Assessed
Describe the
Assessment
Activity
When is
it
assessed?
Title of the
Instrument or
Rubric (Attach
copies)
Content
Knowledge
for Teacher
Candidates
1) EDUC K370
a) Research article
review and write a
reflection (Sp 07)
Beginning
of
program
and prior
to field
exp. class
2a.Rubric for
reflection based
on CEC
Standards (sp 08)
Fall 08 N=6
Ave. = 3.66
2b.Rubric for LD
paper (F 08)
F 08 N= 6
Ave.= 18.6
b) Research Paper
on Learning
Disabilities
2) EDUC K453
Behavior
Modification
Single Subject
Plan and write a
reflection
Mid point
and prior
to
practicum
2a.Rubric for
reflection based
on CEC
Standards (sp 07)
Pedagogical
Content
knowledge
for Teachers
EDUC 352
2 Math or 2
Language Arts
lesson plans
Mid point
and prior
to
practicum
2c.Case Study
Grading form
lesson plan
format
Professional /
Pedagogical
knowledge/
skills for
teacher
candidates
EDUC K371
Conduct an
assessment and
write a reflection
Mid point
and prior
to
practicum
2a.Rubric for
reflection based
on CEC
Standards
Aggregated
Summary Data for
last 3 years
Content
Standards
addressed
by this
Assessment
Activity
(Be
consistent
with #B
Standards
Matrix)
2, 9
Sp 08 N=7
Ave.= Data not
available
Sp 08 N= 7
Ave.= 19.5
Sp 08 N =7
Ave. = 3.34
Sum 08 N=3
Ave= 22.66
5, 7, 8
3, 4, 5, 7,
8, 9
F 08 N= 1
Ave 19.5
Su 08 N=4
Ave.= 3.2
3, 7, 8, 9
5
8. Do the program assessment data summaries indicate that the program
completers are well qualified to teach the content to P-12 students?
Very well qualified
X
X
Data indicate that at least 90% of the
candidates meet all of the assessment
expectations of the program.
Well qualified
Data indicate that at least 80% of the
candidates meet all of the assessment
expectations of the program.
Somewhat qualified Data indicate that at least 70% of candidates
meet all of the assessment expectations of
the program.
Not well qualified
Data indicate that 69% or fewer candidates
meet all of the assessment expectations of
the program.
Rationale:
(Somewhat qualified): No PRAXIS II test score data is provided for the one
year time period required. For the other assessments, the students who
completed these assessments were very few in numbers. Often times data is
provided for 3 or 4 students for one semester for lesson planning assessments.
From the data that is provided, it seems like program completers should be
well qualified but it is hard to know for certain when you are not told if
lessons are being written to teach all kinds of content to P-12 students of if it
is just math and language arts lessons. There are explicit requirements for
math and language arts lesson but it is hard to tell for the other subject areas.
And are the lesson plans in language arts just reading or all kinds of language
arts plans- that is not clear either.
(Well qualified): Assessment data averages in a couple of courses fell in a
lower end of satisfactory level. They were addressed in the submitted forms.
The averages were based on small numbers of candidates and issues and
possible solutions were addressed in the forms submitted.
IPFW’S RESPONSE:
The state of Indiana does not require the special education Praxis II test for a license
in Mild Intervention. Therefore, we do not require the special education Praxis II
test for completion of the program and application for a license in Mild
Intervention. As stated previously, all of IPFW’s elementary and secondary
programs were approved (with or without conditions) through the state review
process. However, given the importance of Praxis II scores to the program review,
we are providing a summary of the 2004-2007 Praxis II scores for our candidates’
other majors. The following data demonstrates that our candidates possess
6
acceptable levels of content knowledge. These were reported in the appropriate
program review reports:
Content Area Test
Elem: Curr, Inst, & Assmt
Reading Specialist
Chemistry
Earth and Space
Language Arts
Life Sciences
Mathematics
Physics
Social Studies
World Language
Pass Rate (actual or range)
Elementary Programs
87-96%
100%
Secondary Programs
88%
100%
96-100%
94%
67-100%
88%
91-95%
100%
Total Number of
Candidates
368
341
6
2
55
17
11
6
53
21
We realize that the numbers of special education program completers are small
(averaging between 4-8) and that assessment data may be skewed with lower
numbers. However, the state of Indiana requires a program review for any program
having 1 candidate for the past 3 years. We anticipate our enrollment of
undergraduates will increase and with this increase we expect our assessment data
will continue to demonstrate high levels of knowledge and performance. In
addition, it will allow for more attention to the issues of reliability and validity.
As we stated in our History of Change page 19 of the original document, we have
had significant faculty turnover in the last four years. We have continued our efforts
in developing and implementing a new Masters of Science in Education with a
major in Special Education program at IPFW. As we continued to make changes to
the undergraduate program, we have gone to great lengths to include voices of
students and stakeholders during program development. We anticipate the numbers
of students to increase over the next few years as we balance our resources between
the undergraduate and graduate special education programs.
When we pair the Praxis II data with the other data presented in this rejoinder, we
feel the data presented documents our candidate’s appropriate levels of content
knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge and their qualifications to teach P12 students.
7