Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 09-10 and 10-11
Institution: California State University, Chico
Date report is submitted: September 15, 2011
Date of last Site Visit: April, 2007
Programs documented in this report:
Multiple Subject Program
Multiple Subject Internship Program
Bilingual Multiple Subject Program
Concurrent Multiple Subject/Education Specialist Program
Single Subject Program
Single Subject Internship Program
Bilingual Single Subject Program
Agriculture Specialist Program
Adapted Physical Education Program
Level I Education Specialist Program
Level I Education Specialist Internship Program
Educational Leadership Administration Program
School Psychology Program
Communication Sciences and Disorders Program
Credentials awarded:
Multiple Subject
Multiple Subject with BCLAD Emphasis
Single Subject
Single Subject with BCLAD Emphasis
Agriculture Specialist
Adapted Physical Education
Education Specialist I Mild/Moderate
Education Specialist I Moderate/Severe
Education Specialist II Mild/Moderate
Education Specialist II Moderate/Severe
Preliminary Administrative Services
Pupil Personnel Services: School Psychology
Clinical Rehabilitative Services: Speech, Language and Hearing
Is this program offered at more than one site?
Yes
No
Program Contact: Dr. Deborah Summers
Phone #: 530-898-6484
E-Mail: dsummers@csuchico.edu
MULTIPLE SUBJECT TEACHER CREDENTIAL PROGRAM
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I – Contextual Information
School of Education Multiple Subject Pathways
Multiple Subject
Multiple Subject
Internship
Integrated Teacher Core
Dr. Lynne Bercaw
530-898-5278
lbercaw@csuchico.edu
Multiple Subject with
BCLAD Authorization
Dr. Esther Larocco
530-898-5802
elarocco@csuchico.edu
Concurrent (MS/ES I)
Dr. Kathleen Gabriel
530-898-5025
kgabriel@csuchico.edu
The School of Education offers multiple pathways leading to initial credentials in Multiple
Subject. Although each program pathway includes a variety of assessments, we have
chosen to focus on key assessments that all pathways have in common. In some cases,
there is variation in evaluation processes for similar assessments. In those cases, separate
data tables are provided. See institutional summary for changes since our last submission in
February of 2011.
Multiple Subject: This is the largest of the multiple subject program pathways. The
candidates considered to be part of this program include those in the regular Multiple
Subject Program, the internship program and the Integrated Teacher Core, a blended
Liberal Studies, Multiple Subject program. This program and the internship program are the
only MS pathways that admit candidates both fall and spring.
Multiple Subject Internship: The Internship Program is an alternative pathway to earning a
credential that links the Multiple Subject Program with employment as a beginning teacher.
Interns take the same set of courses and complete the same assessments as traditional
program candidates. For this reason, assessment data for interns is included with the traditional
Multiple Subject Program data.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11)
2
Integrated Teacher Core (ITC): This is a four-year, undergraduate, blended program leading to
a bachelor’s degree in Liberal Studies and a Multiple Subject Credential. Candidates in this
program complete the same assessments as traditional Multiple Subject Program candidates.
For this reason, assessment data for these candidates is included with the Multiple Subject
Program data.
The Multiple Subject with BCLAD Authorization: The Multiple Subject Program with BCLAD
emphasis prepares candidates to teach in bilingual/cross-cultural classrooms and in a variety of
educational settings with students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Prior to
completion of the program leading to a teaching credential, candidates must demonstrate
proficiency in the target language and knowledge of the target culture. Candidates participate in
bilingual/multicultural classrooms and in classrooms promoting academic language
development and conceptual understanding for linguistically diverse students.
Concurrent Multiple Subject/Education Specialist: The Concurrent/Education Specialist
Program is a three-semester program in which candidates may obtain both Multiple Subject
and Preliminary Education Specialist, Level I, Mild/Moderate credentials (“concurrent”
candidates) or a Preliminary Education Specialist, Level I, Moderate/Severe credential (ES
only candidates). Data presented in this section of the report will be applicable to the
Multiple Subject portion of their preparation program.
Academic Year
2009-2010
2010-2011
2009-2010
2010-2011
2009-2010
2010-2011
2009-2010
2010-2011
2009-2010
2010-2011
Program Specific Candidate Information
Number of Candidates
Number of
Completers/Graduates
Multiple Subject/ITC/TPP
147
107
124
91
Multiple Subject Internship
1
1
2
2
Multiple Subject - BCLAD
13
8
13
11
Concurrent Multiple Subject/Ed. Specialist I
26
25
24
23
Totals - Multiple Subject
187
141
163
127
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
Part A: Primary Candidate Assessments
Data collected during 2009-2011 comes from the following Key Assessments:
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11)
3
Key Assessment #1: Performance Assessment of California Teachers (PACT)
Key Assessment #2: Content Area Tasks (CATs)
Key Assessment #3: Student Teaching Evaluations
Key Assessment #4: Dispositions Evaluations
Key Assessment #1: Performance Assessment of California Teachers (PACT)
The PACT Teaching Event assesses candidate performance in five areas: Planning (P),
Instruction (I), Assessment (A), Reflection (R) and Academic Language (AL). Candidates’
performance in these areas is evaluated on twelve rubrics represented in the charts below.
Candidates submit the PACT Teaching Event during the student teaching (Teaching Practicum
II) semester. Teaching events are evaluated on a four-point scale. A score of 1 is considered a
failing score.
Please note that no modifications have been made to assessor selection, training or
recalibration since the submission of Standards 19-21 in 2008-2009.
*Note: PACT Data reflects the final score for each candidate after any resubmits.
PACT 2009-2010,Multiple Subject/Internship/Tri-Placement (x = 109)
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximu
m
# Level
1s
% Failure
Planning
P1
P2
P3
2.8
2.6
2.6
3
3
3
2
2
1
Instruction
I1
I2
2.4
2.4
2
2
1
1
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.6
2.5
2.7
3
2
3
1
1
1
Reflection
R1
R2
2.5
2.4
3
2
1
1
Academic
Language
AL1
AL2
2.3
2.5
2
2
1
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
0%
0
0%
2
2%
6
6%
7
6%
3
3%
3
3%
3
3%
2
2%
5
5%
4
4%
0
0%
PACT 2010-2011, Multiple Subject/Internship (n=89)
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximu
m
# Level
1s
% Failure
Planning
P1
P2
P3
2.6
2.5
2.5
3
2
2
2
2
2
Instruction
I1
I2
2.3
2.2
2
2
1
1
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.5
2.3
2.3
2
2
2
2
1
1
Reflection
R1
R2
2.4
2.3
2
2
1
1
Academic
Language
AL1
AL2
2.1
2.4
2
2
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
5
6%
3
3%
0
0%
2
2%
11
12%
2
2%
9
10%
2
2%
1
1%
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11)
4
PACT 2009-2010, Multiple Subject Concurrent (n=26)
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximu
m
# Level
1s
% Failure
P1
2.7
3
2
Planning
P2
P3
2.5
2.6
2
2.5
1
2
Instruction
I1
I2
2.4
2.1
2
2
1
1
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.3
2.1
2.2
2
2
2
2
1
1
Reflection
R1
R2
2.5
2.4
2.5
2
2
2
Academic
Language
AL1
AL2
2.0
2.5
2
2
1
2
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
0
0%
2
8%
0
0%
1
4%
1
4%
0
0%
4
15%
2
8%
0
0%
0
0%
3
12%
0
0%
PACT 2010-2011, Multiple Subject Concurrent (n=20)
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximu
m
# Level
1s
% Failure
P1
2.8
3
2
Planning
P2
P3
2.5
2.6
2
3
2
2
Instruction
I1
I2
2.4
2.3
2
2
1
2
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.4
2.4
2.6
2
2
2
1
2
1
Reflection
R1
R2
2.5
2.1
2
2
2
1
Academic
Language
AL1
AL2
2.2
2.4
2
2
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
5%
0
0%
1
5%
0
0%
1
5%
0
0%
2
10%
1
5%
1
5%
PACT 2009-2010, Multiple Subject Bilingual (n=8)
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximu
m
# Level
1s
% Failure
Planning
P1
P2
P3
3.0
2.9
2.8
3
3
3
2
2
2
Instruction
I1
I2
2.8
2.8
3
2.5
2
2
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
3.0
3.0
2.4
3
3
2.5
2
2
1
Reflection
R1
R2
2.8
2.9
2.5
3
2
1
Academic
Language
AL1
AL2
2.6
2.8
2.5
3
1
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
3
38%
0
0%
1
13%
1
13%
0
0%
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11)
5
PACT 2010-2011, Multiple Subject Bilingual (n=10)
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximu
m
# Level
1s
% Failure
P1
2.6
2.5
2
Planning
P2
P3
2.9
2.9
3
3
2
2
Instruction
I1
I2
2.5
2.3
2
2
2
2
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.8
2.4
2.5
3
2
2.5
2
2
2
Reflection
R1
R2
2.4
2.4
2
2
2
1
Academic
Language
AL1
AL2
2.2
2.2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
1
10%
0
0%
0
0%
Key Assessment #2: Content Area Tasks (CATs) – 2008-09
Multiple Subject candidates are required to complete Content Area Tasks (CATs) in the three
additional core subject areas: math, science and social studies. For each of these subject areas,
candidates submit a Planning Instruction and Assessment task. Each CAT is evaluated on one
of the three rubrics for the Planning Instruction and Assessment Planning Instruction and
Assessment task as follows: Math: Establishing a Balanced Instructional Focus, Science:
Making Content Accessible, and Social Studies: Designing Effective Assessments. Faculty
scoring CATs are trained and calibrated, and 15% of the CATs are double-scored.
CATs Multiple Subject/Internship/TPP Fall 2009, Spring 2010 (n=108)
History
Science
Math
2.9
2.8
2.9
Median
3
3
3
Min
2
1
1
Max
4
4
4
Mean
CATs Multiple Subject/Internship Fall 2010, Spring 2011
History (n=90)
Science (n=103)
Math (n=86)
2.7
2.6
2.5
Median
3
3
2
Min
2
2
1
Max
4
4
4
Mean
CATs Concurrent Fall 2009 (n=25)
History
Science
Math
2.2
2.4
2.2
Median
2
2
2
Min
2
2
2
Max
3
3
3
Mean
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11)
6
CATs Concurrent Fall 2010 (n=20)
History
Science
Math
2.3
2.4
2.6
Median
2
2
3
Min
2
2
2
Max
3
3
3
Mean
CATs Bilingual Fall 2009 (n=12)
History
Science
Math
2.7
2.8
2.5
Median
3
3
2.5
Min
2
2
2
Max
3
3
3
Mean
CATs Bilingual Fall 2010 (n=8)
History
Science
Math
2.9
2.8
2.6
Median
3
2.5
2.5
Min
2
2
2
Max
4
4
4
Mean
Key Assessment #3: Student Teaching Evaluations
Each program pathway conducts evaluations of candidates in both student teaching semesters.
While all MS pathways base their evaluations on the TPEs, pathways in PSED organize the
TPEs into the six domains of the CSTPs. Additionally, the EDUC pathways use a three-point
scale, while the PSED pathways use a four-point scale for the evaluations.
Multiple Subject Field Evaluation Teaching Practicum I, 2009-2010 (n=91)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13
Mean 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Median
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
Max
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Multiple Subject Field Evaluation Teaching Practicum I, 2010-2011 (n=86)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13
Mean 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9
Median
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11)
7
Max
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Multiple Subject Field Evaluation Teaching Practicum II, 2009-2010 (n=99)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13
Mean 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0
Median
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Min
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Max
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Multiple Subject Field Evaluation Teaching Practicum II, 2010-2011 (n=85)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13
Mean 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0
Median
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
Max
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Bilingual Multiple Subject Field Evaluations, 2009-2010
Teaching Practicum I (n=12)
Teaching Practicum II (n=8)
Domain F TPEs 12, 13
Domain E TPEs 10, 11
Domain D TPEs 8, 9
TPEs 4, 5, 6,
7
Domain C
TPE 1
Domain B TPEs 2, 3
Domain A
Domain F TPEs 12, 13
Domain E TPEs 10, 11
Domain D TPEs 8, 9
TPEs 4, 5, 6,
7
Domain C
TPE 1
Domain B TPEs 2, 3
Domain A
Mean
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.6
Mean
3.1
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.3
Median
3
3
3
3
3
2.75
Median
3
3
3
3
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
2
2
Min
3
3
3
3
3
3
Max
4
4
4
4
4
3
Max
4
3
4
4
4
4
Bilingual Multiple Subject Field Evaluations, 2010-2011
Teaching Practicum I (n=9)
Teaching Practicum II (n=10)
Domain F TPEs 12, 13
Domain E TPEs 10, 11
Domain D TPEs 8, 9
TPEs 4, 5, 6,
7
Domain C
TPE 1
Domain B TPEs 2, 3
Domain A
Domain F TPEs 12, 13
Domain E TPEs 10, 11
Domain D TPEs 8, 9
TPEs 4, 5, 6,
7
Domain C
TPE 1
Domain B TPEs 2, 3
Domain A
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11)
8
Mean
3.1
2.7
2.8
3.1
2.9
3.0
Mean
3.3
3.1
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.4
Median
3
3
3
3
3
3
Median
3
3
4
4
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
2.5
3
Min
3
3
3
3
3
3
Max
4
3
4
4
3
3
Max
4
4
4
4
4
4
Concurrent MS Field Evaluations, Fall 2009 (n=25)
2.4
2.3
2
3
2.4
2.3
2
3
Domain F TPEs 12, 13
2.2
2
2
3
Domain E TPEs 10, 11
Domain D TPEs 8, 9
TPEs 4, 5, 6,
7
2.4
2.3
2
3
Domain C
TPE 1
Domain B TPEs 2, 3
Domain A
Mean
Median
Min
Max
2.3
2.3
2
3
2.6
2.5
2
3
Concurrent MS Field Evaluations, Fall 2010 (n=19)
2.9
2
2
3.5
2.9
2
2
3.5
Domain F TPEs 12, 13
2.9
2
2
3.5
Domain E TPEs 10, 11
Domain D TPEs 8, 9
TPEs 4, 5, 6,
7
2.9
2
2
3.5
Domain C
TPE 1
Domain B TPEs 2, 3
Domain A
Mean
Median
Min
Max
3.0
2
2
4
3.0
2
2
4
Key Assessment #4: Dispositions Evaluations
The dispositions development process engaged faculty, administration, and k-12 partners in a
series of activities designed to identify a shared core of beliefs about the knowledge, skills and
dispositions of professional educators. The deliberations were informed by the unit’s conceptual
framework and the ten principles of the INTASC standards, and led to the identification of five
dispositions focusing on (D1) diversity, (D2) support for all students, (D3) life-long learning, (D4)
collaboration, and (D5) democratic values. A focus group of public school teachers and
university supervisors was then formed to translate these dispositions into observable
behaviors. The resulting rubric describes specific behaviors associated with each of the five
dispositions. Candidates are assessed on dispositions in both teaching practica.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11)
9
Multiple Subject Dispositions, 2009-2010
Teaching Practicum I (n=85)
D1
D2
D3
Teaching Practicum II (n=90)
D4
D5
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Mean
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
Mean
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
2
Min
2
2
2
2
2
Max
3
3
3
3
3
Max
3
3
3
3
3
Multiple Subject Dispositions, 2010-2011
Teaching Practicum I (n=83)
D1
D2
D3
Teaching Practicum II (n=85)
D4
D5
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Mean
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.9
Mean
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.0
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
2
Min
2
2
2
2
2
Max
3
3
3
3
3
Max
3
3
3
3
3
Bilingual Multiple Subject Dispositions, 2009-2010
Teaching Practicum I (n=12)
D1
D2
D3
D4
Teaching Practicum II (n=8)
D5
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Mean
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.3
Mean
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
2
Min
3
3
3
3
3
Max
4
4
4
4
4
Max
4
4
4
3.5
4
Bilingual Multiple Subject Dispositions, 2010-2011
Teaching Practicum I (n=8)
D1
D2
D3
Teaching Practicum II (n=10)
D4
D5
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Mean
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Mean
3.3
3.4
3.7
3.4
3.1
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Median
3
3
4
3
3
Min
3
3
3
3
3
Min
3
3
3
3
3
Max
4
4
3
3
3
Max
4
4
4
4
4
Concurrent Multiple Subject Dispositions, 2009-2010
Teaching Practicum I (n=25)
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Teaching Practicum II (n=25)
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Mean
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
Mean
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.7
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Median
3
3
3
3
3
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 10
Min
Max
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
Min
Max
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
Concurrent Multiple Subject Dispositions, 2010-2011
Teaching Practicum I (n=19)
Teaching Practicum II (n=19)
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D1
D2
D3
D4
Mean
Median
Min
Max
2.8
3
2
3
2.8
3
2
3
2.8
3
2
3
2.8
3
2
3
2.8
3
2
3
Mean
Median
Min
Max
2.8
3
2
3
2.8
3
2
3
2.8
3
2
3
2.8
3
2
3
2
3
D5
2.8
3
2
3
Part B: Additional information about candidate and program completer performance or
program effectiveness
Additional data collected on candidate performance during academic years 2009-10 and 201011 was taken from the following sources:
Assessment #5: Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA)
Assessment #6: CSU System-wide Exit Survey
Assessment #7: CSU System-wide Evaluation of first year teachers
Assessment #5: Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA)
The purpose of the RICA is to ensure that California-trained candidates for Multiple Subject
Teaching Credentials and Education Specialist Instruction Credentials (special education)
possess the knowledge and skills important for the provision of effective reading instruction to
students. The pass rates displayed below are for candidates from all multiple subject and
education specialist credential pathways combined.
Year
Number Tested
2009-10
2010-11
145
Data Not
Available
Number
Passed
140
Data Not
Available
Pass Rate
97%
Data Not
Available
Statewide
Pass Rate
89%
Data Not
Available
Assessment #6: CSU System-wide Exit Survey
Beginning in Fall 2005, all campuses within the California State University (CSU) system have
participated in a system-wide exit survey of initial credential program graduates. At CSU, Chico
participation in the survey is a requirement for all credential program completers. Each year, the
CSU Center for Teacher Quality provides the individual campuses aggregated data
electronically preformatted with statistical computations complete. The data below reflect the
responses of 2009-10 and 2010-11 completers from all multiple subject program pathways
combined.
MS Teacher Preparation Exit Survey
As a new teacher, I am (choose preparedeness level) ...
...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language
Well or Adequately
Prepared
2009-10
2010-11
94%
84%
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 11
learners.
...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural
backgrounds.
...to meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs.
...to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students
and families.
...to know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at my grade
level(s).
...to teach reading-language arts according to California Content
Standards in reading.
...to teach mathematics according to California Content Standards in
math.
...to teach science according to California State Content Standards in
science.
...to teach history and social studies according to California Content
Standards.
...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in
reading and math.
94%
87%
86%
80%
92%
85%
98%
96%
97%
96%
95%
93%
98%
91%
97%
91%
99%
n=83
97%
n=96
Assessment #6: CSU System-wide Evaluation of First Year Teachers
The CSU System-wide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation, administered by the Center for
Teacher Quality, provides the results of surveys administered to both graduates of initial
credential programs completing their first year as in-service teachers and their employers on
their perceptions of the quality of preparation they received in their programs. The results for
each campus are provided as composite scores on groups of questions substantively related to
each other. The data below reflect the responses of 2007-08 and 2008-09 program completers
from all multiple subject program pathways combined. Shading indicates teacher and supervisor
responses on like items.
CSU System-wide Survey One-Year Out: Multiple Subject Supervisors and First Year
Teachers From CSU-Chico Composite Graphs
% Adequately or Well Prepared
K-8 Supervisors Assess the
Overall Effectiveness of CSU
Multiple Subject Credential
Supervisor Programs
First Year Multiple Subject
Teachers Assess the Overall
Effectiveness of Their CSU
Teacher
Credential Programs
20082009
CSU,
Chico
Graduating Year
200820092009
2010
SystemCSU,
wide
Chico
20092010
Systemwide
74%
82%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
77%
80%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 12
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
K-8 Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of Multiple Subject
Teachers for Reading Language
Arts Instruction (K-8)
First Year Multiple Subject
Teachers Assess Their CSU
Preparation for ReadingLanguage Arts Instruction (K-8)
K-8 Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of Multiple Subject
Teachers for Mathematics
Instruction (K-8)
First Year Multiple Subject
Teachers Assess Their CSU
Preparation for Mathematics
Instruction (K-8)
Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation to Teach Subjects
Other than Reading & Math (K-8)
Multiple Subject Teachers Assess
Their CSU Preparation to Teach
Subjects Other than Reading and
Math (K-8)
School Supervisors Assess
Preparation of Teachers for Equity
and Diversity in Teaching
First-Year Teaching Graduates of
the CSU Assess Their
Preparation for Equity and
Diversity in Teaching
Primary-Grade Supervisors
Assess CSU Preparation of
Teachers to Teach Young
Children (K-3)
Multiple-Subject Teachers in
Grades K-3 Assess Their CSU
Preparation to Teach Young
Children
School Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of Teachers to Teach
English Learners
First-Year Teaching Graduates of
the CSU Assess Their CSU
Preparation to Teach English
Learners
School Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of Multiple Subject
Teachers to Teach Special
Learners in Inclusive Schools
83%
81%
Data Not
Available
84%
87%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
81%
85%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
76%
86%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
73%
77%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
65%
68%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
80%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
81%
79%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
69%
85%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
85%
83%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
69%
79%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
81%
81%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
69%
79%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
70%
Data Not
Available
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 13
Teacher
Teacher
First-Year Multiple Subject
Teachers Assess Their CSU
Preparation to Teach Special
Learners in Inclusive Schools
CSU Teachers Assess the Overall
Value of Professional Coursework
in Their First Year of Teaching
81%
76%
Data Not
Available
85%
82%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
III.
Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
Performance Assessment of California Teachers (PACT)
The overall pass rate on the first submission for candidates across all multiple subject pathways
was 96.5% in 2008-2009 and 94.2% in 2010-2011. After successful resubmissions by
candidates, the pass rate was 100%. The data shown in Section A II includes scores for each
candidate’s successful attempt. The Institutional Summary and Plan of Action discusses plans
to include first attempt failures in the data set.
While results across programs vary, there are some common areas of strength and challenge.
Across all programs, candidates’ scores were highest on elements related to Planning (P1, P2
and P3: Planning—Establishing a Balanced Instructional Focus, Making Content Accessible,
and Designing Assessments).
Multiple Subject. When comparing PACT scores between the 2009-2010 and 2010- 2011 data
sets, item failure rates remained steady or increased slightly in all but two areas. The two areas
that appear to have posed the greatest challenges in 2010-2011 were Assessment (A3:
Assessment—Using Feedback to Promote Student Learning) with a 12% failure rate and
Reflection (R2: Reflection—Reflecting on Learning) with a 10% failure rate. A third area of
challenge is I1: Engaging students in learning with a 6% failure rate in 2010 and 2011.
Bilingual.
All Bilingual Multiple Subject candidates passed the PACT in 2009-2010 and in 2010-2011.
Overall the 2009-2010 candidates performed better than the 2010-2011 candidates. The means
ranged between 2.3 – 3.0in2009-2010. For 2010-2011, the means ranged between 2.2 - 2.9.
The following two areas received the highest mean scores both years:
P2: Making content accessible (Mean-2.9/2.9)
A1: Analyzing student work from an assessment (Mean-3.0/2.8)
Based on PACT, the three areas needing more emphasis in the program are:
A3: Using feedback to promote student learning (Mean-2.4/2.5)
R2: Reflecting on learning
AL1: Understanding language demands and resources (Mean-2.6/2.2)
Concurrent. Overall, item failure rates were lower in 2009-2010 than in 2010-2011. Data show
gains in the areas of Assessment and Academic Language. The failure rate for A2: Using
Assessment to Inform Teaching decreased from 15% in 2009-2010 to 0% in 2010-2011. For
AL1: Understanding Language Demands and Resources the failure rate decreased from 12% to
5%. The area of greatest challenge appears to be in the Reflection category. On R2: Reflecting
on Learning there was a 10% failure rate in 2010-2011.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 14
Content Area Tasks (CATs)
The mean scores and failure rates indicate that candidates across pathways in the Multiple
Subject Program were successful in all three content areas (Mathematics, Science and Social
Science). However, Multiple Subject pathways differed in content area strengths and areas for
improvement. Across all pathways, scores on the CATs indicate that candidates are doing well
in the area of planning. The omission of initial non-passing scores limits a rich interpretation of
data. This issue will be addressed in the Institutional Summary and Plan of Action.
Multiple Subject. In the Multiple Subject pathway, mean scores decreased slightly from the
2009-2010 to the 2010-2011 academic year. Students earned the lowest mean cores in the
Math CATs, with an average of 2.5 out of 4.
Concurrent. Candidate performance increased slightly from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010. Of the three
CATs, performance in History was lowest, with a mean of 2.2 in 2009 and a mean of 2.3 in
2010.
Bilingual. Candidate performance increased slightly from Fall 2009 to Fall 2010. Of the three
CATs means, Mathematics was lowest both semesters, with a mean of 2.5 in Fall 2009 and a
2.6 in Fall 2010.
Student Teaching Evaluations
Across all programs, candidates show growth on TPEs over the course of the two teaching
practica. By the end of the second teaching practicum, they are able to demonstrate proficiency
across all competencies.
The use of a three-point rubric allows for inadequate discrimination among candidates in
Student Teaching Evaluations. In addition, the use of a three-point rubric for some pathways,
and a four-point rubric for others, has created difficulty in interpreting data for the purposes of
program improvement. This issue will be addressed in the subsequent Institutional Summary
and Plan of Action.
Multiple Subject. The lowest mean scores were for TPE 3: Interpretation and Use of
Assessments and TPE 7: Teaching English Learners. In Practicum I, the mean for TPEs 3 and
7 was 2.7 out of 3 for data sets from both 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. In Practicum II, the mean
rose to 2.9 out of 3 in each academic year.
Bilingual. Bilingual pathway candidates are required to have a minimum score of 2 (of 4) at the
end of Teaching Practicum I and a minimum score of 3 (of 4) at the end of Teaching Practicum
II. Domain B, which includes TPE 2: Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction and TPE 3:
Interpretation and Use of Assessment, had the lowest means both semesters in both years. For
Practicum I, mean scores were 2.8 in 2009-2010 and 2.7 in 2010-2011. For Practicum II, mean
scores were 3.0 in 2009-2010 and and 3.1 in 2010-2011.
Concurrent. For the fall semester, Concurrent candidates are placed in general education
(multiple subject) classrooms. Data shows the area of greatest challenge is Domain B,
which includes TPE 2: Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction and TPE 3:
Interpretation and Use of Assessment. Mean scores for Domain B were 2.2 out of 4 in Fall
2009 and 2.9 out of 4 in Fall 2010.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 15
Dispositions Evaluations
Data show some candidate growth across all dispositions over the course of their preparation
programs. These data suggest that in all pathways, evaluators observed behaviors that would
indicate well-developed dispositions early in their credential programs. These dispositions
continued to develop through the program.
The data show no consistent area of challenge among pathways.
The use of a three-point rubric allows for inadequate discrimination among candidates in
Disposition Evaluations. In addition, the use of a three-point rubric for some pathways, and a
four-point rubric for others, has created difficulty in interpreting data for the purposes of program
improvement. This issue will be addressed in the Institutional Summary and Plan of Action.
CSU System-wide Exit Survey
The data for the CSU System-wide Exit Survey combines all Multiple Subject pathways. Data
indicate that graduates of our programs are confident that they are prepared to address most of
the challenges of teaching. In 2009-2010 98% of students felt well or adequately prepared to
“know and understand the subjects of the curriculum” at their grade levels, and in 2010-2011
that assessment by candidates stayed strong at 96%. Both years, they were confident in their
preparation to “teach reading/language arts according to the California Content Standards”
(97% in 09-10 and 96% in 10-11) and “to assist individual students in their instructional needs in
reading and math (99% in 09-10 and 97% in 10-11).
However, overall satisfaction with the preparation received was lower in 2010-2011 than in
2009-2010. Four areas appear to present the biggest challenges. The percent of students who
felt well or adequately prepared “to meet the instructional needs of students who are English
language learners” fell from 94% in 2009-2010 to 84% in 2010-2011). In addition, candidate
confidence in preparation to teach students with special needs fell from 87% in 2009-2010 to
80% in 2010-2011 and their confidence in preparation to teach students from diverse
backgrounds fell from 94% to 86% over the two years. In addition, the percent of students who
feel well or adequately prepared to students prepared to know about resources in the school &
community for at-risk students and families fell from 92% in 2009-2010 to 85% in 20102011.These four areas are also targeted for systemwide growth.
CSU System-wide Evaluation of First Year Teachers
Across all pathways, there is a discrepancy between teacher and supervisor perceptions of
preparedness. Ratings by supervisors were typically lower than the ratings by the teachers
themselves and lower than the CSU average.
Data indicate some strengths, including preparedness to teach children and preparation in
reading/language arts. For 2008-2009 graduates, 85% felt adequately or well prep to teach
young children (grades K-3), which is higher than the CSU average (83%). In addition,
supervisors reported that 83% of Chico graduates were adequately or well prepared to teach
reading/language arts, compared to 81% systemwide.
Data reveal some areas for growth, particularly in teaching English Learners and teaching
students with special learning needs in inclusive classrooms. Sixty-nine percent of supervisors
rated graduates adequately or well prepared to teach English Learners, compared to 79%
systemwide. In addition, for the item regarding teaching special learners in inclusive settings,
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 16
69% of supervisors felt that CSU Chico graduates were adequately or well prepared, compared
to 79% systemwide.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 17
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
PART IV: Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Unit Institutional Summary and Action Plan
As a unit, program pathway coordinators met and identified nine common Student Learning
Outcomes (SLOs) based upon California Teaching Expectations, and the conceptual
framework, mission and vision of the School of Education. Each program analyzed data from six
data sources, and identified strengths and areas for improvement. The coordinators met and
reached consensus on areas for improvement common to all pathways in the unit. The Unit
Action Plan shows goals and plans of action for each goal. If applicable, individual pathways
have attached specific pathway action plans as addendums to the Unit Action Plan.
Unit Goal 1: Candidates effectively support students with special needs
in inclusive classrooms.
Data Source
Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made



Exit survey
CSU survey





Hold Curriculum Committee meetings to articulate ways
in which coursework currently supports teaching
students with special learning needs across initial
credential pathways.
Incorporate a systematic use of IRIS modules in
coursework and train faculty in use of the modules.
Involve education specialist faculty, k-12 teachers and
master’s students in bringing education specialist
content to prepare general educators to work in
inclusive classrooms.
Revise course delivery to pair general education faculty
with education specialist faculty to 1) seamlessly
integrate methods that teach students with special
learning needs and 2) model co-teaching that occurs in
inclusive delivery models.
Expand the Assistive Technology Faire, current just for
Ed Specialist candidates, for all credential candidates to
learn about new assistive technologies and their
appropriate use.
Strengthen the special needs section of the field
observation form so that teaching behaviors that
support special learners will be more clearly identified in
the field.
Applicable
Program or
Common
Standard(s)
TPE 4,5,6
(SLO 7)
Disp 1
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 18
Unit Goal 2: Candidates use a variety of formative and summative assessments to
determine pupils’ progress, provide feedback and plan instruction.
Data Source
Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made
PACT rubric

items A1, A2 and
A3






Hold Curriculum Committee meetings to articulate ways
in which coursework currently supports helping
candidates use a variety of formative and summative
assessments to inform instruction, and identify
additional course components that strengthen the
assessment strand.
In coursework, create communities of practice in which
candidates examine k-12 student work for evidence of
student learning.
Create additional assignments asking candidates to
bring their student work to class to analyze for patterns
of student learning. Provide models of effective verbal
and written feedback and guidance in determining next
instructional steps.
In fieldwork, modify supervision observation form to
include indicators for 1) use of student work as
evidence of student learning and 2) providing feedback
to students. Focus on these indicators at postobservation conferences.
Supervision focus on how ST provide feedback to
students
Provide supervisors with professional development
about using student work as evidence of teaching
effectiveness.
Confer with other universities regarding best practices
for observation practices that focus on K-12 student
learning outcomes.
Applicable
Program or
Common
Standard(s)
TPE 2,3
(SLO 2)
Multiple Subject Program Action Plan
In addition to the goals listed in the Unit Action Plan, all Multiple Subject Program pathways
share a common goal.
Multiple Subject Program Goal 1: Candidates use research, theory, and reflections on
teaching and learning to guide practice.
Data Source
Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made
Applicable
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 19
PACT rubric
items R1 and R2


On the “rationale” section of written lesson plans,
require candidates to link research and theory to the
learning objective(s).
In observations of fieldwork, supervisors help
candidates identify connections between research,
observed teaching behaviors, and patterns of student
learning.
Program or
Common
Standard(s)
TPE 13
SLO 8
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 20
Pathway Action Plans
In addition to the Unit and Program goals and actions, some pathways have identified additional
goals and actions.
Bilingual Pathway
Area of
Growth
Data
Source
Assessment PACT
Plan of Action or Proposed
Changes Made


ELs:
Academic
Language
PACT

CSU Exit
Survey

CSU Eval
of 1st Yr.
Tchrs


ELs:
Equity
and
Diversity
Special
Needs
CSU Exit
Survey
CSU Eval
of 1st Yr.
Tchrs
CSU Exit
Survey


CSU Eval
of 1st Yr.
Tchrs

develop a separate
Assessment course – EDTE
676B
Supervision focus on how ST
provide feedback to students
Change textbook for EDTE 673
to new CDE publication
EDTE 673 – focus on
candidates’ articulation why
instructional strategies and
language choice are likely to
support specific aspects of
students’ language
development for different levels
of language proficiency.
EDTE 575 - Make academic
language clearer on field
observation form
Require BIM for informal
observation; provide feedback
on academic language
Applicable Program
or Common
Standard(s)
 TPE 3 (SLO 2)

TPE 4 (SLO 3)

TPE 4 (SLO 3)

TPE 7 (SLO 6)
EDTE 673 & EDTE 676A –
Assigned Readings - include
readings on culturally
responsive practices
TPE 8 (SLO 5)
EDTE 574 – Modify an existing
course assignment where
students need to identify
resources available to support
at-risk students within schools
and in the community
TPE 4 (SLO 3)
TPE 11 (SLO 3)
TPE 5 (SLO 3, 7)
EDTE 575 – Strengthen
special needs area on field
observation forms
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 21

EDTE 673 – require in EL
Case Study the identification of
resources available to support
at-risk students within schools
and in the community
SINGLE SUBJECT TEACHER CREDENTIAL PROGRAM
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I – Contextual Information
Credentials awarded: Single Subject
Single Subject with BCLAD Emphasis
Single Subject Intern
Agriculture Specialist
Adapted Physical Education
Program Contacts:
Single Subject
Al Schademan
530-898-4534
aschademan@csuchi
co.edu
Single Subject with
BCLAD Emphasis
Agriculture
Specialist (AGRI)
Chuck Zartman
530-898czartman@csuchico.e
du
Brad Dodson
530-898
bdodson@csuchico.e
du
Adapted Physical
Education
Specialist (KINE)
Marci Pope
530-898
mpope@csuchico.e
du
Contextual Information
The School of Education offers multiple pathways leading to initial credentials in Single
Subject. Two of the Single Subject programs being offered jointly with the department of
Kinesiology and the College of Agriculture. A 4-year blended math education and credential
program will be offered jointly with the department of mathematics, however, freshman
began the program in fall 2010, but are not yet engaged in any portion of their credential
assessments.
Single Subject: The candidates considered to be part of this program include those in the
regular Single Subject Program, and the internship program. This program and the
internship program admit candidates both fall and spring.
Single Subject Internship: The Internship Program is an alternative pathway to earning a
credential that links the Single Subject Program with employment as a beginning teacher.
Interns take the same set of courses and complete the same assessments as traditional
program candidates. For this reason, assessment data for interns is included with the traditional
Single Subject Program data.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 22
Single Subject with BCLAD Emphasis: This program prepares candidates to teach in
bilingual/cross-cultural classrooms and in a variety of educational settings with students from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Prior to completion of the program leading to a
teaching credential, candidates must demonstrate proficiency in the target language and
knowledge of the target culture. Candidates participate in bilingual/multicultural classrooms and
in classrooms promoting academic language development and conceptual understanding for
linguistically diverse students.
Single Subject Agriculture and Agriculture Specialist: The professional preparation
component of the Single Subject Agriculture Credential is administered by the Department of
Education. The requirements for the Specialist Credential in Agriculture include a series of
agricultural education courses and a student teaching experience. These courses are included
in the Agriscience and Education Option. Student teaching is combined with the student
teaching experience required for the Single Subject Credential in Agriculture. Data for these
candidates are included with those for Single Subject candidates, except for one key
assessment specific to Agriculture Specialist candidates.
Adapted Physical Education Specialist: In order to complete the specialist credential in
adapted physical education, students must obtain or be working toward a credential through a
Single Subject Program that authorizes them to teach physical education. This credential allows
future physical education teachers to instruct individuals with disabilities in the public schools.
Data for these candidates are included with those for Single Subject candidates, except for the
one key assessment specific to Adapted Physical Education Specialist candidates.
Program Specific Candidate Information
Academic Year
Number of Candidates
Number of
Completers/Graduates
Single Subject
2009-2010
124
79
2010-2011
101
54
Single Subject Internship
2009-2010
10
10
2010-2011
2
2
Single Subject – BCLAD
2009-2010
7
4
2010-2011
4
3
Agriculture Specialist
2009-2010
12
8
2010-2011
17
13
Adapted Physical Education Specialist
2009-2010
22
15
2010-2011
25
12
Totals – Single Subject
2009-2010
175
116
2010-2011
149
84
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 23
Part A: Primary Candidate Assessments
Data collected during 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 comes from the following Key Assessments:
Key Assessment #1: Performance Assessment of California Teachers (PACT)
Key Assessment #2: Student Teaching Evaluations
Key Assessment #3: Dispositions Evaluations
Key Assessment #4:
a: Single Subject/Single Subject Intern: Unit Plan
b: Agriculture Specialist: Final Student Evaluation Plan
c: Adapted Physical Education Specialist: APE Portfolio
Key Assessment #1: Performance Assessment of California Teachers (PACT)
The PACT Teaching Event assesses candidate performance in five areas: Planning (P),
Instruction (I), Assessment (A), Reflection (R) and Academic Language (AL). Candidates’
performance in these areas is evaluated on twelve rubrics represented in the charts below.
Candidates submit the PACT Teaching Event during the student teaching (Teaching Practicum
II) semester. Teaching events are evaluated on a 4-point scale. A score of 1 is considered a
failing score.
Please note that no modifications have been made to assessor selection, training or
recalibration since the submission of Standards 19-21 in 2008-2009.
*Note: PACT data reflects the final score after any resubmits for each student.
Single Subject PACT 2009-2010 (n=84)
PACT Element
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Level 1s
% Failure
P1
2.8
3
1
4
1
1%
Planning
P2
2.6
3
2
4
0
0%
P3
2.7
3
2
4
0
0%
Instruction
I1
I2
2.3
2.3
2
2
1
1
4
4
5
4
6%
5%
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.5
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
7
4
1%
8%
5%
Reflection
R1
R2
2.4
2.5
2
2
1
1
4
4
2
2
2%
2%
Academic
Language
AL1 AL2
2.2
2.4
2
2
1
1
4
4
6
3
7%
4%
Reflection
R1
R2
2.3
2.4
2
2
1
1
4
4
1
2
2%
3%
Academic
Language
AL1 AL2
2.2
2.2
2
2
1
1
4
3
3
3
5%
5%
Single Subject PACT 2010-2011 (n=58)
PACT Element
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Level 1s
% Failure
Planning
P1
P2
P3
2.8
2.5
2.6
3
2
3
2
1
2
4
4
4
0
1
0
0%
2%
0%
Instruction
I1
I2
2.2
2.3
2
2
1
1
4
4
4
4
7%
7%
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.6
2.2
2.4
3
2
2
1
1
1
4
3
4
2
6
4
3% 10%
7%
Bilingual Single Subject PACT 2009-2010 (n=5)
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 24
PACT Element
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Level 1s
% Failure
P1
2.8
3
2
3
0
0%
Planning
P2
P3
2.6
2.0
3
2
2
1
3
3
0
1
0%
20%
Instruction
I1
I2
2.4
2.2
2
2
2
2
3
3
0
0
0%
0%
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.2
1.8
2.0
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
0
1
0
0%
20%
0%
Reflection
R1
R2
2.2
2.4
2
3
2
1
3
3
0
1
0%
20%
Academic
Language
AL1 AL2
2.0
2.5
2
2.5
2
2
2
3
0
0
0%
0%
Bilingual Single Subject PACT 2010-2011 (n=3)
PACT Element
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Level 1s
% Failure
Planning
P1
P2
P3
2.7
2.3
2.3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
Instruction
I1
I2
2.3
2.0
2
2
2
1
3
3
0
1
0% 33%
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.3
2.0
2.0
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
0
1
1
0% 33% 33%
Reflection
R1
R2
2.3
2.3
2
2
2
2
3
3
0
0
0%
0%
Academic
Language
AL1 AL2
2.0
2.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0%
0%
Agriculture Single Subject PACT 2009-2010 (n=10)
PACT Element
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Level 1s
% Failure
P1
2.6
3
2
3
0
0%
Planning
P2
2.5
2.5
2
3
0
0%
P3
2.6
3
2
3
0
0%
Instruction
I1
I2
2.3
2.2
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
10% 10%
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.1
2.1
2.5
2
2
2.5
2
1
2
3
3
3
0
1
0
0%
10%
0%
Reflection
R1
R2
2.2
1.9
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
2
10% 20%
Academic
Language
AL1 AL2
2.2
2.2
2
2
2
2
3
3
0
0
0%
0%
Agriculture Single Subject PACT 2010-2011 (n=13)
PACT Element
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Level 1s
% Failure
Planning
P1
P2
P3
2.6
2.4
2.4
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
0
0
1
0%
0%
8%
Instruction
I1
I2
2.6
2.6
3
3
2
2
4
4
0
0
0%
0%
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.4
2.0
2.3
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
0
2
1
0% 15%
8%
Reflection
R1
R2
2.4
2.4
2
2
2
2
3
3
0
0
0%
0%
Academic
Language
AL1 AL2
2.2
2.3
2
2
2
2
3
3
0
0
0%
0%
Physical Education Single Subject PACT 2009-2010 (n=15)
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 25
PACT Element
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Level 1s
% Failure
P1
2.3
2
2
3
0
0%
Planning
P2
2.3
2
2
3
0
0%
P3
2.5
3
2
3
0
0%
Instruction
I1
I2
2.1
2.1
2
2
2
1
3
3
0
2
0%
13%
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.2
2.3
2.1
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
0
2
2
0%
13% 13%
Reflection
R1
R2
2.1
2.1
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
1
13%
7%
Academic
Language
AL1 AL2
2.0
2.0
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
2
7%
13%
Physical Education Single Subject PACT 2010-2011 (n=15)
PACT Element
Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Level 1s
% Failure
Planning
P1
P2
P3
2.3
2.1
2.5
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
3
0
1
0
0%
7%
0%
Instruction
I1
I2
2.3
2.1
2
2
2
1
3
3
0
1
0%
7%
Assessment
A1
A2
A3
2.2
2.4
2.3
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
1
0
0
7%
0%
0%
Reflection
R1
R2
2.1
2.2
2
2
1
2
3
3
2
0
13%
0%
Academic
Language
AL1 AL2
1.9
2.1
2
2
1
2
2
3
1
0
7%
0%
Key Assessment #2: Student Teaching Evaluations
Each program pathway conducts evaluations of candidates in both student teaching semesters.
While all Single Subject pathways base their evaluations on the Teaching Performance
Expectations (TPEs), the BCLAD Single Subject Program organizes the TPEs into the six
domains of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTPs). Additionally, the
Single Subject Program uses a three-point scale, while the BCLAD Single Subject Program
uses a four-point scale for the evaluations.
Single Subject Field Evaluation Teaching Practicum I, 2009-2010 (n=95)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13
Mean 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Median
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Min
1
1
2
2
1
0
1
2
1
0
1
2
2
Max
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Single Subject Field Evaluation Teaching Practicum I, 2010-2011 (n=100)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13
Mean 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7
Median
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Min
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Max
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Single Subject Field Evaluation Teaching Practicum II, 2009-2010 (n=110)
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 26
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13
Mean 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.8
Median
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Min
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Max
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Single Subject Field Evaluation Teaching Practicum II, 2010-2011 (n=78)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13
Mean 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.8
Median
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
Max
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Bilingual Single Subject Field Evaluations, 2009-2010
Teaching Practicum I (n=7)
Teaching Practicum II (n=5)
Domain F TPEs 12, 13
Domain E TPEs 10, 11
Domain D TPEs 8, 9
TPEs 4, 5, 6,
7
Domain C
TPE 1
Domain B TPEs 2, 3
Domain A
Domain F TPEs 12, 13
Domain E TPEs 10, 11
Domain D TPEs 8, 9
TPEs 4, 5, 6,
7
Domain C
TPE 1
Domain B TPEs 2, 3
Domain A
Mean
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.6
2.3
Mean
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.8
Median
2
2
2
2
3
2
Median
3
3
3
3
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
2
2
Min
2
2
2
2
2
2
Max
3
3
3
3
3
3
Max
4
4
4
4
3
3
Bilingual Single Subject Field Evaluations, 2010-2011
Teaching Practicum I (n=3)
Teaching Practicum II (n=3)
Domain F TPEs 12, 13
Domain E TPEs 10, 11
Domain D TPEs 8, 9
TPEs 4, 5, 6,
7
Domain C
TPE 1
Domain B TPEs 2, 3
Domain A
Domain F TPEs 12, 13
Domain E TPEs 10, 11
Domain D TPEs 8, 9
TPEs 4, 5, 6,
7
Domain C
TPE 1
Domain B TPEs 2, 3
Domain A
Mean
2.8
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.7
3.0
Mean
3.7
3.3
3.7
3.3
3.3
3.3
Median
3
3
3
3
3
3
Median
4
3
4
3
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
2
2
Min
4
3
4
3
3
3
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 27
Max
3
3
3
3
3
4
Max
4
4
4
4
4
4
Key Assessment #3: Dispositions Evaluations
The dispositions are based on the unit’s conceptual framework and the ten principles of the
INTASC standards. The five dispositions focus on (D1) diversity, (D2) support for all students,
(D3) life-long learning, (D4) collaboration, and (D5) democratic values. The rubric, designed by
a group of public school teachers and university supervisors, describes specific behaviors
associated with each of the five dispositions.
Single Subject Dispositions, 2009-2010
Teaching Practicum I (n=95)
D1
D2
D3
D4
Teaching Practicum II (n=109)
D5
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Mean
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.8
Mean
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.9
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Min
2
1.5
1.5
2
2
Min
2
2
1
2
1
Max
3
3
3
3
3
Max
3
3
3
3
3
Single Subject Dispositions, 2010-2011
Teaching Practicum I (n=99)
D1
D2
D3
D4
Teaching Practicum II (n=78)
D5
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Mean
2.6
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.8
Mean
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Min
1
1
1
1
1
Min
2
2
2
1
2
Max
3
3
3
3
3
Max
3
3
3
3
3
Bilingual Single Subject Dispositions, 2009-2010
Teaching Practicum I (n=7)
D1
D2
D3
Teaching Practicum II (n=5)
D4
D5
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Mean
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.4
Mean
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
Median
2
3
2
2
2
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
2
Min
2
2
2
2
2
Max
4
3
3
3
3
Max
4
3
3
3
3
Bilingual Single Subject Dispositions, 2010-2011
Teaching Practicum I (n=3)
D1
D2
D3
Teaching Practicum II (n=3)
D4
D5
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
Mean
3
3
3
3
3
Mean
4
4
4
3.5
3.5
Median
3
3
3
3
3
Median
4
4
4
3
3
Min
2
2
2
2
2
Min
4
3
3
3
3
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 28
Max
4
4
4
4
4
Max
4
4
4
4
4
Key Assessment #4A: Single Subject Unit Plan
Students write a unit plan for EDTE 533: Subject Area Pedagogy I, a course that runs
concurrently with the Practicum I teaching experience. The assessment measures candidates’
ability to: 1) plan a series of coherent lessons aligned with state academic content standards; 2)
write and align unit goals, objectives, and assessments, 3) design formative and summative
assessments, 4) apply varied and appropriate instructional strategies, 5) and apply SDAIE
strategies to support ELLs. The unit is evaluated using 13 performance items (e.g., rationale,
goals, objectives, assessments) and candidates earn a score out of 100 points.
Single Subject Unit Plan
2009-2010 (n=91)
89.8
90
78
100
Mean
Median
Min
Max
2010-2011 (n=102)
89.5
89.5
70
100
Key Assessment #4B: Agriculture Specialist: Final Student Evaluation
This instrument is one of the summative evaluations for the Agricultural Specialist program
completers. The instrument is completed by the lead cooperating teacher at the Practicum
student teaching site at the end of the semester and submitted along with the other assessment
documents required.
The instrument is organized into nine sections including:
 Productive Teaching Techniques (PTT)
 Effective Classroom Management (ECM)
 Positive Interpersonal Relationships (PIR)
 Professional Responsibility (PR)
 Future farmers of America (FFA)
 Supervised Agricultural Experience Program (SAEP)
 Department Management (DM)
 Personality and Personal Characteristics (PPC)
 Technical Knowledge (in animal and plant sciences, agricultural mechanics, ornamental
horticulture, natural resources/forestry, and agribusiness) (TK)
For each competency, the candidate is rated on a Likert scale with 4 = Exceptional, 3 = Strong,
2 = Satisfactory, 1 = Weak, and NA = Not Applicable. The candidate must score at least a
satisfactory on all competencies.
Agriculture Final Student Teacher Evaluation Form (2009-2010)
Key Assessment Section
n= 9
Mean
PTT
3.4
ECM
3.5
PIR
3.8
PR
3.7
FFA
3.4
SAEP
3.0
DM
3.0
PPC
3.7
TK
3.0
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 29
Median
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
Min
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
Max
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Agriculture Final Student Teacher Evaluation Form (2010-2011)
Key Assessment Section
n= 13
PTT
ECM
PIR
PR
FFA
SAEP
DM
PPC
TK
Mean
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.2
3.8
3.2
Median
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
Min
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
Max
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Key Assessment #4C: Adapted Physical Education Specialist: APE Portfolio
Semester
completed
Fall 09
Exemplary
5
Met
Criteria
0
Still in
Progress
3
Spring 10
6
6
6
Fall 10
Spring 11
1
2
3
3
5
8
Comments
3/3 in progress completed
S-10. Numbers in Spring 10
reflect those completing that
semester.
2/6 in progress complete. 1
in F -10, 1 in S-11
Part B: Additional information about candidate and program completer performance or
program effectiveness
Assessment #5: CSU System-wide Exit Survey
Assessment #6: CSU System-wide Evaluation of first year teachers
Assessment #5: CSU System-wide Exit Survey
Beginning in Fall 2005, all campuses within the California State University (CSU) system have
participated in a system-wide exit survey of initial credential program graduates. At CSU, Chico
participation in the survey is a requirement for all credential program completers. Each year, the
CSU Center for Teacher Quality provides the individual campuses aggregated data
electronically preformatted with statistical computations complete. The data below reflect the
responses of 2009-10 and 2010-11 completers from all single subject program pathways
combined.
SS Teacher Preparation Exit Survey
As a new teacher, I am (choose preparedeness level) ...
Well or
Adequately
Prepared
2009- 2010-
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 30
...to prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for students' class
activities.
...to organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily.
...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language
learners.
...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural
backgrounds.
...to meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs.
...to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach
accordingly.
...to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the
curriculum.
...to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam
scores.
...to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and
families.
...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that
leads to professional growth.
...to know and understand the subject(s) in which I earned my teaching
credential(s).
...to teach my primary subject according to State Academic Standards in my
grade(s)
...to contribute to students' reading skills including comprehension in my
subject area.
10
11
100%
90%
97%
76%
97%
79%
96%
90%
82%
68%
97%
89%
80%
74%
96%
82%
87%
76%
93%
100%
100%
97%
100%
97%
93%
n=30
92%
n=38
Assessment #6: CSU System-wide Evaluation of First Year Teachers
The CSU System-wide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation, administered by the Center for
Teacher Quality, provides the results of surveys administered to both graduates of initial
credential programs completing their first year as in-service teachers and their employers on
their perceptions of the quality of preparation they received in their programs. The results for
each campus are provided as composite scores on groups of questions substantively related to
each other. The data below reflect the responses of 2007-08 and 2008-09 program completers
from all single subject program pathways combined. Shading indicates teacher and supervisor
responses on like items.
CSU System-wide Survey One-Year Out: Single Subject Supervisors and First Year
Teachers From CSU-Chico Composite Graphs
Graduating Year
200820092009
2008-2009 2010
2009-2010
CSU,
SystemCSU,
System% Adequately or Well Prepared
Chico
wide
Chico
wide
Secondary Supervisors Assess
the Overall Effectiveness of CSU
Single Subject Credential
Data Not Data Not
Supervisor Programs
86%
80%
Available Available
First-Year Single Subject
Data Not Data Not
Teacher
Teachers Assess the Overall
86%
77%
Available Available
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 31
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Effectiveness of Their CSU
Credential Programs
Secondary School Supervisors
Assess CSU Preparation of Single
Subject Teachers of English (712)
Single Subject Teachers of
English Assess Their CSU
Preparation for English Instruction
(7-12)
Secondary School Supervisors
Assess CSU Preparation of Single
Subject Teachers of Math (7-12)
Single Subject Teachers of Math
Assess Their CSU Preparation for
Math Instruction (7-12)
Secondary School Supervisors
Assess CSU Preparation of Single
Subject Teachers of Science (712)
Single Subject Teachers of
Science Assess Their CSU
Preparation for Science
Instruction (7-12)
Secondary School Supervisors
Assess CSU Preparation of Single
Subject Teachers of History (7-12)
Single Subject Teachers of
History Assess Their CSU
Preparation for History Instruction
(7-12)
Secondary School Supervisors
Assess CSU Preparation to Teach
Subjects Other than Four Core
Subjects (7-12)
Single Subject Teachers Assess
Their CSU Preparation to Teach
Subjects Other than Four Core
Subjects (7-12)
Secondary School Supervisors
Assess CSU Preparation to
Develop Reading Skills in Content
Classes (7-12)
Single Subject Teachers Assess
Their CSU Preparation to Develop
Reading Skills in Content Classes
(7-12)
School Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of Teachers to Plan
Instruction
89%
91%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
83%
78%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
100%
85%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
91%
84%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
85%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
N/A
83%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
87%
93%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
91%
83%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
93%
91%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
88%
88%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
78%
75%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
78%
74%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
85%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
N/A
93%
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 32
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
First-Year Teaching Graduates of
the CSU Assess Their Preparation
to Plan Instruction
School Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of Teachers to
Motivate Students
First-Year Teaching Graduates of
the CSU Assess Their Preparation
to Motivate Students
School Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of Teachers to
Manage Instruction
First-Year Teaching Graduates of
the CSU Assess Their Preparation
to Manage Instruction
School Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of Teachers to Use
Education Technology
First-Year Teaching Graduates of
the CSU Assess Their Preparation
to Use Education Technology
School Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of Teachers for
Pedagogy Across the Curriculum
First-Year Teaching Graduates of
the CSU Assess Their Preparation
for Pedagogy Across the
Curriculum
School Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of Teachers to
Assess and Reflect on Instruction
First-Year Teaching Graduates of
the CSU Assess Their Preparation
to Assess and Reflect on Their
Instruction
School Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of Teachers for Equity
and Diversity in Teaching
First-Year Teaching Graduates of
the CSU Assess Their Preparation
for Equity and Diversity in
Teaching
Middle-Grade Supervisors Assess
CSU Preparation of Teachers to
Teach Middle-Grade Pupils (4-8)
Teaching Graduates in Grades 48 Assess Their CSU Preparation
to Teach Middle-Grade Students
High School Supervisors Assess
92%
81%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
85%
80%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
86%
78%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
82%
81%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
90%
76%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
99%
90%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
82%
68%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
87%
83%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
86%
78%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
92%
81%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
86%
78%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
80%
77%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
81%
74%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
99%
81%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
89%
85%
79%
80%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Data Not
Available
Data Not
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 33
CSU Preparation of Teachers to
Teach High School Students (912)
Single Subject Teachers in
Grades 9-12 Assess Their CSU
Preparation to Teach High School
Teacher
Students
School Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of Teachers to Teach
Supervisor English Learners
First-Year Teaching Graduates of
the CSU Assess Their CSU
Preparation to Teach English
Teacher
Learners
School Supervisors Assess CSU
Preparation of MS-SS Teachers to
Teach Special Learners in
Supervisor Inclusive Schools
First-Year MS-SS Teachers
Assess Their CSU Preparation to
Teach Special Learners in
Teacher
Inclusive Schools
CSU Teachers Assess the Overall
Value of Professional Coursework
Teacher
in Their First Year of Teaching
CSU Teachers Assess the Overall
Value of Credential Program
Fieldwork in Their First Year of
Teacher
Teaching
Available
Available
87%
76%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
84%
78%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
82%
76%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
81%
77%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
82%
73%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
86%
79%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
89%
81%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
II.
Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
The following analysis of data includes all pathways in the Single Subject Program. All
assessments except for Key Assessment 4 are common to the various pathways.
Performance Assessment of California Teachers (PACT)
The overall event pass rate on the first submission for candidates across all Single Subject
pathways was 87.1% in 2009-10 and 96.6% in 2010-11. Including successful resubmissions,
the pass rate was 97.4% in 2009-10 and 98.9% in 2010-11. The data shown in Section A II
includes scores for each candidate’s successful attempt. The Action Plan discusses plans to
include first attempt failures in the data set.
Overall candidates show competence in Planning, Instruction, Reflection and Academic
Language with failure rates from 0-6% across all PACT categories. While results vary across
programs, one area of challenge is indicated by scores on rubric A2: Using Assessment to
Inform Instruction, with 9.65% failing this section in 2009-10 and 10.65% failing this section in
2010-11. This area will be addressed in the Institutional Summary and Plan of Action.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 34
Student Teaching Evaluations
Across all programs, candidates show growth on TPEs over the course of the two teaching
practica and are able to demonstrate proficiency across the competencies by the end of the
second practicum. In the Single Subject Programs in 2009-10, students show improvement
in TPE 7 Teaching English Learners, with candidates scoring 2.4 in Practicum I and a 2.7 in
Practicum II. Gains were more modest for TPE 7 in 2010-11, with Practicum I candidates
scoring a 2.3 and PII candidates scoring a 2.4.
The use of a three-point rubric allows for inadequate discrimination among candidates in
Student Teaching Evaluations. This issue will be addressed in the subsequent Institutional
Summary and Plan of Action.
Dispositions Evaluations
While areas of initial strength and weakness vary across pathways, data show some candidate
growth across all dispositions over the course of their preparation. These data show that in all
programs, evaluators observed behaviors that indicated well-developed dispositions early in
their credential programs. These dispositions continued to develop through the program. The
data show no consistent area of challenge among pathways.
The use of a three-point rubric allows for inadequate discrimination among candidates in
Disposition Evaluations. This issue will be addressed in the subsequent Action Plan.
Key Assignment 4
Single Subject Unit Plan
For 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, the mean score for the unit plan was 89.5% out of 100%. These
scores indicate that students are able to develop comprehensive unit plans that meet the needs
of diverse students. However, the single mean score tells us little about the variation on
different aspects of the unit plan. This issue will be addressed in the Institutional Summary and
Plan of Action.
Agriculture Specialist: Final Student Evaluation
Overall, cooperating teachers indicated Ag Specialist candidates demonstrated strong to
exceptional competence in all areas addressed on the Agricultural Specialist: Final Evaluation
Plan in 2010 – 2011. The range of the means for the nine areas was from 3.2 (3.0 = strong) to
3.7 (4.0 = exceptional). Especially encouraging was the fact that improvement was made from
the 2009 - 2010 to the 2010 – 2011 year, in all areas except “Positive Interpersonal relationships
(PIR) with the mean decreased by only one tenth (3.8 to 3.7). Two areas in which the program
faculty will continue to focus are Departmental Management and Technical Knowledge,
specifically in the areas of Ornamental Horticulture and Agricultural Mechanics.
Adapted Physical Education Specialist: APE Portfolio
For 2009-2010 all completers met criteria or were exemplary in their ability to show competency
to write comprehensive assessment reports in the field. An assessment report is one of the
components of the portfolio. All students must meet acceptable criteria for each competency to
obtain an authorization for an adapted physical education credential. Portfolios are reviewed by
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 35
Adapted Physical Education program staff and faculty at the completion of their teaching
practicum. Data from the APE portfolio could be made more powerful by evaluating a student
competency on each section of the portfolio instead of evaluating the portfolio as a whole. This
could yield more specific information from data collection showing areas of need.
CSU System-wide Exit Survey
Data indicate that graduates of our Single Subject Programs are confident that they are
prepared to address most of the challenges of teaching. In 2010-2011, 100% of students felt
adequately or well prepared to reflect on their teaching. Ninety-seven percent felt adequately or
well prepared to plan lessons, to teach in their subject areas, and to teach according to the
California content standards.
Whereas the data for 2009-10 overall indicate strong confidence among candidates as they
leave their single subject programs to address most of the challenges of secondary teaching,
the scores indicate less confidence in 2010-11 for almost all categories. Meeting the needs of
students with special learning needs appears to be one area of weakness, with 68% of the
students rating themselves adequately to well prepared in this area. This area will be addressed
in the Action Plan.
CSU System-wide Evaluation of First Year Teachers
Overall, the percentages of supervisors rating graduates as adequately to well prepared are
near the average for the CSU System. Comparing the two years of data, the responses from
the First Year Teachers show decreases in the percent of teachers feeling prepared in almost
all categories. However, Supervisors tended to rate preparedness higher than First Year
Teachers in almost all categories. According to responses by First Year Teachers, the biggest
areas for improvement appear to be in Preparation to Use Education Technology (68% in 201011) and Preparation to Teach Special Learners in Inclusive Schools (73% in 2010-11).
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
PART IV: Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Unit Action Plan
As a unit, program pathway coordinators met and identified nine common Student Learning
Outcomes (SLOs) based upon California Teaching Expectations, and the conceptual
framework, mission and vision of the School of Education. Each program analyzed data from six
data sources, and identified strengths and areas for improvement. The coordinators met and
reached consensus on areas for improvement common to all pathways in the unit. The Unit
Action Plan shows goals and plans of action for each goal. If applicable, individual pathways
have attached specific pathway action plans as addendums to the Unit Action Plan.
Unit Goal 1: Candidates effectively support students with special needs
in inclusive classrooms.
Data Source
Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made


Exit survey
Hold Curriculum Committee meetings to articulate ways
Applicable
Program or
Common
Standard(s)
TPE 4,5,6
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 36

CSU survey





in which coursework currently supports teaching
students with special learning needs across initial
credential pathways.
Incorporate a systematic use of IRIS modules in
coursework and train faculty in use of the modules.
Involve education specialist faculty, k-12 teachers and
master’s students in bringing education specialist
content to prepare general educators to work in
inclusive classrooms.
Revise course delivery to pair general education faculty
with education specialist faculty to 1) seamlessly
integrate methods that teach students with special
learning needs and 2) model co-teaching that occurs in
inclusive delivery models.
Hold an Assistive Technology Faire for all credential
candidates to learn about new assistive technologies
and their appropriate use.
Strengthen the special needs section of the field
observation form so that teaching behaviors that
support special learners will be more clearly identified in
the field.
(SLO 7)
Disp 1
Unit Goal 2: Candidates use a variety of formative and summative assessments to
determine pupils’ progress, provide feedback and plan instruction.
Data Source
Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made
PACT rubric

items A1, A2 and
A3



Hold Curriculum Committee meetings to articulate ways
in which coursework currently supports helping
candidates use a variety of formative and summative
assessments to inform instruction, and identify
additional course components that strengthen the
assessment strand.
In coursework, create communities of practice in which
candidates examine k-12 student work for evidence of
student learning.
Create additional assignments asking candidates to
bring their student work to class to analyze for patterns
of student learning. Provide models of effective verbal
and written feedback and guidance in determining next
instructional steps.
In fieldwork, modify supervision observation form to
include indicators for 1) use of student work as
evidence of student learning and 2) providing feedback
Applicable
Program or
Common
Standard(s)
TPE 2,3
(SLO 2)
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 37



to students. Focus on these indicators at postobservation conferences.
Supervision focus on how ST provide feedback to
students
Provide supervisors with professional development
about using student work as evidence of teaching
effectiveness.
Confer with other universities regarding best practices
for observation practices that focus on K-12 student
learning outcomes.
Adapted Physical Education Program improvements to be implemented:
As of July 2011, the CTC accepted new standards for the added authorization to teach adapted
physical education. These new standards will be used to evaluate the Adapted Physical
Education program and candidates in the future. The program is currently transitioning to the
new standards for Fall 2012. Data from the APE portfolio could be made more powerful by
evaluating a student competency on each section of the portfolio instead of evaluating the
portfolio as a whole. This could yield more specific information from data collection showing
areas of need.
Agriculture Specialist Program improvements to be implemented:
Since the February 2011 submission, the program continues to work on enhancing of curriculum
in Horticulture and Agricultural Mechanics by addition of a teaching methods in horticulture
course, offering a short course in Basic Welding, and assuring that the courses including in the
Subject Matter Competency waiver program adequately prepares our students. A second area
of focus is the coordination of methods courses, as the program currently offers three methods
courses, taught by three different instructors, we have begun meeting on several occasions to
coordinate curriculum, minimize duplication of efforts and emphasize key outcomes.
EDUCATION SPECIALIST CREDENTIAL PROGRAM
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I – Contextual Information
Credentials awarded: Education Specialist Level I (Mild/Moderate)
Education Specialist Level I (Moderate/Severe)
Education Specialist Level II (Mild/Moderate)
Education Specialist Level II (Moderate/Severe)
Program Contacts: Dr. Michelle Cepello
530-898-6281
mcepello@csuchico.edu
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 38
Contextual Information
The Preliminary Level I Education Specialist Program Prepares candidates to teach
students with Mild to Moderate (M/M) or Moderate to Severe (M/S) disabilities. Within this
program, candidates can complete their field experience in a variety of pathways that best meet
program competencies and candidates’ individual goals in an authentic setting. Each of these
pathways provides a highly structured, organized and sequential learning experience.
The Level II Education Specialist Program is typically a one-year program that can be
completed anytime during a five-year period after the candidate begins teaching under the Level
I Preliminary Credential. Due to this five-year range of completion, enrollment in courses and
completion numbers fluctuate. Candidates complete the program with either a Level II
Mild/Moderate or Moderate/Severe Education Specialist Credential. Employers are responsible
for verification of Level II Competencies as applied to the field. In June 2010, all candidates
admitted to the Level II program were notified in writing that they would need to complete
program requirements by Spring 2011. This notification resulted in an increase of number of
candidates and completers in comparison to the previous 07-08 and 08-09 Biennial data. A
record of those students who completed program requirements before Fall 2011 has been
maintained and completed candidate files have been sent to the Credential Analyst for her
review for credential recommendation. It is our understanding that as of Fall 2011 candidates
will no longer be enrolled in the Level II Education Specialist Program or recommended for the
credential. A written request for approval to withdraw the Level II Education Specialist Program
was submitted to the Commission on August 15, 2010.
Academic Year
2009-2010
2010-2011
2009-2010
2010-2011
2009-2010
2010-2011
2009-2010
2010-2011
Program Specific Candidate Information
Number of Candidates
Number of
Completers/Graduates
Education Specialist Level I (Mild/Moderate)
29
14
29
13
Education Specialist Level I (Moderate/Severe)
21
12
29
19
Education Specialist Level II (Mild/Moderate )
28
10
14
14
Education Specialist Level II (Moderate/Severe)
5
1
5
5
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
II.
Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program
Part A: Primary Candidate Assessments
A. PRELIMINARY LEVEL I EDUCATION SPECIALIST INTERN PROGRAM
Data collected during 2009-11 comes from the following Key Assessments:
Key Assessment #1: Education Specialist Portfolio
Key Assessment #2: Field Evaluations
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 39
Key Assessment #3: Dispositions Evaluations
Key Assessment #1: Level I Education Specialist Portfolio
Candidates submit a summative electronic portfolio that is completed at the end of their
Education Specialist Program. The portfolio includes six Key Assessments and candidates are
evaluated on them using a three-point rubric: Level 1: Needs Improvement; Level 2: Meets
Requirements; Level 3: Exceeds Requirements. A score of Level 2 is passing.
KA1: Making Subject Matter Comprehensible to Students:
Assessment 1 in the portfolio includes a sequence of three lesson plans that are developed in
the creation of a Service Learning Project.
KA2: Assessing Student Learning:
Assessment 2 in the portfolio includes an Assessment Case Study that documents how
baseline assessment data was gathered, analyzed, and applied to individualized instruction.
The purpose is to demonstrate of knowledge about assessment and to implement formal and
informal assessments.
KA3: Engaging and Supporting Students in Learning:
Assessment 3 in the portfolio asks candidates to apply the Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol (SIOP) data in three lesson plans. These plans demonstrate the ability of candidates to
infuse technology for students with special needs into the classroom setting.
KA4: Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for Students:
Assessment 4 in the portfolio is a Field Experience and Analysis Reflection that includes a
selection and reflection of 3-5 key lessons that represent a concept or skill that is taught from
beginning to end.
KA5: Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning:
Assessment 5 in the portfolio is a classroom management synthesis that demonstrates each
candidate’s ability to analyzing students’ behavioral needs and developing a Behavior
Intervention Plan (BIP).
KA6: Developing as a Professional Educator:
Assessment 6 is a descriptive account of professional growth made during the program. In it,
candidates connect professional growth in home, school and community relationships in general
and special education to two Education Specialist Standards.
Table A.1 depicts the number of candidates who exited and the number of candidates achieving
at each level. All Key Assessments were scored using an individual assessment, three point
rubric. Table cells indicate how many candidates scored at that rubric level. The “R1” indicates
that there was one student who scored at Level 1 in KA4, but after a successful resubmit, the
candidate’s scores were added to the composite results.
Table A.1: Key Assessments Results KA1- KA6 - 2009-10
N= 26
Level 3
Level 2
R=Resubmit
KA-1
KA-2
7 (27%)
7 (27%)
Level 1
19 (73%)
19 (73%)
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 40
KA-3
KA-4
KA-5
KA-6
5 (19%)
4 (15%)
5 (19%)
7 ( 27%)
21 (81%)
22 (85%)
21 (81%)
19 (73%)
R1
Table A.2 records the number of candidates who exited and the number of candidates achieving
at each level. Table cells indicate how many candidates scored at that level initially and then
added the candidates scoring at that level after one resubmit. All Key Assessments are scored
using a three-point rubric.
Table A.2: Key Assessments Results KA1- KA6 - 2010-2011
N=30
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
R=Resubmit
KA-1
8 (27%)
22(73%)
KA-2
7 (23%)
23 (77%)
KA-3
6 (20%)
24 (80%)
KA-4
4 (13%)
26 (87%)
KA-5
7 (23%)
23 (77%)
KA-6
7 (23%)
23 (77%)
Please note that the total number of assessed candidates (30) does not match the total
completers (32) listed in the Program Specific Candidate Information table. Two of these
completers were pursuing both a M/M and M/S credential and submitted one portfolio that
addressed the Key Assessments.
Key Assessment #2: Field Evaluations
Duration of the Internship varies from one to two years based on the candidate’s prior
experience and individual rate of professional development. Table A.3 reflects university
supervisors’ ratings of candidate performance at the end of the candidates’ program year 20092010. Ratings are based on Level I Education Specialist Standards. Table A.4 reflects
university supervisor’s ratings of candidate performance based on TPE Domains that address
revised Education Specialist Standards.
Table A.3: Field Evaluation Results - 2009-10
Standard 10
Professional,
Legal and Ethical
Practice
1
(4%)
21
(81%)
Total Completed
Exceptional
Practice
Level 4
Proficient
Practice
Level 3
Novice Practice
Level 2
N= 26
MM= 14
MS= 12
Field Evaluations 2009-10
Below Novice
Practice
Level I
Level I
Education
Specialist
Program
Mild/Moderate and
Moderate/Severe
5
(19%)
26
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 41
Standard 12
Educating Diverse
Learners
Standard 13
Spec Ed Field Ex
with Diverse
Learners
Standard 15
Managing
Learning
Environments
Standard 16
Effective
Communication &
Collaborative
Partnerships
Standard 17
Assessment,
Curriculum &
Instruction
Standard 22
Assessment &
Eval of Students
Standard 23
Planning &
Implementing C&I
Standard 24
Positive Behavior
Supports
Standard 25
Characteristics &
Needs of Indiv w
/M/M Disabilities
Standard 25
Communication &
Social Networks
(M/S)
Standard 26
C&I (M/S)
Standard 27
Movement,
Mobility, Sensory
& Spec. Health
Care (M/S)
2
(8%)
20
(77%)
4
(15%)
26
2
(8%)
20
(77%)
4
(15%)
26
2
(8%)
15
(58%)
9
(34%)
26
2
(8%)
22
(84%)
2
(8%)
26
2
(8%)
21
(81%)
3
(11%)
26
2
(8%)
22
(84%)
2
(8%)
26
2
(8%)
21
(81%)
3
(11%)
26
2
(8%)
18
(69%)
6
(23%)
26
1
(7%)
9
(64%)
4
(29%)
14
(M/M only)
2
(17%)
9
(75%)
1
(8%)
12
(M/S only)
2
(17%)
6
(50%)
4
(33%)
12
(M/S only)
2
(17%)
8
(66%)
2
(17%)
12
(M/S only)
Table A.4: Field Evaluation Results - 2010-2011
Level I
Education
Field Evaluations 2010-2011
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 42
Total Completed
Exceptional Practice
Level 4
Proficient Practice
Level 3
Novice Practice
Level 2
N= 32
M/M = 13
M/S = 19
PS=Program
Standard
M/M = Mild/Mod
Stand
M/S=Mod/Sev
Stand
Domain A: Making
Subject Matter
Comprehensible
PS 9;M/M3,5; MS4
Domain B:
Assessing
Student Learning
PS 5; M/M 2;M/S
2,4
Domain C:
Engaging and
Supporting
Students
PS 3,6,10;M/M 5;
M/S 2,3,5
Domain D:
Planning
Instruction/Learni
ng
PS 6,11; M/M 1,3,5;
M/S 1,2,4,8
Domain E:
Creating Effective
Learning
Environments
PS 6;M/M 4; M/S
3,6
Domain F:
Developing as an
Educator
PS 2
Domain G (not
TPE)
Collaboration &
Case Management
PS 4,7,8; M/M
Below Novice Practice
Level I
Specialist
Program
Mild/Moderate and
Moderate/Severe
1
(3%)
19
(59%)
12
(38%)
32
2
(6%)
20
(63%)
10
(31%)
32
1
(3%)
16
(50%)
15
(47%)
32
1
(3%)
20
(63%)
11
(34%)
32
1
(3%)
18
(56%)
13
(41%)
32
1
(3%)
18
(56%)
13
(41%)
32
21
(66%)
11
(34%)
30
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 43
6;M/S 7
Key Assessment #3: Dispositions
Duration of the Internship varies from one to two years based on the candidate’s prior
experience and individual rate of professional development. Table A.5 and Table A.6 reflect
university supervisors’ ratings of candidate dispositions at the end of the candidates’ program
year for years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 respectively.
Candidate Dispositions
Professional Dispositions
Disposition 1 (D1) = Appreciates and values human diversity
Disposition 2 (D2) = Believes all children can learn
Disposition 3 (D3) = Is committed to continuous self-directed learning and reflective
practice
Disposition 4 (D4) = Takes pride in the education profession
Disposition 5 (D5) = Is committed to the use of democratic values
Table A.5: Results of Disposition Evaluations - 2009-10
Education Specialist Level I Disposition Evaluations, 2009-10 (N=26)
N= 26
Below
Novice
Novice
Proficient
Exceptional Total
Practice
Practice
Practice
Practice
Level I
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
D1
2 (8%)
10 (38%)
14 (53%)
26
D2
2 (8%)
7 (32%)
17 (65%)
26
D3
2 (8%)
8 (31%)
16 (61%)
26
D4
2 (8%)
9 (35%)
15 (57%)
26
D5
2 (8%)
9 (35%)
15 (58%)
26
Table A.6: Results of Disposition Evaluations - 2010-2011
Education Specialist Level I Disposition Evaluations, 2008-09 (N=32)
N= 32
Below
Novice
Novice
Proficient
Exceptional Total
Practice
Practice
Practice
Practice
Level I
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
D1
2 (6%)
12 (37%)
18 (57%)
32
D2
2 (6%)
11 (35%)
19 (59%)
32
D3
2 (6%)
10 (32%)
20 (62%)
32
D4
2 (6%)
12 (37%)
18 (57%)
32
D5
2 (6%)
10 (32%)
20 (62%)
32
Please note that the total number of assessed candidates (30) do not match the total
completers (32) in listed in the Program Specific Candidate Information table as two of these
completers were pursuing both a M/M and M/S credential and only submitted one portfolio.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 44
Part B: Additional information about candidate and program completer performance or
program effectiveness
Assessment #4: CSU System-wide Exit Survey
Assessment #5: CSU System-wide Evaluation of first year teachers
Key Assessment #4: CSU Exit Survey
Program finishers complete the California State University (CSU) Candidate Exit Survey. This
system-wide survey is completed online and submitted directly to the CSU Center for Teacher
Quality. This survey addresses various aspects of instruction, classroom management,
assessment, and teacher preparation in general. Results for the CSU Exit survey for 2009-10
and 2010-2011 are summarized in Table A.7.
Table A.7: Results of CSU Exit Survey
CSU Exit Survey
As a new teacher, I am (choose preparedness level) ...
...to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of
the curriculum.
...to use computer-based technology for instruction, research, and record
keeping.
...to adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all
students.
...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language
learners.
...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural
backgrounds.
...to meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs.
...to know and understand federal and state laws that govern special
education.
...to develop and implement IEPs with parents, teachers and
administrators.
...to plan instructional activities in integrated settings for pupils with
disabilities.
...to develop student assessments that indicate progress toward IEP
objectives.
...to collaborate with para-educators in meeting students' instructional
needs.
...to consult with regular-ed. teachers about teaching special education
students.
...to conduct educational assessments as defined in students'
assessment plans.
...to use disability-specific teaching strategies and activities, when
appropriate.
...to teach disability-specific curriculum when applicable to my specialty
area.
Well or
Adequately
Prepared
2009201010
2011
77%
79%
82%
82%
91%
92%
88%
91%
91%
94%
94%
97%
88%
88%
89%
92%
94%
89%
91%
89%
95%
91%
88%
89%
92%
91%
94%
88%
92%
88%
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 45
...to develop and implement transition plans for special education
students.
76%
n=35
82%
x=34
Key Assessment #5: CSU System-wide Evaluation of First Year Teachers
The CSU System-wide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation, administered by the Center for
Teacher Quality, provides the results of surveys administered to both graduates of initial
credential programs completing their first year as in-service teachers and their employers on
their perceptions of the quality of preparation they received in their programs. The results for
each campus are provided as composite scores on groups of questions substantively related to
each other. Table A.8 includes the responses of 2004-05 through 2008-09 program completers
from all Education Specialist I program pathways combined. In order to provide significant
analysis of the data, the low numbers of annual respondents have been aggregated for years
2004-2009. Shading indicates teacher and supervisor responses on like items.
Table A.8: Results of CSU System-wide Evaluation
CSU System-wide Survey One-Year Out: Education Specialist Supervisors and First
Year Teachers From CSU-Chico Composite Graphs
Graduating
Year
2004-2009
% Adequately or Well Prepared
Supervisor
Special Education Supervisors Assess the Overall Effectiveness
of CSU Single Subject Credential Programs
92%
Teacher
First-Year Education Specialist Teachers Assess the Overall
Effectiveness of Their CSU Credential Programs
83%
Supervisor
K-8 Supervisors Assess CSU Preparation of Multiple-Subject
Teachers for Reading-Language Arts Instruction (K-8)
90%
Teacher
First-Year Teachers Assess Their CSU Preparation for ReadingLanguage Arts Instruction (K-8)
82%
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
K-8 Supervisors Assess CSU Preparation of Multiple-Subject
Teachers for Mathematics Instruction (K-8)
First-Year Multiple-Subject Teachers Assess Their CSU
Preparation for Mathematics Instruction (K-8)
School Supervisors Assess CSU Preparation of Teachers to Plan
Instruction
First-Year Teaching Graduates of the CSU Assess Their
Preparation to Plan Instruction
School Supervisors Assess CSU Preparation of Teachers to
Motivate Students
First-Year Teaching Graduates of the CSU Assess Their
Preparation to Motivate Students
90%
70%
94%
88%
93%
87%
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 46
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
Teacher
Supervisor
School Supervisors Assess CSU Preparation of Teachers to
Manage Instruction
First-Year Teaching Graduates of the CSU Assess Their
Preparation to Manage Instruction
School Supervisors Assess CSU Preparation of Teachers to Use
Education Technology
First-Year Teaching Graduates of the CSU Assess Their
Preparation to Use Education Technology
School Supervisors Assess CSU Preparation of Teachers for
Pedagogy Across the Curriculum
First-Year Teaching Graduates of the CSU Assess Their
Preparation for Pedagogy Across the Curriculum
School Supervisors Assess CSU Preparation of Teachers to
Assess and Reflect on Instruction
First-Year Teaching Graduates of the CSU Assess Their
Preparation to Assess and Reflect on Their Instruction
School Supervisors Assess CSU Preparation of Teachers for
Equity and Diversity in Teaching
92%
87%
86%
71%
94%
83%
92%
90%
92%
Teacher
First-Year Teaching Graduates of the CSU Assess Their
Preparation for Equity and Diversity in Teaching
School Supervisors Assess CSU Preparation of Teachers to
Teach English Learners
First-Year Teaching Graduates of the CSU Assess Their CSU
Preparation to Teach English Learners
Supervisor
Special Education Supervisors Assess CSU Level I Preparation
to Teach Special Learners in Special Education
91%
Teacher
Education Specialists Assess Their CSU Level I Preparation to
Teach Special Learners in Special Education
87%
Teacher
CSU Teachers Assess the Overall Value of Professional
Coursework in Their First Year of Teaching
86%
Teacher
CSU Teachers Assess the Overall Value of Credential Program
Fieldwork in Their First Year of Teaching
89%
Teacher
Supervisor
III.
85%
92%
88%
Analysis of Candidate Assessment
Level I Education Specialist Portfolio
100% of the 09-10 and 10-11 candidate completers scored at level 2 (Meets Requirements) or
above on the six key assessments that make up the Level I Education Specialist Portfolio.
Although there was some small variation in scores over the two years, including one candidate
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 47
receiving a Level 1 (Needs Improvement) score on the individual assessment on the initial
submission, there is no discernible pattern of change.
Field Evaluations
In 2009-10, 100% of Education Specialist I candidates received scores of proficient to
exceptional on all standards assessed as part of their Field Evaluations. In 2020-11, field
evaluations were revised to reflect the revised Education Specialist Standards. Because of this
revision, a direct comparison of scores between the candidates across the two academic years
would not result in an accurate analysis.
Dispositions Evaluations
The data from Dispositions Evaluations appear to show that evaluators observed behaviors that
would indicate well-developed dispositions across program years 2009-10 and 2010-11.
CSU Exit Survey
The CSU, Exit Survey indicates an overall satisfaction with candidates’ preparedness to teach
students with special needs. Lowest scores fell in the area of using computer-based technology
to help students learn subjects of the curriculum (77%) and developing and implementing
transition plans for special education students (76%). Both areas of lower satisfaction may stem
from the growing numbers of students being diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and the
need for complex instructional strategies, effective case management skills in coordinating
transition services and resources in the area augmentative communication.
CSU System-wide Evaluation
The results of the CSU System-wide Evaluation show that candidates were very confident in
their preparation to be effective special educators. Eighty-seven percent of Education Specialist
candidates indicated that they felt adequately or well prepared to teach special learners.
Ninety-two percent of the Education Specialist candidates were satisfied with the overall
effectiveness of the program. Lowest scores of satisfaction fell within the area of math
competency (70%) and educational technology (71%).
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 48
IV. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Preliminary Level I Education Specialist Intern Program
Unit Action Plan
As a unit, program pathway coordinators met and identified nine common Student Learning
Outcomes (SLOs) based upon California Teaching Expectations, and the conceptual
framework, mission and vision of the School of Education. Each program analyzed data from six
data sources, and identified strengths and areas for improvement. The coordinators met and
reached consensus on areas for improvement common to all pathways in the unit. The Unit
Action Plan shows goals and plans of action for each goal. If applicable, individual pathways
have attached specific pathway action plans as addendums to the Unit Action Plan.
Unit Goal 1: Candidates effectively support students with special needs
in inclusive classrooms.
Data Source
Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made



Exit survey
CSU survey





Hold Curriculum Committee meetings to articulate ways
in which coursework currently supports teaching
students with special learning needs across initial
credential pathways.
Incorporate a systematic use of IRIS modules in
coursework and train faculty in use of the modules.
Involve education specialist faculty, k-12 teachers and
master’s students in bringing education specialist
content to prepare general educators to work in
inclusive classrooms.
Revise course delivery to pair general education faculty
with education specialist faculty to 1) seamlessly
integrate methods that teach students with special
learning needs and 2) model co-teaching that occurs in
inclusive delivery models.
Hold an Assistive Technology Faire for all credential
candidates to learn about new assistive technologies
and their appropriate use.
Strengthen the special needs section of the field
observation form so that teaching behaviors that
support special learners will be more clearly identified in
the field.
Applicable
Program or
Common
Standard(s)
TPE 4,5,6
(SLO 7)
Disp 1
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 49
Unit Goal 2: Candidates use a variety of formative and summative assessments to
determine pupils’ progress, provide feedback and plan instruction.
Data Source
Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made
PACT rubric

items A1, A2 and
A3






Hold Curriculum Committee meetings to articulate ways
in which coursework currently supports helping
candidates use a variety of formative and summative
assessments to inform instruction, and identify
additional course components that strengthen the
assessment strand.
In coursework, create communities of practice in which
candidates examine k-12 student work for evidence of
student learning.
Create additional assignments asking candidates to
bring their student work to class to analyze for patterns
of student learning. Provide models of effective verbal
and written feedback and guidance in determining next
instructional steps.
In fieldwork, modify supervision observation form to
include indicators for 1) use of student work as
evidence of student learning and 2) providing feedback
to students. Focus on these indicators at postobservation conferences.
Supervision focus on how ST provide feedback to
students
Provide supervisors with professional development
about using student work as evidence of teaching
effectiveness.
Confer with other universities regarding best practices
for observation practices that focus on K-12 student
learning outcomes.
Applicable
Program or
Common
Standard(s)
TPE 2,3
(SLO 2)
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 50
Education Specialist Program Action Plan
In addition to the goals listed in the Unit Action Plan, the Education Specialist Program has
chosen to focus on one additional goal.
Education Specialist Program Goal 1: Preparation for Mathematics Instruction in
Inclusive Classrooms
Data Source
Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made
Applicable
Program or
Common
Standard(s)
CSU SystemSLO1
 Develop a math course that is taught by a general
wide Evaluation
education (math specialist) faculty member with
education specialist faculty to seamlessly integrate
math methods that address students with special
needs.
 Develop a lesson plan for a math unit that includes
differentiation for students with mild/moderate/severe
disabilities.
 In fieldwork, supervisors observe math lessons for
indicators that candidate uses strategies to differentiate
math content for students with mild/moderate/severe
disabilities.
PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
CREDENTIAL PROGRAM
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I – Contextual Information
Program Contacts: Rick Stout
530-898-5532
rstout@csuchico.edu
Contextual Information
The Preliminary Administrative Services Credential program is a combined Preliminary
Administrative Services Credential and master’s degree in education, option in Educational
Leadership and Administration. Typically, candidates complete the program in two years.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 51
Depending on demand, a new cohort of approximately 20-25 candidates begins every one-totwo years.
Academic Year
2009-2010
2010-2011
Program Specific Candidate Information
Number of Candidates
Number of
Completers/Graduates
34
16
33
14
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
IV.
Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program
Effectiveness Information
Part A: Primary Candidate Assessments
Data collected during 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 comes from the following key assessments:
Key Assessment #1: Mid-Program Review
Key Assessment #2: Field Evaluation
Key Assessment #3: Portfolio
Key Assessment #1: Mid-Program Review
Candidates present oral and written documentation of completed courses in the program to date, a
review of accomplishments towards their Professional Growth Plans, a summary of their strengths
and areas for professional growth, and a review of their Portfolios, including progress in fieldembedded coursework, and documentation of meeting CPSELS and CCTC Administrative
Standards.
Year
2009-10 (n=19)
2010-11 (n=20)
Mid-Program Evaluation 2009-2010 and 2010-2011
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Evaluation not yet in place—No data
8
8
Level 4
4
Key Assessment #2: Field Evaluation
At the conclusion of the field experience, candidates review their experiences and their journal
and write a synthesis of their learning and an analysis of areas for further growth. This
document forms the basis for an oral review of the field experience with both site and university
supervisors. Each project is evaluated out of 40 points, then converted to a four-point scale, with
4 being the highest score.
Year
2009-10 (n=19)
2010-11 (n=17)
Field Evaluation 2009-10 and 2010-2011
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
1
3
1
3
Level 4
15
13
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 52
Key Assessment #3: Portfolio Evaluation
The portfolio is compiled throughout the program and includes a number of course-embedded
assignments linked to the candidates’ field-based experiences. The portfolio is evaluated on a
four-point scale, with 4 being the highest score. The elements of the portfolio include:
 Developing a Vision for Learning: Theory to Practice
 Community/School Site Demographic Study
 Crisis Response: Oral and Written
 Management of Funds and Facilities
 Staff Development Plan
 Using Research
 Leadership for Diversity
Year
2009-10 (n=19)
2010-11 (n=17)
Portfolio Evaluation 2009-10 and 2010-2011
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
0
0
14
0
0
16
Level 4
5
1
Part B: Additional Information about Candidate and Program Completer
Performance or Program Effectiveness
The exit survey that was administered in previous years was suspended during 2009 to allow
time for redesign of the instrument, as well as the survey administration and data collection and
management processes. The survey has been revised and administered electronically to the
2010-2011 finishers. Survey items are based upon CPSEL and program standards.
Preliminary Administrative Services Finisher Survey (n=10)
The vision of the program was clearly articulated and shapes its design and
delivery. (C-Std. 1)
Sufficient resources (in areas such as library, media, and computer facilities)
were allocated throughout my program to support my progress. (C-Std. 2)
The quality of teaching was outstanding.(C-Std. 3)
The faculty reflect cultural, ethnic, and gender diversity.(C-Std. 3)
The faculty are knowledgeable about cultural, ethnic, and gender diversity. (CStd. 3)
Based on background and experience, the instructors were qualified to teach
program courses.(C-Std. 3)
Meaningful opportunities were provided to become involved in program design,
development, and evaluation activities.(C-Std. 4)
The admission process had clearly defined criteria and procedures that were
rigorous and fair.(C-Std. 5)
Program advising included academic, personal, and professional
development.(C-Std. 6)
The fieldwork/clinical experiences were sequenced and planned collaboratively
with school districts and university program personnel.(C-Std. 7)
University supervisors provided me with useful feedback and appropriate
activities for professional growth.(C-Std. 8)
Courses provided extensive opportunities to analyze, implement, and reflect on
% SA
or A
90%
100%
100%
60%
90%
100%
90%
100%
50%
60%
70%
100%
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 53
the relationships between theory and practice concerning leadership, teaching
and learning in the context of contemporary school issues in California.(P-Std. 1)
The program offered exposure to the essential themes, concepts and skills
related to the performance of administrative services (i.e.: communication skills,
leadership theories, curriculum).(P-Std. 3)
The program provided opportunities to examine personal attitudes toward issues
of race, gender, and socioeconomic status.(P-Std. 4)
The program provided opportunities to learn about issues of race, gender, and
socioeconomic status and ways to ensure equity for all members of the school
community.(P-Std. 4)
The program provided an opportunity to examine the principles of democratic
education from a historical and policy perspective.(P-Std. 5)
Courses provided multiple opportunities to learn, practice, and reflect on the role
of instructional leaders.(P-Std. 6)
The program provided feedback on performance through formative and
summative assessments.(C-Std. 9)
The program helped me learn how to promote the success of all students at my
school through the development of a shared vision of learning.(C-Std. 10)
The program helped me learn how to promote the success of all students at my
school through advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school cultural conducive
to student learning.(C-Std. 11)
The program helped me learn how to promote the success of all students at my
school by ensuring a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment.(C-Std.
12)
The program helped me learn how to promote the success of all students
through working with diverse families and communities.(C-Std. 13)
The program helped me learn how to promote the success of all students by
developing personal ethics in a leadership capacity.(C-Std. 14)
The program helped me learn how to promote the success of all students by
understanding, responding to and influencing the larger political, social,
economic, legal, and cultural context.(C-Std. 15)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%
90%
90%
100%
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
III.
Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
1. The data from three key assessments (mid-program evaluation, field evaluation and portfolio
evaluation) show good to excellent performance by all candidates on all assessments. Midprogram key assessment mean is 2.8 out of 4. Field Evaluation means for both 09-10 and 10-11
are 3.6. Portfolio mean scores are 3.2 out of 4 for 2009-2010 and slightly lower at 2.9 for 20102011. However, while candidates receive written feedback, the single 4-level score tells us little
about candidate performance on specific CPSEL standards and program competencies. This
issue will be addressed in the subsequent Action Plan. A revised mid-program evaluation tool
will be implemented fall 2011.
2. The finisher survey is now aligned to program outcomes, CPSELS, and CCTC standards and is
now collected electronically and reported in that manner. Results of that survey show that
candidates agreed or strongly disagreed with most items. For example, 90-100% of candidates
agreed or strongly agreed that “The vision of the program was clearly articulated and shapes its
design and delivery” (90%), “The quality of teaching was outstanding”(100%), and the “courses
provided multiple opportunities to learn, practice, and reflect on the role of instructional leaders
(100%). Lowest scores of satisfaction fell within the area of feedback, both in the area of
performance (50%) and useful feedback on activities for professional growth (70%), and the
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 54
quality of fieldwork/clinical experiences (60%). These growth areas will become goals in the
subsequent Action Plan.
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
PART IV: Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program
Performance
Since the last submission, faculty have made changes to improve data collection and
address goals. An exit survey aligned to CPSELs and standards is now administered to
program finishers. A rubric aligned to the five leadership strands of the program and the
CPSELs and standards has been developed and will be implemented in fall 2011 for the
mid-program review. For mid program and for end of program reviews, the feedback
panel now consists of both university faculty and CSU, Chico Ed Leadership program
graduates who currently hold positions in school or district level and county office of
education in the region. In order to enhance learning in diversity, candidates have been
provided the opportunity to attend two “Diversity Field Trips” to the Butte County Court
school. Additionally, a “Field Trip” in class took place this summer in EDAD 615. A
panel from local tribes provided a presentation to Candidates followed by an intense 3
hour group discussion. Prior to each Diversity field trip, candidates identified their own
assumptions and espoused theories of action about the learning potential of courts school
or Native students. Following the experience, candidates reflected on and revised their
espoused theories and discussed ways to integrate their new perspectives into school
leadership roles.
Analysis of data, particularly from the exit survey, has yielded several areas for further study and
the following plans for improvement:
Goal 1: Improve feedback to candidates, both in the area of performance and useful
feedback on activities for professional growth
Data Source
Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made
Applicable
Program or
 Attend training on new grading feature of
Common
Finisher Survey
BlackBoard Learn gradebook to provide ongoing
Standard(s)
electronic grading
(C-Std. 6)
 Incorporate Zotero research tool for use in all
(C-Std. 8)
program courses
 Expose program faculty to contents of the
program’s professional and technical research
writing course to Ensure that candidates’
professional writing experiences become part of all
courses
 Incorporate professional growth components into
coursework, such as advising sessions and resume
workshops into program courses
 Upload online handbook and portfolio template
 Set regular advising meetings with graduate coordinator
 Incorporate all graduate dates and responsibilities into
course syllabi
Goal 2: Strengthen fieldwork/clinical experiences
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 55

Finisher Survey


Sequence and coordinate collaboratively with school
districts and university program personnel.
(C-Std. 7)
Continue to hold mentor meetings and provide for
ongoing opportunities for mentors and candidates to
collaborate during coursework (EDAD 612)
Enhance learning in diversity by providing additional
and expanded opportunities to attend “Diversity
Field Trips”
PUPIL PERSONAL SERVICES: SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY
CREDENTIAL PROGRAM
Program Contacts: Dr. Leesa Huang
530-898-5164
lvhuang@csuchico.edu
Dr. James Wolfe
(530)898-4093
jwolfe@csuchico.edu
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I.
Contextual Information
The School Psychology/PPS program at California State University, Chico is based on a
philosophy of preparation derived from a model which combines systems theory with a
preventive approach to service delivery. This model combines three levels of service delivery,
consisting of primary prevention, secondary intervention, and tertiary intervention, with five
systemic levels, ranging from specific individuals to the community at large. The PPS program is
based on the belief that pupil personnel services should be proactive and prevention-oriented in
order to reduce the potential for academic, emotional, and social problems of children and
adolescents.
The PPS program is composed of a logical sequence of coursework and field experience,
closely supervised by faculty whose primary professional identification and training is in the field
of school psychology. A knowledge base in the psychological foundations of school psychology
is provided through graduate coursework in developmental psychology, human learning, and
research and statistical methods. A three-course sequence in professional service delivery
covers a variety of topics including basic professional roles and standards, preventive programs,
exceptionalities, biological and educational foundations for school psychology, legal codes and
ethical decision-making. Strands of coursework provide substantial supervised practice in the
professional skills of counseling, assessment and consultation. In practica and internship, skills
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 56
and knowledge are applied, practiced and polished. The emphasis is on instruction that forms a
cohesive program rather than a collection of individual courses. Instruction is sequenced so that
students will matriculate effectively from one experience to another, and receive intensive
supervision and feedback in all applied work.
The total program consists of 68-71units and three years of training, with courses providing the
knowledge base placed early in the program; nevertheless, more than half the coursework
during the first two years involves practical experience. The master schedule of required
courses is provided below.
Fall, Year 1
PSYC 605 Advanced Human Learning
PSYC 573 Counseling Psychology
PSYC 680 School Psychology: Introduction to the Profession, the Education System, and
Prevention
PSYC 600 Research and Evaluation Methods
Spring, Year 1
PSYC 681 School Psychology: Study of Childhood Exceptionalities
PSYC 660 Instructionally Focused Assessment in the Schools
PSYC 670 Seminar in Group Counseling
PSYC 673A Practicum in Individual Counseling
Fall, Year 2
PSYC 661 Assessment of Intelligence and Cognition
PSYC 661P Practicum in Assessment of Intelligence and Cognition
PSYC 672 Cross Cultural Issues in Counseling and Research
PSYC 634 Practicum in School Counseling Interventions
PSYC 636 Practicum in Behavioral Consultation in Schools
Spring, Year 2
PSYC 603 Advanced Developmental Psychology
PSYC 662 Social and Emotional Assessment
PSYC 662P Practicum in Social and Emotional Assessment
PSYC 682 School Psychology: Legal and Ethical Principles and Preventive Service Delivery
PSYC 688 Practicum in School Psychology
Fall, Year 3
PSYC 663 Advanced Supervision in Psychological Assessment
PSYC 639 Practicum in Academic Intervention
PSYC 689A Internship in School Psychology I
* PSYC 699T Master’s Thesis
Spring, Year 3
PSYC 689B Internship in School Psychology II (4 days a week)
* PSYC 699T Master’s Thesis OR
* PSYC 696 School Psychology: Comprehensive Exam
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 57
Skill building begins in the first semester with an introductory counseling class followed by group
counseling and individual practica in the spring. This provides a base for child counseling and
assessment activities in the spring. During the second year, students serve in a school
placement two days per week, with extensive supervision through practica in behavioral
consultation, and school interventions. Their awareness and practice are enhanced by a
seminar in cross-cultural counseling in the fall. During the following semester, they continue
their two days per week assignment during their practicum in school psychology where they
continue to engage in a wide array of activities including consultation, counseling and
assessment. Similarly, refinement of advanced skills in assessment and instructional
intervention are supported by practica during the first semester of the school psychology
internship in the third year. These practica build on previous seminars and minor practica in
assessment and report writing and consultation skills learned the previous year. Primary
prevention and interdisciplinary collaboration occur as themes throughout the training sequence,
but are central to the professional services courses. Students are more formally introduced to
the area of special education, the special education referral process, and high and low
incidence handicapping conditions in the course on childhood exceptionalities. Program
evaluation and research skills begin with a graduate course in research methods and statistics,
followed by applications of program evaluation skills in other courses. As a culminating program
activity, students have the option of taking a comprehensive exam or completing a master’s
thesis. Each course is master scheduled to effectively track students throughout the training
sequence.
Each required course has assigned standards or competencies, guiding instruction and used to
determine the student’s satisfactory performance. Student performance on these competencies
is examined particularly closely in the applied coursework, so that we are assured that our
trainees are providing effective professional services and have the necessary skills to receive a
credential. No credential is recommended for any student until all competencies in all required
courses have been met.
Program Specific Candidate Information
Academic Year
2009-2010
2010-2011
Number of
Candidates
23
22
Number of
Completers/Graduates
11
7
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 58
V.
Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
Part A: Primary Candidate Assessments
Data collected during 2009-2011 comes from the following Key Assessments:
Key Assessment #1: School Psychology Practicum Field Site Evaluations (PSY 688)
Key Assessment #2: School Psychology Internship Field Site Evaluations (PSY 689B)
Key Assessment #3: Culminating Activity: Comprehensive Exam (PSY 696) or Thesis (PSY
699T)
Key Assessment #4: National School Psychology Exam (Praxis II)
School Psychology Practicum Field Site Evaluations (PSY 688)
In the second year of the program, students are assigned to a school or schools for two
days/week. In the fall of that year, students provide group and individual counseling, classroom
skill development units, and behavioral consultation to students and teachers. During this time
they are supervised by a credentialed school psychologist on site and also receive support and
supervision on campus from their instructors in PSYC 634 (School Counseling and
Interventions) and PSYC 636 (Behavioral Consultation). In the spring of year 2, students
continue to work in the schools during their School Psychology Practicum (PSYC 688), but
broaden their roles to include more activities related to school psychology service delivery. They
are again supervised by credentialed school psychologists on site and attend a three-hour
seminar on campus once weekly where, together with school psychology internship students,
they discuss cases, share experiences, present on various topics, and offer support to one
another. As one way to monitor student progress and to evaluate the professional skills,
knowledge, dispositions and professional work characteristics of each candidate, the Field
Supervisor Rating for School Psychology Practicum students is completed by each candidate’s
field-site supervisor.
The table below provides aggregated data on the field supervisor ratings for school psychology
practicum students for spring 2010 and 2011 cohorts. The mean ratings for school psychology
practicum students in each area and the overall ratings indicate that, as judged by their
supervisors, the competency of the practicum students has been at or approaching an
independent level by the end of the spring semester. The overall ratings are 3.87 and 3.36, for
the 2010 and 2011 years, respectively, indicating that both cohorts, as groups, were performing
their duties very effectively.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 59
School Psychology Practicum - PSYC 688
Mean Rating
Spring
2010
(n = 7)
Spring
2011
(n = 6)
1. Personal and Professional Qualities
3.83
3.46
2. Communication/Rapport
3.38
3.27
3. Consultation (both formal & informal)
3.21
3.37
4. Counseling
3.87
3.69
5. Assessment
2.91
3.14
6. Intervention/In-service
3.82
3.32
7. Program Development/ Skill Development Units
3.73
3.33
8. Ethical Practices
3.88
3.81
9. Overall Rating of Practicum Student
3.24
3.36
Domain
Number:
1 – Competence is currently limited. Close supervision and instruction are required.
2 – Competence is progressing satisfactorily. Moderate supervision and more experience is
required.
3 – Competence is approaching an independent level. Little supervision is required.
4 – Competence is very well developed and reflects a capacity for independent functioning
with little or no supervision required.
ND – No data or insufficient information is available to make a rating at this time.
School Psychology Internship Field Site Evaluations (PSY 689B)
The next table summarizes data on the second key assessment - field-site supervisor ratings of
students near completion of internship (PSYC 689B). A similar rating form to that noted above,
but more specific to the internship, is used by supervisors in conjunction with 689B
competencies to rate students. Both rating form and competencies are included with the
syllabus for PSYC 689B. Students are rated on a scale from 1 to 4 on various elements of 11
different domains including an “overall” performance rating. Ratings on all of the elements from
each domain are then averaged, and a mean score for the entire cohort on each domain is
derived. The mean “overall” performance rating was 3.47 with a range of ratings of 3.33 to 3.82
among the 11 domains for the 2010 cohort and 3.89 with a range of ratings of 3.99 to 4.00
among the 11 domains for the 2011 cohort. Again, there was little variance among the domains
assessed and no areas of significant concern reflected in the data.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 60
School Psychology Internship II - PSYC 689B
Mean Rating
Spring
2010
(n = 11)
Spring
2011
(n = 7)
1. Personal and Professional Qualities
3.71
3.94
2. Communication/Rapport
3.63
3.95
3. Evaluation/Assessment
3.59
3.98
4. Consultation
3.33
3.93
5. Counseling
3.76
4.00
6. Intervention
3.64
3.98
7. Ethical Practices
3.82
4.00
8. Presentation of Skill Development Units
3.65
3.89
9. Community Collaboration
3.81
3.88
10. In-service Training
3.58
4.00
11. Overall Rating of Intern
3.47
3.89
Domain
Number:
1 – Competence is currently limited. Close supervision and instruction are required.
2 – Competence is progressing satisfactorily. Moderate supervision and more experience is
required.
3 – Competence is approaching an independent level. Little supervision is required.
4 – Competence is very well developed and reflects a capacity for independent functioning
with little or no supervision required.
ND – No data or insufficient information is available to make a rating at this time.
Culminating Activity – Comprehensive Exam (PSY 696) or Thesis (PSY 699T)
The third key program assessment is performance on a culminating activity – either the
comprehensive exam (PSYC 696) or thesis (PSYC 699T) to be completed in the spring
semester of the third year. Ten of eleven candidates in the 2010 graduating cohort elected to
take the comprehensive exam while one student successfully completed and defended a thesis.
All students in the 2011 cohort took the exam.
Results of student performance on the comprehensive exam are summarized below. Five
questions covering acquired and applied knowledge of the profession as well as individual case
studies were asked of students. Two instructors, who rated responses as “unacceptable,”
“acceptable” or “superior” following a specific rubric, independently scored each response.
Students needed to pass four of five questions with a rating of “acceptable” or above in order to
pass the written portion of the exam. The mean number of questions passed by the students
was 4.80 of 5 for the 2010 cohort and 4.71 for the 2011 cohort. The mean number of “superior”
ratings for students was 4.60 and 3.71 out of 10 (5 questions X 2 evaluators), for the 2010 and
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 61
2011 cohorts respectively. A range of “superior” ratings from 0 to 10 per individual student in the
2010 cohort and from 2 to 7 per individual student in the 2011 cohort suggests a fair amount of
variability among students with respect to the quality of their responses. Students who correctly
completed 4 of 5 questions were further required to clarify their response to the incorrect
question during the oral portion of the exam. All students in both cohorts went on to pass the
exam.
Spring
2010
Spring
2011
10
7
Mean number of questions passed
(out of 5)
4.80
4.71
Mean number of superior ratings
(out of 10)
4.60
3.71
Range
0–10
2-7
Number of students passed exam
10/10
7/7
Number of students successfully
completing and defending thesis
1/1
0/0
Course
Criteria
PSYC 696 –
School
Psychology
Comprehensive
Exam
Number of students
PSYC 699T –
Thesis
National School Psychology Exam (Praxis II)
Students in the state of California do not have a state credentialing exam and are not required
to take the national credentialing exam in order to receive their Pupil Personnel Services
credential in School Psychology. In the past, although we have encouraged our students to take
the national exam (PRAXIS II), and many have, we have not required it as a part of program
completion until spring, 2007. Below are listed domains of practice assessed by the PRAXI II
and aggregated data from our 2010 and 2011 graduating cohorts. All students from both cohorts
passed the exam. A passing score for both cohorts was 165. The mean scores were 177 and
176, for cohorts 2010 and 2011, respectively.
Domains of Practice assessed by PRAXIS II
1.
Data-Based Decision Making
2.
Research-Based Academic Practices
3.
Research-Based Behavioral and Mental Health Practices
4.
Consultation and Collaboration
5.
Applied Psychological Foundation
6.
Ethical/Legal and Professional Foundations
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 62
National School Psychology Credentialing Exam (PRAXIS II)
Spring 2010
Spring 2011
N
11
7
% Passed
100
100
Passing
Score
165
165
177 (± 4.71)
176 (± 1.98)
171 – 186
174 – 179
Mean (SD)
Range
Part B: Additional Information/Assessments
Data collected during 2009-2011 comes from the following Additional Assessments:
Assessment #5: School Psychology Committee Evaluation of Practicum Students
Assessment #6: School Psychology Committee Evaluation of Internship Students
Assessment #7: Portfolio Assessment
Assessment #8: Exit Interviews
School Psychology Committee Evaluation of Practicum Students
At the end of their school psychology practicum (PSYC 688), in the spring of year two of the
program, candidates are evaluated by the School Psychology/PPS subcommittee made up of
five professors who teach in the school psychology program. The committee considers field-site
supervisor evaluation of candidates, both verbal and written (mean field-site ratings were for
areas directly assessed by supervisors in the field ranged from 1 indicating limited competence
to 4 denoting near or at independence); course grades; progress on competencies/objectives;
candidate logs; observations and personal interviews in their ratings of candidates. All elements
of Standards One and Four as well as those of the Conceptual Framework with the exception of
“Civic Engagement” are addressed at this time
The results of the School Psychology/PPS committee evaluation of the spring, 2010 and spring,
2011 practicum students are summarized below. A rating of “Acceptable” or higher is
considered to be passing. All seven students in the 2010 cohort successfully completed their
practicum with three students demonstrating acceptable overall development and four
demonstrating a level of competence either approaching or at independence. All six students in
the 2011 cohort successfully completed their practicum. As can be seen, both sets of practicum
students were rated as progressing nicely with respect to their professional development.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 63
School Psychology Practicum – PSYC 688
Spring 2010
(n = 7)
Domains
LD
AD
AT
TA
Professional knowledge base
2
1
4
Personal & professional
qualities
1
2
4
Communication/rapport
2
3
2
Behavioral consultation &
intervention
2
2
Counseling & wellness
promotion
2
Evaluation/assessment
Spring 2011
(n = 6)
AD
AT
TA
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
1
4
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
2
Program development
1
3
3
3
3
Appreciation of and
experience with diverse
populations
2
3
2
3
3
Ethical practices
2
5
Effective use of research and
technology
3
4
Overall rating of practicum
student
3
4
Successful completion of
practicum
7
ND
LD
1
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
ND
6
Key:
Competence is limited. Additional instruction and/or
supervision is still required.
Competence is progressing satisfactorily. Some fineAcceptable Development (AD) –
tuning of knowledge base or skill development is
recommended.
Competence is approaching an independent
Approaching Target Development (AT) –
level.
Competence is at an independent level. Little
Target Development Achieved (TA) –
supervision is required.
No data or insufficient information is available to rate candidate at this
No Data (ND) –
time.
Limited Development (LD) –
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 64
School Psychology Committee Evaluation of Internship Students
Candidates are again evaluated by the School Psychology/PPS subcommittee at the completion
of their internship (PSYC 689B), in the spring of their third year of the program. School
Psychology/PPS committee evaluations of both 2010 and 2011 cohorts are presented below.
Together with field-site supervisor evaluation of candidates during semester two of their
internship (mean field-site ratings were for areas directly assessed by supervisors in the field
ranged from 1 indicating limited competence to 4 denoting near or at independence) and other
data including course grades, progress on competencies/objectives, performance on
culminating activity, candidate logs, observations and personal interviews with candidates are
used to determine whether candidates have met all program competencies and will be
recommended for a credential. In order to be recommended students must receive an overall
committee rating of “acceptable” or higher. The table below indicates that all students in both
cohorts were recommended for a credential. All candidates in the 2010 cohort were performing
at an acceptable level or better with eight of the eleven students at or approaching an
independent level. All candidates in the 2011 cohort also were performing at an acceptable level
or better with six of the seven at or approaching an independent level.
School Psychology Internship II – 689B
Spring 2010
(n = 11)
Domains
LD
AD
AT
TA
Professional knowledge base
2
3
Personal & professional
qualities
3
Communication/rapport
2
Spring 2011
(n = 7)
AT
TA
6
1
6
2
6
1
6
2
7
Instructional consultation &
intervention
4
7
Behavioral consultation &
intervention
5
6
3
7
7
2
9
7
3
2
4
1
6
4
1
6
1
6
Appreciation of and
experience with diverse
populations
4
7
2
5
Ethical practices
2
9
7
Effective use of research and
technology
2
9
7
Home/school/community
collaboration
1
Counseling & wellness
promotion
Evaluation/assessment
Program development
2
ND
LD
AD
ND
7
1
2
4
1
4
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 65
Culminating activity
3
4
4
Overall rating of intern
1
1
8
Successful completion of
practicum
11
7
1
6
7
Key:
Competence is limited. Additional instruction and/or
supervision is still required.
Competence is progressing satisfactorily. Some fineAcceptable Development (AD) –
tuning of knowledge base or skill development is
recommended.
Competence is approaching an independent
Approaching Target Development (AT) –
level.
Competence is at an independent level. Little
Target Development Achieved (TA) –
supervision is required.
No data or insufficient information is available to rate candidate at this
No Data (ND) –
time.
Limited Development (LD) –
Portfolio Assessment
During the course of their program, students complete numerous projects, case studies, papers
and other assignments; however, they are typically only evaluated by the instructor/s for the
course in which they are required. Providing an organized portfolio of work samples to the
School Psychology/PPS Committee at points in the second and third year of the program adds
another source of information by which the entire committee can judge student progress and
provide student feedback. The School Psychology Committee began the implementation of this
requirement beginning in spring, 2007. Students are provided a list of assignments to submit,
and they are to include a reflection paper on how these assignments have contributed to their
professional development. Below is a list of the various projects, assignments, etc. included in
the portfolio.
Portfolio - Due Spring of Year Two
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Research paper on behavioral intervention or PowerPoint lecture on theories related to
classroom learning (PSYC 605).
Research paper on school psychology service delivery model (PSYC 680).
Presentation outline/PowerPoint on area of childhood exceptionalities (PSYC 681).
Individual counseling case study (edited; PSYC 673A)
Educational test review paper (PSYC 660).
Self-evaluation/video critique on intelligence test administration (PSYC 661P).
Final section of culture identification workbook (edited; PSYC 672).
Two group counseling summary papers (edited; PSYC 634).
PowerPoint presentation on behavioral consultation case study (PSYC 636).
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 66
Portfolio - Due Spring of Year Three
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Research paper on area of developmental psychology (PSYC 603).
Research paper presentation/PowerPoint on review of socio-emotional assessment
measure (PSYC 662P).
Research paper on school district prevention program (PSYC 682).
Paper/PowerPoint presentation on teacher/staff in-service presentation (PSYC 688).
Final psychoeducational case study and psychological report (PSYC 663).
PowerPoint presentation from instructional consultation case study (PSYC 639).
Paper/PowerPoint from community collaboration project (PSYC 689B).
Exit Interviews
In order to assess student satisfaction and in an effort to measure their perceived level of
preparation at the completion of their program, all 2010 and 2011 graduates were asked to
complete a program exit survey. The results from this survey are presented below and suggest
that students, as a group, felt prepared upon completion of their program in all areas and well
prepared in most. There were a few areas such as exposure to diverse populations (largely a
reflection of the demographics of the practicum and internship sites which are located largely in
rural northern California), and program development that may require further attention and we
will continue to monitor satisfaction in these and all other areas with future surveys.
Mean Rating
Spring
2010
(n = 11)
Spring
2011
(n = 7)
1. Professional Knowledge Base
2.70
2.83
2. Consultation and Collaboration
2.50
2.50
3. Evaluation/Assessment
2.85
3.00
4. Intervention and Wellness Promotion
2.15
2.65
5. Ethics and Legal Issues
2.40
2.14
6. Working with Diverse Populations
2.25
2.14
7. Program Development
2.10
2.43
8. Knowledge of Exceptionalities
2.60
2.86
9. Practicum Experience
2.50
2.57
10. Internship Experience
2.85
2.86
11. Value of Culminating Activity
2.60
2.93
2.65
2.86
Domain
(Circle one: 2 thesis 4 exam)
13. Overall Rating of Program
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 67
Exit Survey Key
1 – Minimally prepared
2 – Prepared
3 – Well Prepared
III.
Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
The data presented above are quite positive with respect to how both university instructors and
field-site supervisors view student competence along the various professional and dispositional
domains assessed at various points in the program. Students appear to be well prepared not
only in the content areas covered through the coursework but also in the application of that
knowledge in the field. Overall satisfaction of the field site supervisors with practicum and
internship students in both 2010 and 2011 cohorts appears to be high. Students were closely
monitored with respect to successful demonstration of a variety of competencies and most were
judged to meet levels of skill development at or, in most cases, exceeding acceptable levels. All
students in both cohorts performed well on their culminating projects whether it was the
comprehensive exams or thesis. The one student in the 2010 cohort who elected to write the
thesis successfully completed and defended it. The remaining ten students in this cohort passed
their comprehensive exams, as did the entire 2011 cohort.
Having discovered little in the data obtained prior to the last CTC visit in 2007 to direct future
program improvements, the School Psychology/PPS program decided that perhaps other
means of assessing student knowledge and skills could help in providing a more comprehensive
and balanced means to evaluate program effectiveness. The program committee therefore
agreed to use two other means of assessing student performance, one of which was the
successful completion of the national school psychology credentialing exam (the other was
completion of a portfolio in the spring of their second and third year). For students, their passing
this exam is now the final step in their being recommended for the California PPS credential in
school psychology. It also is their final step in being granted status as a Nationally Credentialed
School Psychologist (NCSP), with the prestige and career flexibility that entails. For the School
Psychology/PPS program, it offers a valuable tool in determining how students compare
nationwide to other graduating school psychology students as well as practicing school
psychologists who have national credentialing status. It speaks well of both the students and
program that all students in the 2010 and 2011 cohorts passed the National School Psychology
Exam on their first attempt.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 68
Course Master Schedule
The following courses are required for those pursuing the School Psychology credential.
Fall, Year 1
PSYC 605 Advanced Human Learning
PSYC 573 Counseling Psychology
PSYC 680 School Psychology: Introduction to the Profession, the Education System, and
Prevention
PSYC 600 Research and Evaluation Methods
Spring, Year 1
PSYC 681 School Psychology: Study of Childhood Exceptionalities
PSYC 660 Instructionally Focused Assessment in the Schools
PSYC 670 Seminar in Group Counseling
PSYC 673A Practicum in Individual Counseling
Fall, Year 2
PSYC 661 Assessment of Intelligence and Cognition
PSYC 661P Practicum in Assessment of Intelligence and Cognition
PSYC 672 Cross Cultural Issues in Counseling and Research
PSYC 634 Practicum in School Counseling Interventions
PSYC 636 Practicum in Behavioral Consultation in Schools
Spring, Year 2
PSYC 603 Advanced Developmental Psychology
PSYC 662 Social and Emotional Assessment
PSYC 662P Practicum in Social and Emotional Assessment
PSYC 682 School Psychology: Legal and Ethical Principles and Preventive Service Delivery
PSYC 688 Practicum in School Psychology
Fall, Year 3
PSYC 663 Advanced Supervision in Psychological Assessment
PSYC 639 Practicum in Academic Intervention
PSYC 689A Internship in School Psychology I
* PSYC 699T Master’s Thesis
Spring, Year 3
PSYC 689B Internship in School Psychology II (4 days a week)
* PSYC 699T Master’s Thesis OR
* PSYC 696 School Psychology: Comprehensive Exam
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 69
Clinical Rehabilitative Services: Speech, Language and Hearing
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I – Contextual Information
Program Contacts: Dr. Suzanne Miller
530-898-5949
sbmiller@csuchico.edu
Dr. Susan Steffani
530-898-6838
ssteffani@csuchico.edu
Contextual Information
The ability to communicate effectively using language systems distinguishes human beings from
other forms of life. Disabilities that interfere with communication skills prohibit a large number
of people from realizing their full potential in modern society. Study in the fields of speechlanguage pathology and audiology prepares one to appreciate the impact of such impairments
and to assist individuals in overcoming them.
Students in the Communication Sciences and Disorders program take courses that address
normal human growth, development of the communicative processes, detailed consideration of
disorders that arise in these processes, and their assessment and treatment. Coursework is
supplemented by practica that give students first-hand experiences in dealing with disorders of
language, voice and resonance, phonology/articulation, fluency, hearing, swallowing, cognitive
and social aspects of communication, and problems that necessitate the use of oral, manual,
augmentative, and alternative communication techniques and technologies. These experiences
are carried out in the University's Center for Communication Sciences and Disorders and in offcampus internships.
The program maintains an on-campus clinic and a speech-language-hearing science laboratory.
Graduate students receive supervised practicum experience in prevention, evaluation and
treatment for persons across the life span who have a wide range of communicative disorders.
The clinic is equipped with audio and video monitored therapy rooms and observations facilities.
Master's degree recipients are eligible to receive the Speech-Language Pathology Service
Credential from the CA Commission on Teacher Credentialing. This credential authorizes the
holder to serve in the public schools as a Language, Speech, and Hearing Specialist. Graduates
are also qualified to apply for the Certificate of Clinical Competence in speech-language
pathology (SLP) from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), and the
license in SLP from the CA Board of Consumer Affairs.
Our PRAXIS passing rate for 2009-2010 was 100% and for 2010-11 it was 95%. Employment
rate for our Master's graduates for the past 2 years was 100%. The graduation rate among our
graduate students is approximately 95%.
This program conducts assessments to measure the following student learning outcomes related
to the California standards:
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 70
1. Demonstrate knowledge of basic human communication and swallowing
processes, including their biological, neurological, acoustic, psychological,
developmental, and linguistic and cultural bases.
2. Demonstrate knowledge of the nature of speech, language, hearing, and
communication disorders and differences and swallowing disorders, including
their etiologies, characteristics, anatomical/physiological, acoustic, psychological,
developmental, and linguistic and cultural correlates.
3. Possess knowledge of the principles and methods of prevention, assessment, and
intervention for people with communication and swallowing disorders, including
consideration of anatomical/physiological, acoustic, psychological,
developmental, and linguistic and cultural correlates.
4. Complete a program of student that includes supervised clinical experiences.
Academic Year
2009-2010
2010-2011
Program Specific Candidate Information
Number of Candidates
Number of
Completers/Graduates
15
14
21
21
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
II.
Candidate Assessment/Performance and
Program Effectiveness Information
Two formative and two summative assessments are conducted each year for our program as
follows:
Key Assessment #1: Comprehensive Examination – taken before spring of the 2nd year.
Comprehensives consist of 6 questions written over two days. Each faculty member writes and
scores 1-2 questions. Questions cover the 9 areas of learning required by our accrediting body.
Scoring is as follows:
 3.7 = Outstanding
 3.69 - 2.1 - Acceptable
 2.0 or below - Unacceptable
Key Assessment #2: PRAXIS – the national standardized examination for all CMSD students.
Students cannot receive certification unless they pass this test. The national passage rate for this
test hovers around 75%.
 700+ = Outstanding
 600-699 = Acceptable
 Below 600 = Unacceptable
Key Assessment #3: Clinic Assessment – an assessment form for clinical performance. The
assessment was developed by faculty and clinical staff. It consists of a 1-5 rating of 28 clinical
skills. The assessment is conducted at the end of each of three internships completed during the
2nd year and the end of on-campus clinical practicum for 1st year graduate students.
 Average of 4.5 - 5= Outstanding
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 71


Average of 3.0 – 4.5 = Acceptable
Average 2.9 or below= Unacceptable
Key Assessment #4: Performance Review – students compile a portfolio. Information is added
each semester. We review the portfolios periodically throughout the 2 year program. We
provide a rating to the students as follows:
 1 = Outstanding
 2 = Acceptable
 3 = Unacceptable
Student Learning
Outcome
Measure
Percent of Students Achieving
2009-10
n=14
14%=outstanding;
86%=acceptable
Assessment #3 – 1st years Clinical Practicum
(SLO 4)
Evaluations
n=40
5%=outstanding
95%=acceptable
2010-11
n=21
0%=outstanding;
95%=acceptable
5%=unacceptable
n=20
35%=outstanding
60%=acceptable
5%=unacceptable
n=58
86%=outstanding
12%=acceptable
1%=unacceptable
n=45
69%=outstanding
31%=acceptable
Assessment #4 – 2nd
years (SLOs 1, 2, 3, 4)
Performance
Reviews
n=14
0%=outstanding
100%=acceptable
n=21
29%=outstanding
71%=acceptable
Assessment #4 – 1st years Performance
(SLOs 1, 2, 3, 4)
Reviews
n=19
10%=outstanding
85%=acceptable
5%=unacceptable
n=21
9%=outstanding
91%=acceptable
Assessment #1 (SLOs 1,
2, 3, 4
Comprehensive
Exams
Assessment #2 (SLOs 1,
2, 3, 4
PRAXIS
n=14
29%=outstanding
71%=acceptable
Assessment #3 – 2nd
years (SLO 4)
Internship
Evaluations
n=30
62%=outstanding
38%=acceptable
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
III.
Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
2009-10:
2nd years
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 72
1. Students performed satisfactorily on comprehensive examinations. No questions
were failed; hence, no students failed comprehensives.
2. Students performed extremely well on the PRAXIS. We made changes to our
program in the previous years in order to improve performance that had slipped to
the national average. We had 100% passage this year (national average
approximately 86%) and have maintained a 98% passage rate in the past 3 years.
We feel confident that this indicates that students are learning well. Curriculum is
appropriate and information in individual classes is consistent with programs
nationally.
3. Students also performed well in internship placements. In fact, 8 students
received perfect 5.0 evaluations by supervisors.
4. The performance review revealed acceptable ratings for all students. Faculty
unanimously agreed that there were not any students that were truly outstanding;
however, all students successfully completed all program requirements.
st
1 years
1. Students are in their first experiences of clinic; therefore, it is expected that
there would be few students in the outstanding area. All students that were
evaluated were in the acceptable range. We encouraged supervisors to be very
specific in evaluating student performance and to not be too lenient in grading.
This was clearly done particularly in the fall as student numbers were lower
than they have been in the past. Still, all students performed adequately.
2. We had 2 students in the outstanding range with all but one other in the
acceptable range. The one student in the unacceptable range has been discussed
by the faculty and feedback has been given to the student regarding areas that
need improvement
2010-11
2nd years
1. Students performed satisfactorily on comprehensive examinations. No student
was in the outstanding range. We had one student that failed 2 questions and
passed 4. This student did not provide sufficient information in her answers to get
a passing grade. The student has since re-taken these 2 questions (in summer) and
passed without a problem. The recently instituted scoring system continues to be
working well. More specific definitions for each score were developed this year
to increase consistency and ease of scoring.
2. Students performed well on the PRAXIS. We have exceeded the national average
passage rate of 86%. All but 2 students scores within one standard deviation of
the mean for the national performance (M=668; SD=67). One student scored
above one standard deviation. One student failed with a score of 570 (600 is
passing). This student will re-take the exam. Because the exam has 7 sections,
we decided to do a more in-depth analysis of the areas to see if there were areas
that were of concern and found the following results:
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 73
Area
Basic Human
Communication Process
Phonological and
Language Disorders
Speech Disorders
Neurogenic Disorders
Audiology/Hearing
Clinical Management
Professional Issues/
Psychometrics/Research
Average score
2009-10
54%
Average Score
2010-11
68%
89%
75%
74%
63%
83%
64%
75%
67%
62%
79%
63%
71%
The three areas that were the lowest were Basic Human Communication Process,
Neurogenic Disorder, and Clinical Management. We will be discussing these
areas as a faculty to determine what, if any, changes should be made to the
curriculum.
3. Overall, students performed well in internship placements. One student received
an unacceptable score of 2.68. This is the same student that failed 2
comprehensive questions. She had some significant emotional issues during her
time as a graduate student which was evident in her difficulties in school.
4. The performance review revealed acceptable ratings for most students with a few
students determined to be outstanding based on overall performance in
clinic/internships and classes. All students have completed and passed all aspects
of the program.
1st years
1. Overall, students showed graduate progress in scores from fall to spring
semesters in clinic. All students performed at least in the acceptable range. We
will begin grading clinic during the 2011-12 school year. Therefore, a few
changes to the Supervisor Evaluation of Student form were made. There were
also a few problems with getting supervisors to submit the evaluation forms in a
timely manner so that scores could be assessed. This has been discussed with
the faculty.
2. We had 2 students in the outstanding range with all others in the acceptable
range. Students are moving through the program well and are completing all
requirements successfully.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 74
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
IV.
Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and
Program Performance
2009-10:
1. We made changes during 2008-09 to our scoring of comprehensive exams;
therefore, the process was reviewed by all faculty in the program during the 200910 school year. It was unanimously decided that the new scoring process worked
well and should be continued. We did review our outstanding, acceptable, and
unacceptable ratings of Comprehensive Exams to determine score ranges. This
discussion resulted in the numbers provided above. We found that our
descriptions of each score (1-4) were not as detailed as they could be. Therefore,
we added language to increase specificity of descriptions. This was approved by
all faculty.
2. We continue to evaluate the best way to assess clinic and internship evaluations.
We feel comfortable with the current rubric used for assessment. However, this
included a section on “interpersonal skills” which routinely are graded as superior
for all students. This could possible skew results to higher numbers. We are in
discussion about whether to include these in final ratings.
2010-11:
1. We feel that we have made changes in the past that have developed a very strong
program. At this point, no curricular changes are planned. However, since we
looked at the specific scores on the sections of the PRAXIS, we do see that there
are a few areas that are consistently lower than others. We will review these and
determine what measures we should take to address these scores.
2. The 2011-12 academic year will be the first year of grading clinic. We wanted
an avenue of letting students know how well they are performing beyond the
credit/no credit grading. This allows us to adjust grading based on student ability
to complete all reports, lesson plans, and SOAP notes in a timely manner. Also,
to provide more specific feedback to students on how they are doing. This
grading system and rubric will be examined at the end of this year.
SECTION B
INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY AND PLAN OF ACTION
Since the last submission of our 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 Biennial report, we have made
important changes to the organizational structure of the School of Education and some of its
programs. One significant accomplishment has been the reorganization of the two departments,
the Department of Education and Professional Studies in Education, into a single-unit School of
Education. Since the previous reporting period, three inactive programs, Reading/Language
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 75
Arts Specialist, Library Media Teacher Services, and Early Childhood Certificate in Special
Education, have initiated the process of requesting formal withdrawal status.
The reorganization into a single-unit of education has allowed us to address other previously
mentioned challenges such as duplication of coursework and the administration and program
coordination costs, particularly in view of the need for budget reductions. The School of
Education continues to make advances with personnel changes that began in 2008 in
preparation for our reorganization. The assessment coordinator has made progress expanding
our use of the locally developed Student Tracking, Evaluation, and Portfolio System (STEPS)
for data collection and management. The credential analyst, now located in the School of
Education, has helped to improve candidate monitoring and reporting processes through
technological support for candidate monitoring, file management and credential
recommendation processes. Additionally, a centralized field placement director has been hired.
She is to be the university point-of-contact for all our partner schools and agencies in matters
related to fieldwork. This change has addressed our K-12 school partners’ previous concerns
about the coordination of student teacher placements between the two departments and the
need for more streamlined communication processes. A centralized pre-program advisor has
also been hired to help prospective teacher candidates best meet their career goals by
providing accurate and specific information about all programs in one easy-to-find location.
As this report illustrates, the new structure has also allowed us to continue to improve the ways
we collect and use our data for program improvement. Unlike our last submission, this 20092010 and 2010-2011 report reflects our more centralized approach by presenting one unified
action plan that includes broad, data-driven areas for improvement agreed upon by all initial
credential pathways. The reorganization has also allowed us to set new additional goals that will
allow us to create additional efficiencies.
While the data above indicate that, overall, our programs are doing a good job of preparing
candidates to meet standards and expectations, it continues to be the case that the data
collection, management process, and the manner in which some data is presented still needs
further refinement. Whereas the current report reflects some differences among the instruments
used by initial credential pathways within programs, one new goal for the next reporting period
will be to implement a universally agreed upon 4-point rating scale and rubric to measure
progress in the areas of disposition development and field experiences. The draft of these
instruments is currently under development. Several programs have set the goal to refine data
collecting instruments for their key assessments. For example, the Single Subject Program
currently uses a unit plan for its key assessment. The data is recorded as an aggregated
percentage mean score that allows for minimal interpretation. Therefore, faculty have revised
the rubric to include thirteen planning, instruction, and assessment items on a 4-point scale.
Similarly, the Educational Leadership and Preliminary Administrative Services Credential
Program has revised its open-ended mid-program evaluation feedback form to a multi-item
instrument that measures candidate growth in each of the program’s five identified leadership
strands. Both programs will begin data collection with the new instruments in 2011-2012 and
conduct supervisor trainings in use of new rubrics to insure inter-rater reliability.
CSU, Chico Biennial Report of 2009-10 and 2010-11 Data (submitted 9/15/11) 76