Assessment 5: Assessment that demonstrates candidate effect on
student learning: Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
1. A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program
Teacher candidates enrolled in SPED 752 Student teaching/Practicum Seminar present
IEP information on a real-life, but anonymous student to their classmates, and create an
IEP document for that student. After working with the youngster over the course of
about 12 weeks, the teacher candidate provides an oral and written report on progress
made toward the previously stated IEP goals.
2. A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards it is
cited for in Section III.
As indicated in Section III, this assignment addresses the CEC standards:
#2 (Development and characteristics of learners), #3 (Individual learning differences), #4
(Instructional strategies), #5 (Learning environments and social interactions), #7
(Instructional planning), #8 (Assessment), and #9 (Professional and ethical practice).
As the assessment tool describes, the assignment specifically aligns with the standards in
the following ways.
With regard to Standard #2 (Development and characteristics of learners) the
requirements of the written IEP document, the description student characteristics, and the
progress review student ensure that the candidate be accurate, sensitive and demonstrate
respect in one’s review of a student. Therefore, implementation of the IEP ensures that
candidates “use this knowledge to respond to the varying abilities and behaviors of
individual’s with ELN”.
With regard to Standard #3 (Individual Learning Differences), candidates must write their
IEP documents to reflect the “effects that an exceptional condition can have on learning”.
Classwide and instructor/candidate conversations ensure that the IEP documents reflect
“how primary language, culture, and familial backgrounds interact with the individual’s
exceptional condition”. The nature of the assignment requires that “special educators
individualize instruction”.
With regard to Standard #4, instructional strategies, candidates will be using “evidencedbased instructional strategies”. Given New York State’s requirement that special
education students be taught the general education curriculum, and many students require
additional instruction in specialized curricula (social skills, anger management, self
esteem, character education), the IEP assignment assures that candidates are promoting
“positive learning results in general and special curricula”.
Regarding Standard #5, Learning Environments and Social Interactions, the IEP
document identifies areas in need of improvement and strategies for teaching to those
weak areas, thus ensuring that our candidates “use direct motivational and instructional
interventions with individuals with ELN to teach them to respond effectively to current
expectations.”
Regarding Standard #7, Instructional Planning, the IEP document assignment, due to its
nature, require “long-range individualized instructional plans anchored in both general
and special curricula”, and translation of “these individualized plans into carefully
selected shorter-range goals and objectives”.
Regarding Standard #8, the nature of IEP document development requires that our
candidates include “multiple types of assessment information”, “use the results of
assessments to help identify exceptional learning needs and to develop and implement
individualized instructional programs, as well as to adjust instruction in response to
ongoing learning progress”, “use assessment information to identify supports and
adaptations required for individuals with ELN to access the general curriculum”, and
“regularly monitor the progress of individuals with ELN in general and special
curricula”.
Regarding Standard #9, Professional and Ethical Practice, our candidates, by following
the requirements of producing and implementing the IEP document assignment, are
“guided by the profession’s ethical and professional practice standards”.
3. A brief analysis of the data findings
The data in section 5c show student performance scores for two semesters. To meet the
new SPA reporting requirements, the faculty defined new key assessments in spring 2006
and were not able to collect data on these assessments until fall 2006. Overall, there were
scores for 22 candidates: 11 in fall 2006 and 12 in spring 2007. In total, 100% of the
candidates performed at or above standard, as evaluated by the rubric in 5b.
4. An interpretation of how that data provides evidence for meeting standards
It can be concluded that given the correspondence between the assignment and CEC
criteria for standards #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, and #9 and the candidate performance on the
assignment, that the data provide evidence for our BD program having met the standards.
5. Attachment of assessment documentation, including1
(a) the assessment tool or description of the assignment
Teacher candidates engage in a case history study of a particular student. This information
is presented to classmates (student remains anonymous to classmates). A written IEP
document is developed for that student. A second oral presentation is given in the final
weeks of the course. Teacher candidates report on their progress in addressing stated
objectives/goals in the IEP.
1
All three components of the assessment – as identified in 5a-c – must be attached, with the following
exceptions: (a) the assessment tool and scoring guide are not required for reporting state licensure data,
and (b) for some assessments, data may not yet be available.
(b) the scoring guide for the assessment
SPED 752:Student teaching and practicum
Case Study & IEP Assignment
Name:_____________________________
Semester & Year: Fall / Spring 200__
PAPER SUBUnacceptable
Marginal
Proficient
(F grade)
(C- to C+)
(B- to B+)
SECTION
ID of influences on
learning & socialemotional state
Information is
absent or
superficial.
ID of behaviors that
disrupt the teaching
& learning process
Information is
absent or
superficial.
Prior Education
History
Information is
absent or
superficial.
Preliminary Behavior
Management Plan
Information is
absent or
superficial.
Completion of IEP
document
Information in
most or all
sections is
absent or
superficial.
Oral Presentation of
Case Study
a. Interest level
among
audience
b. Content of
presentation
Presentation
needed to
become more
vivid and
attention
grabbing.
Vague & nondescriptive
Exemplary
(A- to A+)
Information is
adequate but
lacks detail and
support.
Information is
adequate but
lacks detail and
support.
Information is
adequate but
lacks detail &
support.
Information is
adequate but
lacks detail &
support.
Information in
some sections
lacks detail &
support.
Information is
descriptive &
detailed.
Information is highly
detailed & descriptive.
Information is
descriptive &
detailed.
Information is highly
detailed & descriptive.
Information is
descriptive &
detailed.
Information is highly
detailed & descriptive.
Information is
descriptive &
detailed.
Information is highly
detailed & descriptive.
Presentational
style was
adequate for the
purpose of
communication
of material.
Informative
Presentation
was
interesting to
the audience.
Presentation created a
high level of interest &
maintained audience
attention throughout.
Informative
with
supportive
details
Highly informative,
detailed, & descriptive
Information in Information in all
all or nearly
sections is highly
all sections is detailed & descriptive.
descriptive &
detailed.
c. Written Language
Writing Style
Writing style &
mechanics of
the written
documents are
not yet
acceptable for
graduate work
Writing style &
mechanics of
the written
documents are
adequate, but
need
improvement.
Writing style
& mechanics
are generally
correct.
The paper evidences a
high level of writing
ability.
SCORE: _____ of 100 points
(c) candidate data derived from the assessment
Key Assessment 5
Format of
Data
Semester
Candidate Performance Ratings
Below
Standard
Individual Education Plan
Number
Individual Education Plan
Individual Education Plan
Individual Education Plan
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Individual Education Plan
Number
Individual Education Plan
Percentage
Total
Number
Total
Percentage
Spring
2006
Spring
2006
Fall 2006
Fall 2006
Spring
2007
Spring
2007
Total
Semesters
Total
Semesters
At
Standard
Above
Standard
Grand
Total
0
0%
0%
6
55%
5
45%
11
100%
2
10
12
17%
83%
100%
8
15
23
35%
65%
100%