Download - At the end of the Clinical Experience 9.12.17... · Web viewPraxis data (Table 2) represent the total number of test takers for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. This includes all special

Nebraska Department of Education Rule 24 ReportSPECIAL EDUCATION, GRADES K-6

(Content Area)Educator Preparation Content Program Review

Name of institution University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Date Submitted 3.20.2017

Contact Person Thomas Wandzilak

Phone/Fax 402-472-8626

Email [email protected]

Folio type: X Regular Mini Advanced Program

Program(s) Covered by this FolioEndorsement(s) Type Grade Level Program Level

List Endorsements Subject K-6 BaccalaureateMaster’s

Special Education, Grades K-6

Is the endorsement offered at more than one site? Yes X NoIf yes, list additional sites where endorsement is offered:

Institution Accreditation Status: X National X State

Is this a Nationally Accredited Program? X Yes NoIf Yes, list Accrediting Organization: CAEP Attach National Letter to

Cover Sheet

Report to the Nebraska Department of EducationUniversity of Nebraska – Lincoln

Folio Initial Level -- June 2017

INTRODUCTION AND WELCOMEThe purpose of this section is to provide general background information on the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the College of Education and Human Sciences. In addition, information is provided on the teacher education program, admission and retention standards the field experiences in which student participate, and information on the key assessments used in Section 2 concerning data that h been collected in support of our programs.

Here is a list of websites that can provide some additional information on the university, the college, and our teacher education program:

http://www.unl.edu/This is the University of Nebraska-Lincoln website.

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/This is the link for the undergraduate bulletin.

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/college/Education+%26+Human+SciencesThis is the link for the College of Education and Human Sciences section in the Undergraduate Bulletin.

http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/bulletinThis is the link for the Graduate Bulletin.

http://cehs.unl.edu/The is the link for the website for the College of Education and Human Sciences

http://cehs.unl.edu/

http://www.unl.edu/gradstudies/bulletin

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/college/Education+%26+Human+Sciences

https://bulletin.unl.edu/undergraduate/

http://www.unl.edu/

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising/This is the link for our program sheets for all of the programs offered through the College of Education and Human Sciences. Program sheets will also be available for multiple years.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact Tom Wandzilak, Certification Officer, College of Education and Human Sciences at:

402-472-8626 or [email protected]

SECTION 1: CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION NARRATIVE

SECTION 1A: ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM/CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION

The link to the Rule 20 Folio is:http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

Mission Statement ion StatementThe University of Nebraska-Lincoln, chartered by the Legislature in 1869, is that part of the University of Nebraska system which serves as both the land-grant and the comprehensive public University for the State of Nebraska.

Through its three primary missions of teaching, research, and service, UNL is the state's primary intellectual center providing leadership throughout the state through quality education and the generation of new knowledge. UNL's graduates and its faculty and staff are major contributors to the economic and cultural development of the state. UNL attracts a high percentage of the most academically talented Nebraskans, and the graduates of the University form a significant portion of the business, cultural, and professional resources of the State. The quality of primary, secondary, and other post-secondary educational programs in the state depends in part on the resources of UNL for curricular development, teacher training, professional advancement, and enrichment activities involving the University's faculty, museums, galleries, libraries, and other facilities. UNL provides for the people of the state unique opportunities to fulfill

http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising/

their highest ambitions and aspirations, thereby helping the state retain its most talented youth, attract talented young people from elsewhere, and address the educational needs of the nontraditional learner.

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has been recognized by the Legislature as the primary research and doctoral degree granting institution in the state for fields outside the health professions. Through its service and outreach efforts the University extends its educational responsibilities directly to the people of Nebraska on a state-wide basis.

The College of Education and Human SciencesThe College of Education and Human Sciences was founded on August 18, 2004 by Teachers College and The College of Human Resources and Family Sciences with each founding college contributing extensive history and tradition. The College of Education and Human Sciences offers excellent educational advancement to both undergraduate and graduate students, serving approximately 2,800 undergraduates and 1,000 graduate students each year.

Education courses first became a part of the University curriculum in 1895 with the organization of a Department of Education designed to prepare students for teaching careers. On Valentine’s Day, 1908, the board of Regents established a Teachers College. Since that time, the College has been highly respected for its programs preparing teachers, administrators, and specialists for the education of children, youth, and adults. The quality of these programs is reflected in outstanding educational leadership in communities across the state and in the nation in teaching, administration, communication disorders, special education and educational psychology.

Teacher Education programs Teacher education programs are found in five departments in CEHS as well as in two other colleges on campus. The College of Fine and Performing Arts (CFPA) oversees Music Education while Agriculture Education, Horticulture Education and Industrial Technology are located in the College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. Even though these programs are housed outside of CEHS, they must comply with state rules and regulations tied to teacher education. The majority of the teacher education programs are located in the Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education (TLTE). There are currently 40 endorsement areas offered at the undergraduate and graduate levels through the University. Options exist for students to complete initial teacher certification and teaching endorsements at the undergraduate and graduate levels. All programs leading to an initial teaching certificate will also require the completion of an undergraduate or graduate degree. Individuals interested in adding one or more teaching endorsements may do so without pursuing a degree.

1B. STANDARDS OF ADMISSION, RETENTION, TRANSITION AND COMPLETION

Admission to the University of Nebraska-LincolnAdmission to the University is based on a student’s demonstrated academic preparation for University-level work (see Appendix -- Table 1). Admission standards to the University are established by the University of Nebraska Board of Regents and apply to all new, first time degree seeking students. This includes freshman as well as transfer students. The admission standards apply to general admission to the University as well as admission to the College of Education and Human Sciences.

Admission to the Teacher Education Program (TEP)Admission to the College of Education and Human Sciences does not guarantee admission to a teacher education program. Admission to the advanced phases of teacher education is selective and, in some endorsements, highly competitive. Selection to a TEP is based upon the following criteria:

1. Completion of at least 30 credit hours (Elementary Education) or 42 credit hours (Secondary Education) with a minimum 2.5 GPA.

2. Completion of TEAC 331 or 430 or 431 or 434 or 437 or 496 (3 hrs.) or approved course, and EDPS 250 or 251 with a 2.5 cumulative average in the two classes, no grade lower than a C.

3. Documentation of proficiency in reading, writing, and mathematics through successful completion of a basic skills examination that meets the Nebraska Department of Education competency requirement.

4. Completion of one course in communication studies selected from COMM 109, 205, 209, 210, or 341, or an approved substitute.

5. Faculty recommendations.6. Demonstration of attaining particular learning outcomes in the program.7. Completion of a personal and professional fitness self-disclosure form.

Admission to Student TeachingAll students who are candidates for an appropriately endorsed Nebraska Teacher’s certificate are required to student teach. Students who plan to student teach in the fall semester must complete the student teaching application form and

submit it by the preceding March 1 to the Director of Field Experiences in 104 Henzlik Hall; students planning to student teach in the spring semester must apply by the preceding October 1. The basic program for student teaching provides for a full-day experience on a semester basis. Students enrolled in an elementary education dual major will compete requirements for student teaching in both majors. Admission to student teaching requires the following:

1. Matriculation in a teacher education program in the College of Education and Human Sciences, the Graduate College, or dual matriculation in the College of Education and Human Sciences and another college.

2. Admission to a teacher education program.3. Senior standing (89 hours or more) with a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.75.4. Application for and completion of a senior check.5. Minimum average of 2.5 in each endorsement area (in the case of Middle Grades Endorsement, a 2.5 in each

academic area) with no grade below C.6. A minimum grade point average of 2.5 in pre-professional and professional education courses with no grade below

a C in pre-professional education courses and no grade below a C+ in professional education courses.7. Completion of a criminal history check that will be conducted by an independent party (lab fee required).

Retention1. Must maintain a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.752. Must maintain a minimum average of 2.5 in each endorsement area (in the case of Middle Grades Endorsement, a

2.5 in each academic area) with no grade below C3. Must maintain a minimum grade point average of 2.5 in pre-professional and professional education courses with

no grade below a C in pre-professional education courses and no grade below a C+ in professional education courses.

4. Must meet student teaching application deadlines5. Must meet criminal history requirements at all times.

Transition PointsA summary of the transition points can be found in the Appendix in Table 2.

Requirements to Complete the Teacher Education Program1. Successful completion of student teaching.

2. Successful completion of all remaining courses as identified in the senior check with grades meeting the minimum requirements as identified in the “Admission to Student Teaching” section as described above.

3. Satisfy any additional requirements as described under teacher education in the undergraduate bulletin.4. Address all financial obligations tied to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.5. Apply for the degree.

The Student Advising Sheet for the program(s) associated with this Folio can be found at:http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising

1C. FIELD EXPERIENCES

The link to the Rule 20 Folio is:http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

Field experience “courses” can be divided into the following areas:Early Childhood, Inclusive, Elementary Education, Elementary Education/Mild Moderate Disabilities, and Secondary Education. Practicum experiences at the 200 level are initial experiences in the schools for our students. They can be placed in a classroom with a teacher at the appropriate grade level for their respective content area. Secondary students are placed individually in middle grades or secondary classrooms while elementary students are placed in pairs in elementary classrooms. In all instances university students have opportunities to work with K-12 learners individually or in small groups. In some instances, they may be given full-class opportunities to work with learners. Students completing 397 level practica have expanded responsibilities where they will have greater classroom responsibilities that will include the teaching of multiple lessons as a requirement for the experience as well as teacher assistant roles during each day. The 497 experience is student teaching where the university student takes on more and more responsibilities that would be equivalent to those taken on by the classroom teacher. These responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the preparation of lesson plans and materials for teaching and assessment, the teaching of classes, grading formative and summative materials, working with students after class, attending staff/faculty meetings, and speaking with parents where necessary, all under the guidance of a cooperating teacher. Please see Table 3 in the Appendices for a summary of the Field Experience hour requirements associated with each practicum course and the related endorsements.

http://cehs.unl.edu/cehs/nde/Rule20.pdf

http://cehs.unl.edu/ssc/undergraduate-advising

1D. PROGRAM COMPLETERS

Table 4 – Program Completers

Program Completers and Level – Content AreaAcademic Year Number of Endorsement Program Completers

Bac Post BacAlternate

Route MastersEd.

Specialist PhD20 14 to 20 15 37 2

20 15 to 20 16 34 5

SECTION 2: ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM KEY ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED DATA

ARTIFACT 1

Table 5Summary Table of Endorsement Program Key Assessments

REGULAR FOLIOS

Name of Assessmentused for the following areas:

Type or Form of Assessment

Brief Description of Assessment, including indicated information obtained from Assessment

When Assessment is Administered

Specific Items

1Content-Praxis II or GPA

Cumulative GPASummative

Numerical computation of grades based on quality points earned divided by credit hours completed

Ongoing—throughout one’s college career. Cumulative GPA is what is reported.

Specific to content area

Praxis II Comparison to a Standard

For elementary students, this test has been used to document one being highly qualified (minimum score of 159) for No Child Left Behind.For secondary students, we piloted results for the 2014-2015 academic year. Results will be used as a requirement for teacher certification at all levels starting September 1, 2015.

Just before or during clinical practicum (student teaching)


CEHS Student Teaching Instrument

Summative This instrument consists of 14 items that is completed by the student teacher supervisor and cooperating teacher on the basis of one being proficient, basic or unsatisfactory on each item.

At the end of the Clinical Experience

Item 1

Administrator Survey Summative This is a 21-item instrument that is completed by school administrators at the end of a candidate’s first year of teaching. It is now administered by the Nebraska Department of Education.

In March/April at the end of the candidate’s first year of teaching

Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

Candidate Teacher Survey

Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is completed by program completers at the end of the first year of teaching. It is administered by the College of Education and Human Sciences at UNL.


Items 1 & 2

2 Content - Knowledge

Cumulative GPA Summative Numerical computation of grades based on quality points earned divided by credit hours completed

Ongoing—throughout one’s college career. Cumulative GPA is what is reported.


Praxis II Comparison to a Standard

For elementary students, this test has been used to document one being highly qualified (minimum score of 159) for No Child Left Behind.For secondary students, we piloted results for the 2014-2015 academic year. Results will be used as a requirement for teacher certification at all levels starting September 1, 2015.

Just before or during clinical practicum (student teaching)





Item 1



Standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2

Candidate Teacher Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is In March/April at the end Item 14

Survey completed by program completers at the end of the first year of teaching. It is administered by the College of Education and Human Sciences at UNL.

of the candidate’s first year of teaching

3 Learner/Learning Environments




Items 2 & 3



Standards 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3




Items 3 & 4

4 Instructional Practices - Knowledge




Items 2, 3, & 6



Standards 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3


Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is completed by program completers at the end of the first year of teaching. It is


Items 7, 8, 9, 16, 17 & 20

administered by the College of Education and Human Sciences at UNL.

5 Instructional Practices - Effectiveness




Items 2, 3, & 5



Standards 6.1, 6.2




Item 10

6 Professional Responsibility




Items 12 & 14



Standards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 10.1, 10.2




Items 12 & 15

7 Overall Proficiency



Standard 11.1

Candidate Teacher Survey Summative This is a 23-item instrument that is completed by program completers at the end of the first year of teaching. It is administered by the College of Education and Human Sciences at UNL.


Item 23

8 Optional Assessment

RULE 24 FOLIO APPENDICES

Table 1UNL Admission Requirements

English 4 units of EnglishAll units must include intensive reading and writing experience

Mathematics 4 units of mathematicsMust include Algebra I, II. Geometry and one additional unit that builds on a knowledge of algebra or geometry.

Natural Science 3 units of natural sciencesIncluding at least 2 units selected from biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences. One of the units must include laboratory instruction.

Social Studies 3 units of social studiesAt least one unit of American and/or world history and one additional unit of history, American government and/or geography

Foreign Language 2 units of foreign languageMust include 2 units of the same foreign language. Students who are unable to take two years of foreign language in high school may still qualify for admission. Such students will be required to take two semesters of foreign language at the University of Nebraska. These students are required to complete 16 units of academic courses for admission.

Class Rank or ACT/SAT

For assured admission you must also graduate in the upper half of your class, or have an ACT composite score of 20 or higher, or an SAT combined score of 950. All freshman applicants under the age of 23 are required to submit an official ACT or SAT score.

Transfer For assured admission, in addition to completion of core course requirements, you must also show a C average (2.0 on a 4.0 scale) for your cumulative grade point average and a C average on your most recent term of college enrollment

Table 2Major Transition Points

Acceptance into University(Prior to Freshman year)

Acceptance into Teacher Education program(Sophomore year)

Acceptance into Student Teaching(Semester before Student Teaching)

Program Completion/Graduation(After Student Teaching)

-- Completion of specific number of high school units.-- Appropriate ACT /SAT score

--Credit hour minimum--Minimum grades in specific courses-- CORE Academic Tests-- Faculty recommendations-- Completion of Prof. & Personal Fitness Form-- Criminal History check

-- Admission to TEP-- Credit Hour /overall 2.75 GPA minimum-- 2.5 GPA in content areacourses, no grade below a C--2.5 GPA in Prof. ed – specific grade requirements for methods courses-- Criminal History check

-- 120 + credit hours-- successful completion of Student Teaching-- Maintain GPA minimum requirements-- Completion of a senior check--Met all financial obligations-- Apply for degree

Table 3Summary Table of Practicum Experiences

Course Cr Days/Wk

Hrs/Day Weeks Total

Hrs ELED Sec. Ed.

ELED/SPED

ECE Unif

ELED/ECE

TEAC 297A 1 2 3 14 84 84 84 84 84

297B 2 2 7 14 140 140 140 140EDPS 297 1 2 1 14 25

397A 3 2 7 14 196 196 196 196497A 12 5 8 16 640 640 640 640297 1 2 1 10 20 20397 3 5 2 12 120 120

397D 3 2 8 15 240 240497 12 5 8 16 640 640

497A 6 5 8 40 400 400SPED 397 3 3 4 12 144 120

SPED 496Y 1 2 4 14 56 56

497M 9 5 8 10 400 400CYAF 270L 2 1 4 14 52 52 52

271L 1 1 3 12 36 36 36374L 1 1 3 15 45 45 45497A 9 5 4 16 320 320 320Total -- ----- -------- --------- ------- 1060 780 1340 1473 1513

Instruments Used in Key Assessments:

In order to view the instruments used for the different surveys the provided data for this report, go to the “Instruments” folder at the State Approval website and select each of the following:

Student Teaching Final Evaluation used in Fall 2014–Spring 2015—All Program Completers

Student Teaching Final Evaluation used in Fall 2015–Spring 2016—All Program Completers

NDE First-Year Administrator Survey

First-Year Teacher Survey

SECTION 2: KEY ASSESSMENTS AND FINDINGS – Artifact 2

IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING RESPONSE TOTALS IN THE DATA TABLES PROVIDED FOR ARTIFACT 2:Table 1D shows the number of completers for Special Education K-6 in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. Praxis data (Table 2) represent the total number of test takers for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. This includes all special education endorsements (K-6, 7-12) at the undergraduate and graduate levels that chose to complete the exam during the test year. Test takers may elect to complete the test earlier than their final year of study or after graduation so the numbers of test takers may not match the number of completers for a given year. Regardless, our Praxis data have shown 100% pass rates for the past several years. Data for the CEHS Student Teaching Instrument represents all students completing student teaching during the year indicated. Most, but not all, students will graduate in the same year that they complete their student teaching. Therefore, the response total for the student teaching instrument may be larger than the total number of completers for a given year. Data for the first-year candidate surveys and administrator surveys represents the number of surveys returned that were specific for special education. These numbers were lower than the total number of program completers in special education. For the First Year Administrator Survey data in 2014-2015, the Nebraska Department of Education was unable to disaggregate the data by grade level – so the 2014-2015 administrator data are aggregated across grade level. For the 2015-2016 academic year, the administrator data could be disaggregated and the responses for Special Education K-6 are provided.

1. Content KnowledgeBelow are the measures used specifically for addressing the content knowledge or teacher candidates at the University of Nebraska –Lincoln.

Table 1Grade Point Average in the Content Area and Cumulative GPA

Year CodeSubject

Area/Content GPA

Cumulative GPA

Total Students Notes

2014-2015 SPM7 3.29 3.68 37 Elementary & Special Education K-62015-2016 SPM7 3.34 3.63 37 Elementary and Special Education, K-6

Table 2Praxis II – September 2014 – August 2015

Pass Rate Based on Nebraska Cut Score

Year Endrsmnt Test # Cut Score

UNL N

UNL # Pass

UNL # Fail

UNL %age Pass

UNL Mean

State N

State %age Pass

StateMean

NationN

Nation%age

NationMean

14-15 SPED 5354 151 42 42 0 100 175.40 239 98.33 172.08 5825 95.91 171.8515-16 SPED 5354 151 52 52 0 100.00 176.49 316 99.68 173.80 5977 96.29 171.97

Table 3A – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2014-2015Item 1: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in General

Year # Item Endorsement Unsatisfactory Basic Proficient Response Total

2014- 2015 1

Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in general. Demonstrates capacity to make content knowledge accessible to students.

Special Educ. K-6 & Elementary Education 0 0.00% 3 7.89% 35 92.11% 38

Table 3B - CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2015-2016Item 3: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching in General

Year # Item Endorsement Unacceptable Emergent Sufficient Advanced Response Total

2015-

20163

Subject matter Knowledge for Teaching. Make content knowledge accessible for students

Elementary & Special Education 0 0.00% 1 2.00% 12 24.00% 37 74.00% 50

Table 4 – First Year Administrator SurveyStandards 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 – Content Knowledge

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent ConsistentResponse

Total4.1 –The teacher understands the central concepts, tools of inquiry, and structures of the discipline(s) s/he teaches.

2014-2015Special Education 1 5.88% 1 5.88% 6 35.29% 9 52.94% 17

2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalSpecial Educ., Elem. 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 40.00% 12 60.00% 20

4.2 The teacher creates learning experiences that make these aspects of the discipline accessible and meaningful for students to assure mastery of content.

2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalSpecial Education 0 0.00% 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 10 58.82% 17


4.3 The teacher integrates Nebraska Content Standards and/or professional standards within instruction.

2014-2015 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalSpecial Education 1 5.88% 1 5.88% 6 35.29% 8 47.06% 172015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalSpecial Educ., Elem. 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 35.00% 13 65.00% 20

Table 5 – First Year Candidate SurveyItem 1: Prepared to Teach Content Area

Year # Item Endorsement Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

Response Total

2014 - 2015 1

I am well prepared to teach in my content area.

Special Education K-6, Elementary 0 0.00% 1 10.00% 1 10.00% 5 50.00% 3 30.00% 10

2015 - 2016 1

I am well prepared to teach in my content area.



Year # Item Endorsement Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree

nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Response Total

2014 - 2015 2

I am confident in my level of subject matter knowledge.


2015-2016 2

I am confident in my subject matter knowledge.


Narrative:Discrepancies in the response totals: Table 1D shows the number of completers for Special Education K-6 in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. Praxis data (Table 2) represent the total number of test takers for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. This includes all special education endorsements (K-6, 7-12) at the undergraduate and graduate levels that chose to complete the exam during the test year. Test takers may elect to complete the test earlier than their final year of study or after graduation so the numbers of test takers may not match the number of completers for a given year. Regardless, our Praxis data have shown 100% pass rates for the past several years. Data for the CEHS Student Teaching Instrument represents all students completing student teaching during the year indicated. Most, but not all, students will graduate in the same year that they complete their student teaching. Therefore, the response total for the student teaching instrument may be larger than the total number of completers for a given year. Data for the first-year candidate surveys and administrator surveys represents the number of surveys returned that were specific for special education. These numbers were lower than the total number of program completers in special education. For the First Year Administrator Survey data in 2014-2015, the Nebraska Department of Education was unable to disaggregate the data by grade level – so the 2014-2015 administrator data are aggregated across grade level. For the 2015-2016 academic year, the administrator data could be disaggregated and the responses for Special Education K-6 are provided.

The data in this section show that our K-6 special education majors had above average GPA’s in both their subject classes and cumulatively across all classes, indicating that we attract high-quality students (Table 1). 100% percent of all graduating students passed the Praxis II exam (Table 2), suggesting mastery of content knowledge required to obtain a Nebraska teaching certificate in special education and be hired into instructional positions. Administrators indicated that teachers demonstrated strong content knowledge; 83-98% of teachers scored frequently or consistently across items in 2014-15, and 98-100%at frequently or consistently across items in 2015-16 (Tables 3A-4). First year teachers also indicated that they believed they were confident and well prepared; 80-90% across items in 2014-2015 and 100% across items in 2015-16 (Tables 5 & 6).

2. Content Area See Tables 1-6 from Content Area #1 above and the following:

Table 7 – First Year Administrator SurveyStandards 5.1, 5.2: Application of content

Indicator Endorsement Information Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent

Response Total

5.1 The teacher candidate understands how to connect concepts across disciplines


2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalSpecial Educ., Elementary 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 10 50.00% 10 50.00% 20

5.2 The teacher candidate uses differing perspectives to engage students in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues


2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalSpecial Educ., Elementary 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 8 40.00% 12 60.00% 20




Response Total

2014 - 2015 14

I teach subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners.


2015-2016 14

I teach subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners.


Narrative:Discrepancies in the response totals: Table 1D shows the number of completers for Special Education K-6 in 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. Praxis data (Table 2) represent the total number of test takers for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. This includes all special education endorsements (K-6, 7-12) at the undergraduate and graduate levels that chose to complete the exam during the test year. Test takers may elect to complete the test earlier than their final year of study or after graduation so the numbers of test takers may not match the number of completers for a given year. Regardless, our Praxis data have shown 100% pass rates for the past several years. Data for the CEHS Student Teaching Instrument represents all students completing student teaching during the year indicated. Most, but not all, students will graduate in the same year that they complete their student teaching. Therefore, the response total for the student teaching instrument may be larger than the total number of completers for a given year. Data for the first-year candidate surveys and administrator surveys represents the number of surveys returned that were specific for special education. These numbers were lower than the total number of program completers in special education. For the First Year Administrator Survey data in 2014-2015, the Nebraska Department of Education was unable to disaggregate the data by grade level – so the 2014-2015 administrator data are aggregated across grade level. For the 2015-2016 academic year, the administrator data could be disaggregated and the responses for Special Education K-6 are provided.

In addition to the data provided in section 1, the data in this section provide additional information on post-graduation performance on content area. Administrators indicated teachers demonstrated they understood how to connect complex concepts across disciplines and meaningfully engage their students in content; 76% scored teachers at frequently or consistently across items in 2014-15, and 100% at frequently or consistently across items in 2015-16 (Table 7). Students self-rating of their content knowledge teaching skills indicated 90% agreed or strongly agreed that they were teaching in ways that were meaningful to their students in 2014-15, and 80% agreed or strongly agreed in 2015-2016 (Table 8).

3. Learner/Learning Environments

Table 9A – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2014-2015Item 2: Subject Planning for Learning


2014- 2015 2

Demonstrates capacity to create useable lesson and unit plans that are based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals

Special Education K-6, Elementary 1 2.56% 5 12.82% 33 84.62% 39

Table 9B – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2015-2016Item 4: Planning for Learning

Year # Item Endorsement Unacceptable Emergent Sufficient Advanced Respons

e Total

2015- 2016 4

Planning for learning:Creates usable lessons and unit plans based on knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals

Special Education K-6,

Elementary0 0.00% 0 0.00% 12 23.53% 39 76.47% 51

Table 10A - CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2014-2015Item 3: Instructional Enactment


2014- 2015 3

Demonstrates Capacity to implement, modify, and adapt plans that are responsive to students and curricular goals


Elementary0 0.00% 4 10.26% 35 89.74% 39

Table 10B - CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2015-2016Item 5: Responsive Teaching


2015- 2016 5

Responsive Teaching:Skillfully implements lessons that are flexible and intentional to meet individual student needs

Elementary & Special

Education0 0.00% 1 1.96% 15 29.41% 35 68.63% 51

Table 11 – First Year Administrator SurveyStandards 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3: Student Development

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent ConsistentResponse Total

1.1 The teacher understands how students grow and develop.



1.2 The teacher recognizes that patterns of learning and development vary individually within and across the cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical areas.



1.3 The teacher implements developmentally appropriate and challenging learning experiences.



Table 12 – First Year Administrator SurveyStandards 2.1 and 2.2: Learning Differences


Total2.1 The teacher understands individual differences and diverse cultures and communities



2.2 The teacher ensures inclusive learning environments that enable each student to meet high demands



Table 13 – First Year Administrator SurveyStandards 3.1 and 3.2: Learning Environments


Total3.1 The teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative learning.



3.2 The teacher creates environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation.



3.3 The teacher manages student behavior to promote a positive learning environment.



Table 14 – First Year Candidate SurveyItem 3: Understands How Learners Learn



Response Total

2014 - 2015 3

I positively impact the learning and development of all students.


Elementary0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5 50.00% 5 50.00% 10

2015-2016 3

I positively impact the learning and development of all students.


Elementary0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 60.00% 2 40.00% 5

Table 15 – First Year Candidate SurveyItem 4: Adapts to Developmental Strategies of Learners




Response Total

2014 - 2015 4

I adapt to different developmental stages of learners.


2015-2016 4

I adapt to different developmental stages of learners


Narrative:Discrepancies in the response totals: Data for the student teaching instrument represent all students completing student teaching during the year indicated. Most, but not all, students will graduate in the same year that they complete their student teaching. Therefore, the response total for the student teaching instrument may be larger than the total number of completers for a given year. Data for the first-year candidate surveys and administrator surveys represent the number of surveys returned, which were lower than the total number of program completers in special education. For the First Year Administrator Survey data in 2014-2015, the Nebraska Department of Education was unable to disaggregate the data by grade level – so the 2014-2015 administrator data are aggregated across grade level. For the 2015-2016 academic year, the administrator data could be disaggregated and the responses for Special Education K-6 are provided.

In the area of learner and learning environment, our students demonstrated that they were adept at creating lessons and implementing them flexibly; 85%-90% were scored proficient across items in 2014-15, and 98-100% were scored sufficient or advanced across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 9A – 10B). Administrators indicated that teachers demonstrated they understood diverse learners and learning environments; 81-100% of teachers scored frequently or consistently across items in 2014-2015, and 95-100% were rated as frequently or consistently demonstrating this across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 11-13). First year special education K-6 teachers also overwhelmingly agree or strongly agree (100%) that they positively impact student learning and adapt to different developmental stages of learners (Tables 14 & 15).

Our performance was lower than we would have liked in 2014-15, but higher in 2015-16. We’ll continue to monitor this to ensure that our new teachers are well trained in the area of learner and learning environments.

4. Instructional Practices –Candidate Knowledge and skills

Table 16A – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluations 2014-2015Item 2: Subject Planning for Learning


2014- 2015 2



Table 16B – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluations 2015-2016Item 4: Planning for Learning


2015- 2016 4



Elementary0 0.00% 0 0.00% 12 23.53% 39 76.47% 51

Table 17A – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2014-2015Item 3: Instructional Enactment


2014- 2015 3



Table 17B - CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2015-2016Item 5: Responsive Teaching


2015- 2016 5


Special Education K-6, Elementary 0 0.00% 1 1.96% 15 29.41% 35 68.63% 51

Table 18A - CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2014-2015Item 6: Learning Environment


2014- 2015 6

Learning Environment. Demonstrates capacity to create classroom communities that invite students’ engagement and learning, encourages positive social interaction and self-motivation.


Table 18B - CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2015-2016Item 10: Learning Culture


2015- 2016

10

Learning Culture:Creates classroom communities that invite student engagement and learning and encourage positive social interactions.


Elementary0 0.00% 0 0.00% 7 14.58% 41 85.42% 48

Table 19 – First Year Administrator SurveyStandards 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3: Planning for Instruction


Total7.1 The teacher plans instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals.



7.2 The teacher candidate draws upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, technology, and pedagogy.


2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Total

Special Educ., Elem. 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 9 45.00% 11 55.00% 20

7.3 The teacher draws upon knowledge of students and the community context.



Table 20 – First Year Administrator SurveyStandard 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3: Instructional Strategies


Total8.1 The teacher understands a variety of instructional strategies.



8.2 The teacher uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students to develop deep understanding of content areas and their connection and to build skills to apply knowledge in meaningful ways.




8.3 The teacher utilizes available technology for instruction and assessment.



Table 21 – First Year Candidate Survey

Item 7: Create Effective Instructional Plans



Response Total

2014 - 2015 7 I create effective

instructional plans.Special Education K-6, Elementary 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 10.00% 5 50.00% 4 40.00% 10

2015-2016 7 I create effective

new lesson plansSpecial Education K-6, Elementary 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 4 80.00% 1 20.00% 5

Table 22 – First Year Candidate SurveyItem 8: Work Effectively as a Part of an Instructional Team



Response Total

2014 - 2015 8

I work effectively as part of an instructional planning team.


2015-2016 8

I work effectively as part of an instructional team


Table 23 – First Year Candidate SurveyItem 9: Manages Classroom Management



Response Total

2014 - 2015 9

I apply effective methods to manage the classroom environment.


2015-2016 9

I apply effective methods to manage the classroom environment



Item 16: Instruction Requires Student Problem Solving and/or Critical Thinking Skills




Response Total

2014 - 2015 16

My instruction requires student problem solving and/or critical thinking skills.


2015-2016 16

My instruction requires student problem solving and/or critical thinking skills



Item 17: Adapt Instruction to Meet needs of Learners with Special Needs




Response Total

2014 - 2015 17

I adapt my instruction to the needs of learners with special needs.


2015-2016 17

I adapt my instruction to the needs of learners with special needs.


Table 26 – First Year Candidate SurveyItem 20: Use Multiple Methods to Teach



Response Total

2014 - 2015 20

I use multiple methods to teach.


2015-2016 20

I use multiple methods to teach


Narrative:

Discrepancies in the response totals: Data for the student teaching instrument represent all students completing student teaching during the year indicated. Most, but not all, students will graduate in the same year that they complete their student teaching. Therefore, the response total for the student teaching instrument may be larger than the total number of completers for a given year. Data for the first-year candidate surveys and administrator surveys represent the number of surveys returned, which were lower than the total number of program completers in special education. For the First Year Administrator Survey data in 2014-2015, the Nebraska Department of Education was unable to disaggregate the data by grade level – so the 2014-2015 administrator data are aggregated across grade level. For the 2015-2016 academic year, the administrator data could be disaggregated and the responses for Special Education K-6 are provided.

In the area of Instructional Practices, our students demonstrated adequate knowledge and skills; 85-92% scored proficient across items in 2014-15, and 98-100% were as scored sufficient or advanced across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 16A – 18B). Administrators rated first year special education K-6 teachers on their Instructional Practices-Knowledge or skills; 70-82% of teachers scored frequently or consistently across items in 2014-2015, and 100% were rated as frequently or consistently demonstrating this across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 19-20).

Based on the data gathered from the administrator survey in 2014-2015, 3-5 new teachers struggled (ranking consistently in rarely or occasionally) to show their competency in the areas of planning instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals, drawing upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, technology, and pedagogy, and drawing upon knowledge of students and the community context. Despite strong student teaching evaluations, it appears that administrators believed a small group of students were not able to transfer these skills to their first teaching job or the expectations were very different from what they experienced in their student teaching placement. The data in 2015-2016 do not show this same trend as 100% of the students received scores noting that they frequently used these same skills. This is an area we will watch and address.

It should also be noted that the new teachers disagreed with their administrators in 2014-15, with 80-100% agreeing or strongly agreeing they are competent in the areas of instructional practices (Tables 21-26). We may want to determine whether there are differences between the expectations of administrators and our program, but we will wait to examine additional data, as the 2015-2016 data are more positive.

6. Instructional Practices -- Assessment that Demonstrates Effects or Impact on P-12 Student learning

Table 27A – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2014-2015Item 5: Planning for Learning


2014- 2015 2



Elementary1 2.56% 5 12.82% 33 84.62% 39

Table 27B – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2015-2016Item 4: Planning for Learning


2015- 2016 4



Elementary0 0.00% 0 0.00% 12 23.53% 39 76.47% 51

Table 28A – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2014-2015Item 3: Instructional Enactment


2014- 2015 3



Elementary0 0.00% 4 10.26% 35 89.74% 39

Table 28B – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2015-2016Item 5: Responsive Teaching


2015- 2016 5


Special Education K-6, Elementary 0 0.00% 1 1.96% 15 29.41% 35 68.63% 51

Table 29A – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2014-2015Item 5: Classroom Interaction with Students


2014- 2015 5

Demonstrates a capacity to interact with learners in supportive and constructive ways.


Table 29B – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2015-2016Item 7: Relationships with Students


2015- 2016 7

Relationships with Students: Develops and Maintains rapport with individual and groups of students


7 92.16% 51

Table 30 – First Year Administrator SurveyStandard 6.1 and 6.2: Assessment


Total6.1 The teacher understands multiple methods of assessment



6.2 The teacher uses multiple methods of assessment to engage students in their own growth, to monitor student progress, and to guide the teacher candidate’s and student’s decision making.


2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalSpecial Educ., Elem.

0 0.00% 1 5.00% 7 35.00% 12 60.00% 20

Table 31 – First Year Candidate SurveyStandard 10: Creates Effective Assessments to Measure Learning




Response Total

2014 - 2015 10

I create effective assessments to measure learning.


2015-2016 10

I create effective assessments to measure learning


Narrative:Discrepancies in the response totals: Data for the student teaching instrument represent all students completing student teaching during the year indicated. Most, but not all, students will graduate in the same year that they complete their student teaching. Therefore, the response total for the student teaching instrument may be larger than the total number of

completers for a given year. Data for the first-year candidate surveys and administrator surveys represent the number of surveys returned, which were lower than the total number of program completers in special education. For the First Year Administrator Survey data in 2014-2015, the Nebraska Department of Education was unable to disaggregate the data by grade level – so the 2014-2015 administrator data are aggregated across grade level. For the 2015-2016 academic year, the administrator data could be disaggregated and the responses for Special Education K-6 are provided.

In the area of Instructional Practices-Assessment, our students demonstrated that they able to modify and adapt plans based on student performance; 85%-100% were scored proficient across items in 2014-15, and 98-100% were scored sufficient or advanced across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 27A-29B). Administrators rated special education K-6 teachers’ understanding of Assessment Practices; 72% of teachers scored frequently or consistently across items in 2014-2015, and 95% were rated as frequently or consistently demonstrating this across items in 2015-2016 (Table 30).

The data gathered from the first-year candidate shows that the teachers believe they are creating effective assessments to measure student learning, with 80% indicating they do this in 2014-2015 and 100% in 2015-2016 (Table 31). Although the teachers’ self-evaluations are higher than the evaluations of their administrators in the area of assessment, they do show the same pattern as administrator ratings. The data from 2014-15 are lower than we would like to see on this variable, but it increased for 2015-2016. We will need to continue to monitor the data on this variable in future years.

6. Professional Responsibility

Table 32A – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2014-2015Item 12: Collaborative Relationships and Professional Conduct


2014- 2015 12

Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct. Demonstrates

a capacity to work with other practitioners to improve teaching for

the benefit of students’ learning.


Table 32B – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2015-2016Item 13: Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct


2015-

201613

Collaborative Relations and Professional Conduct: Uses effective communication and consultation techniques with other professionals and families for the benefit of student learning


Elementary0 0.00% 1 1.96% 1

2 23.53% 38 74.51% 51

Table 33A – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2014-2015Item 14: Reflection and Professional Growth


2014- 2015 14

Reflection and Professional Growth. Demonstrates capacity to continually evaluate how choices and actions affect students and others in the learning community and actively seeks opportunities to grow professionally.


Elementary0 0.00% 1 2.56% 38 97.44% 39

Table 33B – CEHS Student Teaching Instrument Teacher Candidate Summative Evaluation 2015-2016Item 14: Reflective Practices and Professional Growth


2015- 2016

14

Reflective Practices and Professional Growth:Continually evaluates how choices and actions affects students and others in the learning community, makes necessary adjustments and actively seeks opportunities to grow professionally


Elementary1 1.96% 0 0.00% 12 23.53% 38 74.51% 51

Table 34 – First Year Administrator SurveyStandards 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4: Professional Learning and Ethical Practice

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Response

Total9.1 The teacher engages in ongoing professional learning.



9.2 The teacher models ethical professional practice.



9.3 The teacher uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her practice, particularly the effects of his/her choices and actions on others (students, families, other professionals, and the community), and adapts practice to meet the needs of each student.



Special Educ., Elem.

0 0.00% 1 5.00% 5 25.00% 14 70.00% 20

9.4 The teacher models professional dispositions for teaching.



Table 35 – First Year Administrator SurveyStandards 10.1 and 10.2: Leadership and Collaboration

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Response Total

2014-201510.1 Special Education 0 0.00% 3 17.65% 5 29.41% 9 52.94% 17


10.2 The teacher seeks opportunities, including appropriate technology,

to collaborate with students, families,

colleagues, and other school professionals, and community members to ensure student growth




Table 36 – First Year Candidate SurveyItem 12: Works Effectively with Parents



Response Total

2014 - 2015 12

I work effectively with

parents


2015-2016 12

I work effectively with

parents


Table 37 – First Year Candidate SurveyItem 15: Takes Advantage of Opportunities to Grow Professionally



Response Total

2014 - 2015 15

I take advantage of opportunities to grow

professionally.


2015-2016 15

I take advantage of opportunities to grow

professionally


Narrative:Discrepancies in the response totals: Data for the student teaching instrument represent all students completing student teaching during the year indicated. Most, but not all, students will graduate in the same year that they complete their student teaching. Therefore, the response total for the student teaching instrument may be larger than the total number of completers for a given year. Data for the first-year candidate surveys and administrator surveys represent the number of

surveys returned, which were lower than the total number of program completers in special education. For the First Year Administrator Survey data in 2014-2015, the Nebraska Department of Education was unable to disaggregate the data by grade level – so the 2014-2015 administrator data are aggregated across grade level. For the 2015-2016 academic year, the administrator data could be disaggregated and the responses for Special Education K-6 are provided.

In the area of Professional Responsibility, our students demonstrated knowledge of issues related to collaborative relations and professional conduct; 92-97% scored proficient across these items in 2014-15, and 98% were scored sufficient or advanced across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 32A-33B). The lowest average was in 2014-2015 with 3 students scoring in the basic area for demonstrating the capacity to work with other practitioners to improve teaching for the benefit of students’ learning. All other areas in these categories ranged between 97%-98%, which indicates that during student teaching they worked very well with the other professionals and were able to demonstrate their ability to be reflective pre-service teachers.

Administrators rated our new teachers’ understanding of Professional Responsibility; 82% of teachers scored frequently or consistently across items in 2014-2015, and 95-100% were rated as frequently or consistently demonstrating this across items in 2015-2016 (Tables 34 & 35). The lowest scores (82% at frequently or consistently in 2014-15) were obtained in the areas of “engages in professional development” and “uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her performance. This is an area we may want to watch in the future, although the 2015-2016 data showed much higher ratings. It also may be that lower scores on engaging in professional development represent an artifact of the new teachers not having opportunities to engage in those activities in their school district, yet. Based on the first year candidate surveys, special education K-6 teachers overwhelmingly indicated (90 – 100%) that they worked effectively with parents and took advantage of opportunities to grow professionally (Tables 36 & 37).

7. Overall Proficiency

Table 38 – First Year Administrator Survey Standard 11.1: Impact of Student Learning and Development

Indicator Endorsement Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent Response Total

11.1 The teacher positively impacts the learning and development for all students


2015-2016 Rare Occasional Frequent Consistent TotalSpecial Education, Elementary 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 10.00% 18 90.00% 20

Table 39 – First Year Candidate SurveyItem 23: I am an Excellent Teacher



Response Total

2014 - 2015 23

I am an excellent teacher.


2015-2016 23

I am an excellent teacher


Narrative:

Discrepancies in the response totals: Data for the first-year candidate surveys and administrator surveys represent the number of surveys returned, which were lower than the total number of program completers in special education. For the First Year Administrator Survey data in 2014-2015, the Nebraska Department of Education was unable to disaggregate the data by grade level – so the 2014-2015 administrator data are aggregated across grade level. For the 2015-2016 academic year, the administrator data could be disaggregated and the responses for Special Education K-6 are provided.

The last area speaks to the overall proficiency of the new teacher, and we present only data from post-graduation performance. Administrators indicated 82% of teachers frequently or consistently positively impacts the learning and development of all students in 2014-15, but rated 100% of the teachers at frequently or consistently in 2015-2016 (Table 38). This shows great promise. Three teachers were rated as only occasionally positively impacting the learning and development of all students, but they are in their first year of teaching, and we are hopeful that we have given them the tools they need to make more consistent impacts as they grow into their careers.

When the new teachers were asked if they were an excellent teacher, only 70% indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with this statement in 2014-15 and only 60% in 2015-16 (Table 39). This is not surprising since most first year teachers may feel that they still have so much to learn and are often overwhelmed by completing the basic job responsibilities. However, it is interesting to note that the teachers in 2015-16 were less likely to rate themselves as excellent, despite receiving consistently higher scores from their administrators.

SECTION 2, Artifact 3: SUMMARY OF THE ASSESSMENT DATA

1. Content Knowledge Special Education K-6 completers, between 2014 and 2016 are proficient in their subject matter knowledge as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Both overall and content area GPAs are well above program minimum admission requirements (overall GPA of 2.75), and Praxis II scores exceed both the Nebraska minimum and the national average scores. In addition, Special Education K-6 completers are consistently rated proficient/advanced or frequently/consistently in demonstrating Subject Matter and Content Knowledge by their university student teaching supervisors/cooperating teachers and by administrators (Tables 3 and 4). Special Education K-6 completers report high confidence in their subject matter knowledge and are well prepared to teach in their content area (Tables 5 and 6).

2. Content Area Data from both the first-year administrator’s and first year teacher survey indicates that Special Education K-6 completers are well-prepared to teach in their content area. Special Education K-6 completers agreed or strongly agreed that they “teach the subject matter in ways that are meaningful to learners” (Table 8). Administrators report either frequently or consistently observing Special Education K-6 completers understanding “how to connect concepts across disciplines” (Table 7) and using “differing perspectives to engage students in critical thinking, creativity, and collaborative problem solving related to authentic local and global issues” (Table 7).

3. Learner/Learning Environments Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator surveys, Special Education K-6 were well prepared in lesson planning, instructional enactment and responsive teaching (Tables 9A-10B), were confident in their abilities to recognize and understand how students grow and develop including cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and physical development (Table 11), recognized individual differences and diversity, with insuring an inclusive learning environment as an area of growth from 2014 to-2016 (Table 12). Special Education K-6 teachers were able to create environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation, thereby having a positive impact on the learning and development of all students (Tables 13-14).

4. Instructional Practices—Candidate Knowledge and Skills Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator surveys (Tables 16A–19), Special Education K-6 completers were well prepared in creating useable and engaging lesson and unit plans based upon knowledge of the discipline, students, and curricular goals and were able to adapt these plans to meet curricular goals and needs of students (Table 17B) and create classroom environments that invite student engagement and learning (Tables 18A & 18B). Most first year Special Education K-6 teachers saw themselves as working effectively as part of an instructional team, applying effective methods to manage the classroom, using instruction that requires critical thinking and problem solving, adapting instruction, and using multiple methods to teach (Tables 21-26). However, based on the data gathered from the administrator survey in 2014-2015 (Tables 19-20), 3-5 new teachers struggled (ranking consistently in rarely or occasionally) to show their competency in the areas of planning instruction that supports every student in meeting rigorous learning goals, drawing upon knowledge of content areas, curriculum, cross-disciplinary skills, technology, and pedagogy,

and drawing upon knowledge of students and the community context. It appears that administrators believed a small group of students were not able to transfer these skills to their first teaching job or the expectations were very different from what they experienced in their student teaching placement. The data in 2015-2016 do not show this same trend as 100% of the students received scores noting that they frequently used these same skills. This is an area we will watch and address.

5. Instructional Practices—Assessment that Demonstrates Effects or Impact on P-12 Student Learning Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator survey responses (Tables 27A–31), Special Education K-6 completers consistently plan for and enact instructional practices consistent with the discipline, students, and curricular goals, and can skillfully enact lessons that are flexible in meeting the individual needs of students (Table 28B). Special Education K-6 completers were able to use multiple methods to engage students and develop rapport (Tables 29A, 29B), but not all were able to use or felt confident in developing multiple methods of assessment (Tables 30-31). Data from 2015-2016 are stronger than 2014-2015, which could suggest growth in the area of assessment. We will need to continue to monitor the data on this variable.

6. Professional Responsibility Based on evidence from observations during student teaching, first year teacher survey responses, and administrator survey responses (Tables 32A – 35), Special Education K-6 completers demonstrate the ability to work with other practitioners, students, families, and the community. To some extent they seek out ways to grow professionally, including engaging in ongoing professional learning, and seeking out opportunities to collaborate with students’ families, and other colleagues. All Special Education K-6 completers feel that they seek out opportunities to grow professionally (Table 37), and feel confident in their abilities to work effectively with parents (Table 36). The lowest scores (82% at frequently or consistently in 2014-15 administrator survey) were obtained in the areas of “engages in professional development” and “uses evidence to continually evaluate his/her performance”. This is an area we may want to watch in the future, although the 2015-2016 data were much higher. It also may be that the lower scores on “engaging in professional development” represent an artifact of the new teachers not having opportunities to engage in those activities in their school district, yet.

7. Overall Proficiency Based on first year teacher survey responses and administrator survey responses, Special Education K-6 completers frequently or consistently positively impact the learning and development of all students. In 2014-15, three teachers were rated as only occasionally positively impacting the learning and development of all students, but they are in their first year of teaching. In 2015-2016, all teachers were rated highly in this area (Table 38). When first year Special Education K-6 teachers were asked if they were an excellent teacher, only 70% indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with this statement in 2014-15 and only 60% in 2015-16 (Table 39). This may not be not surprising since most first year teachers have much to learn and are often overwhelmed by completing the basic job responsibilities. However, it is interesting to note that the teachers in 2015-16 were less likely to rate themselves as excellent, despite receiving consistently high marks from their administrators.

SECTION 3: USE OF RELATED DATA AND INFORMATION FOR CONTINUOUS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT OF ENDORSEMENT PROGRAM

The analysis of our program performance is illuminating. The data are largely positive, although we note some minor trouble areas that we will need to keep an eye on in upcoming years and potentially address. Primarily, these trouble areas were in 2014-15, and did not show up in the 2015-2016 data. This may indicate an anomaly, and examination across all of the years suggests this may be an artifact of 1 to 3 new teachers, rather than the program as a whole. It is also important to note that some of the key assessment (first year administrator survey and first year candidate survey) yielded low return rates with only five respondents for many items. In addition, first year administrator survey data could not be disaggregated for the 2014-2015 so these data represent special education teachers beyond just grades K-6.

Areas of StrengthSpecial Education K-6 completers feel confident in their content knowledge and in most of their abilities to plan for and enact instruction that has a positive impact on student learning. They are well-prepared to teach students in Grades K-6 and this is supported by observations from their student teaching supervisors and their administrators.

Particular areas of strength include subject matter knowledge; preparedness to teach; planning and enacting meaningful lessons that meet disciplinary, student, and curricular goals; teaching with a variety of methods and strategies; and

recognizing cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, cultural, and physical needs and differences.

As described above in the subject matter knowledge and content area sections, Special Education K-6 completers have strong subject matter knowledge and are prepared to teach. This is evidenced by both overall and subject area GPAs that are well above program minimum admission requirements (overall GPA of 2.75), and mean Praxis II scores (2014-2015: 175; 2015-2016: 176) that exceed both the Nebraska minimum (151) and the national average (171) scores. Supervisors and administrators rate teachers highly in understanding special education and being able to plan and enact lessons that: (a) are meaningful to learners, (b) address the Nebraska standards, (c) connect concepts across disciplines, and (d) use different perspectives to teach content. Special Education K-6 completers report high confidence in their subject matter knowledge and ability to teach required content with 80-100% stating they agree or strongly agree with the statement “I am prepared to teach in my content area.”

As described in the learning environment and instructional practices sections, Special Education K-6 completers were well prepared to plan meaningful and engaging lessons that meet disciplinary, student, and curricular goals by using a variety of methods and strategies and were able to create environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation, thereby having a positive impact on the learning and development of all students.

Areas for Growth and Plans for This GrowthAlthough Special Education K-6 completers and their supervisors and administrators generally believe that they are excellent teachers, these teachers are still learning and growing. As described in the learning environments, instructional practices, and professional responsibility sections above, four areas for potential growth are: (a) managing student behavior; (b) planning instruction that supports every student; (c) developing multiple methods of assessment; and (d) engaging in professional development and using evidence to evaluate his/her performance. Plans for supporting Special Education K-6 completers to grow in these areas is underway in modified course sequencing, methods course content, and in their practicum and student teaching experiences.

First, managing student behavior and classroom management is a major focus of a required course that used to be taught as a prerequisite for admission to the teacher education program. This course is now taught in the junior or senior year prior to student teaching. It has a major project that students complete during their practicum to reinforce behavior

management strategies and methods of assessment to determine effective change. Moving the course to later in the program sequence should also help students better transfer their knowledge to the student teaching experience.

Second, to address instruction that supports every student, Special Education K-6 students complete elementary education content methods courses as part of the Elementary-Special Education K-6 dual major. Indeed, every teacher candidate seeking special education K-6 endorsement must be admitted into the dual major. This change enhanced knowledge of content for special education teacher candidates so they could better adapt lessons to achieve student learning, and integrating general education and special education reinforced the concept of collaboration between the two disciplines for the benefit of learners. Another modification being implemented Spring 2017 is revising a general special education methods course to focus on methods for mathematics instruction. This course will complement an existing methods course in reading disabilities to strengthen content knowledge related to academic learning disabilities and should improve teacher candidates’ toolkits to better prepare lessons for student learning.

Third, to address underperformance in assessment, the program faculty revised the sequence of courses placing the assessment course earlier in the program (first or second year) and behavior management (has a major project that utilizes assessment) later in the program (third or fourth year). This adjustment emphasized mastery of assessment knowledge prior to the professional courses and improved student performance on the behavior management project that requires the student to apply assessment knowledge.

Fourth, greater attention will be given to support Special Education K-6 completers in engaging in professional development and using evidence to evaluate his/her performance. Greater attention will be given to this during the student teaching seminar and during student teaching, with one or more of our student teaching observations focused on self-reflection and self-evaluation. In addition, in 2017-2018, we will be piloting a new technology during practicum and student teaching that allows students to video their teaching for enhancing self-evaluation.

Finally, starting Fall 2015, the College of Education and Human Sciences implemented Livetext as the database for teacher candidate performance data. Full implementation of Livetext will help us review data regularly, disaggregate common data relative to endorsement area, and drill down to the individual level to identify teacher candidates in need of remediation in one or more areas.

Download - At the end of the Clinical Experience 9.12.17... · Web viewPraxis data (Table 2) represent the total number of test takers for 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. This includes all special

Top Related