California State University Sacramento Biennial Report 2008-2010

California State University Sacramento Biennial Report 2008-2010
California State University Sacramento
Biennial Report
2008-2010
Institution: CSU Sacramento
Date report is submitted: December 15, 2010
Date of Last Site Visit: 1999
Campus Contact:
Vanessa Sheared, Dean, College of Education
(916) 278-5883
[email protected]
Primary Biennial Report Contact:
Kathy I. Norman, Associate Dean, College of Education
(916) 278-4187
[email protected]
Chief Executive Officer:
Joseph Sheley, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819
(916) 278-6331
(916) 278-7648
[email protected]
Table of Contents
Section A – Credential Programs Specific Information
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Multiple Subject
Single Subject
Multiple Subject, Multiple Subject BCLAD
Single Subject, Single Subject BCLAD
Reading Certificate, Reading Language Arts Certificate
Single Subject PE Blended, Adapted PE
EDS Mild Moderate, Mild Moderate with MS
EDS Moderate Severe
EDS Early Childhood
EDS Level II Mild/Moderate, Moderate/Severe,
Early Childhood
Preliminary Administrative, Intern, Professional
PPS School Counseling
PPS School Psychology
PPS School Social Work
Speech Language Pathology Services, Special Day
Class Authorization
School Nurse Services
Section B – Institutional Summary and Plan of Action
94
103
120
137
149
159
171
183
2
CSUS Biennial Report
page
4
16
27
37
49
56
63
76
88
December 2010
Section A
Credential Programs
Specific Information
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
3
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Teacher Education:
Multiple Subject
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
4
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Program documented in this report: Multiple Subject Credential Program
Department of Teacher Education
Credential awarded: Multiple Subject
Is this program offered at more than one site?
Yes
If yes, list all sites at which the program is offered:
California State University Sacramento, 6000 J St., Sacramento, CA 95819
Elk Grove Center
Classes held at CSUS campus during this time period
Folsom Cordova Center:
Rancho Cordova Elementary
Folsom Cordova Unified School District
2562 Chassella Way
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Placer Center:
Barrett Ranch School
Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District
7720 Ocean Park Drive
Antelope, CA 95843
San Juan Center:
Kingswood Elementary School
San Juan Unified School District
5700 Primrose Dr
Citrus Heights, CA 95610
Twin Rivers Center:
Oakdale Elementary School
Twin Rivers Unified School District
3708l Myrtle Ave
North Highlands, CA 95660
Urban Teacher Education Center:
Jedediah Smith Elementary School
5
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Sacramento City Unified School District
401 McClatchy Way
Sacramento, CA 95818
Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: 916-278-4187
E-Mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Name: Robert Pritchard, Former Chair, Department of Teacher Education
Phone #: 916-278-4587
E-mail: [email protected]
6
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. CONTEXTAL INFORMATION
Table 1
Number of students or
candidates enrolled
Number
of
students
graduating or candidates
completing the program
•
F 2008/F 2009
282/252
99/68
S 2009/S 2010
232/213
98/127
General information to help reviewers understand the program and the context in
which it operates.
Our program is offered in 2 and 3 semester sequences. During the 2008-2010 academic years all
candidates were admitted to one of six cohorted groupings called centers. Centers are associated
with a particular local school district where the majority of coursework and fieldwork is situated
and where strong partnerships with mentor teachers exist. This field-based approach often
provides additional dimensions to program themes. As a result, some of our programs have
distinct foci, such as urban education or professional development schools.
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
a. Primary Candidate Assessments 2008-2010
This section of the report will focus on seven key assessments that were used during the
2008-2010 academic years to make critical decisions about candidate competence prior to
being recommended for a credential.
1) Community Study (Embedded Signature Assessment for EDTE 117 – Foundational
Issues in a Pluralistic, Multicultural Society): Effective classroom teachers understand the
larger community context in which their school is located, and use that information and
understanding to improve their instruction. In this signature assignment candidates
complete a “School - Community Study” in which they examine a multi-lingual multiethnic school and its surrounding community. Candidates demonstrate an ability to use
anthropological approaches including field observation, data collection and analysis and
the development and use of theoretical frameworks for understanding the strengths, needs
and resources of a school and community.
2) Math Mini-PACT (Embedded Signature Assignment for EDTE 314 – Mathematics
Curriculum and Instruction for the Diverse K-8 Classroom): Candidates design a 3-5 day
math unit that includes full, detailed lesson plans, assessment plans, and written
commentaries. Five “tasks” make up the signature assignment; however, the primary
focus of the mini-PACT is the Instruction task. Candidates are required to videotape
their mathematics teaching and select a five-minute clip that encompasses particular
elements. A detailed rubric is provided to guide their planning and commentaries.
7
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
3) Science Content Area Task I (CAT I): For the Planning Instruction & Assessment task
candidates identify the central focus, student academic content standards, English
Language Development (ELD) standards (if applicable), and learning objectives for a 3-5
lesson learning segment in Science. The 3-5 lessons in the learning segment should
develop students’ abilities to comprehend and/or compose text through the use of literacy
skills and strategies. Candidates also identify objectives for developing academic
language, taking into account students’ prior language development and the language
demands of the learning tasks and assessments. Finally candidates select/adapt/design
and organize instructional strategies, learning tasks, and assessments to promote and
monitor your students’ learning during the learning segment. Activities and experiences
related to this assignment occur in EDTE 316 – Science Curriculum and Instruction for
the Diverse K-8 Classroom.
4) Social Studies Content Area Task II (CAT II): For the Planning Instruction &
Assessment task candidates identify the central focus, student academic content standards,
English Language Development (ELD) standards (if applicable), and learning objectives
for a 3-5 lesson learning segment in History/Social Studies. The 3-5 lessons in the
learning segment should develop students’ abilities to comprehend and/or compose text
through the use of literacy skills and strategies. Candidates also identify objectives for
developing academic language, taking into account students’ prior language development
and the language demands of the learning tasks and assessments. Finally candidates
select/adapt/design and organize instructional strategies, learning tasks, and assessments
to promote and monitor your students’ learning during the learning segment. Activities
and experiences related to this assignment occur in EDTE 315 – History-Social Science
Curriculum and Instruction for the Diverse K-8 Classroom.
5) Language & Literacy Content Area Task III (CAT III): The Assessment of Student
Learning task requires candidates to diagnose student learning needs through an analysis
of student work samples. It provides evidence of each candidate’s ability to a) select an
assessment tool and criteria that are aligned with your central focus, student standards,
and learning objectives; b) analyze student performance on an assessment in relation to
student needs and the identified learning objectives; c) provide feedback to students; and
d) use the analysis to identify next steps in instruction for the whole class and individual
students. For this assignment candidates (1) select one student assessment from the
learning segment and analyze student work using evaluative criteria (or a rubric); (2)
Identify three student work samples that illustrate class trends in what students did and
did not understand; and (3) Write a commentary that analyzes the extent to which the
class met the standards/objectives, analyzes the individual learning of two students
represented in the work samples, and identifies next steps in instruction. Activities and
experiences related to this assignment occur in either EDTE 319A or 319B – Language
and Literacy (I or II) for the Diverse K-8 Classroom.
6) Final Student Teaching Evaluation: Student teaching evaluation protocol containing 43
items with a 5-point rubric administered by supervisor or trained collaborating teacher.
This instrument is based on the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol and is aligned
with the Teaching Performance Expectations. It is used as a summative evaluation for the
program.
8
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
7) PACT Teaching Event (Capstone Assessment): In the Teaching Event, Candidates
show the strategies they use to make mathematics accessible to students, and how they
support students in learning to read, write, and use academic language. Candidates
explain the thinking underlying their teaching decisions and analyze the strategies they
use to connect students with the content you are teaching. Candidates examine the effects
of their instructional design and teaching practices on student learning, with particular
attention to students with diverse cultural, language, and socio-economic backgrounds
and learning needs. Candidates begin by developing a set of lessons (about one week of
instruction) that build upon one another toward a central focus that reflects key concepts
and skills, with a clearly defined beginning and end. The learning segment must include
learning objectives for both the curriculum content and the development of academic
language related to that content. Candidates are required to submit lesson plans, copies of
instructional and assessment materials, one or two video clips of their teaching, a
summary of whole class learning, and an analysis of student work samples. They also
write commentaries describing their teaching context, analyzing their teaching practices,
and reflecting on what they learned about their teaching practice and their students’
learning. Each candidate is required to clearly demonstrate how their practice meets the
California Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs). Support for completion of the
Teaching Event is provided in the EDTE 332 course.
Table 2 provides additional details about the nature of each key assessment.
9
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Table 2: Overview of Key Assessments
Assessment
Tool
Formative/
Summative
When
administered
Details about Administration
Alignment
with TPEs
Individual faculty members
assess candidate work based on a
standard 3-point rubric with 3
criteria designed by a faculty
group.
Individual faculty members
assess candidate work based on a
standard 4-point rubric with 5
criteria designed by a faculty
group.
Individual faculty members
assess candidate work based the
PACT 4-point rubric with 3
criteria designed by PACT.
TPEs
5,6,7,8,9,11,12
TPEs
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,
9
Assessment #1:
Community
Study
Formative
End of first
semester
Assessment # 2:
Mini-PACT
Formative
End of Math
methods
course
Assessment #3:
Planning Content
Area Task
(CAT) for
Science
Assessment #4:
Planning Content
Area Task
(CAT) for Social
Studies
Assessment #5:
Assessment
Content Area
Task (CAT) for
Language &
Literacy.
Assessment #6:
Student
Teaching
Evaluation
Formative
End of Science
methods
course
Formative
End of Social
Studies
methods
course
Individual faculty members
assess candidate work based the
PACT 4-point rubric with 3
criteria designed by PACT.
Formative
End of
Language &
Literacy
methods
course
Individual faculty members
assess candidate work based the
PACT 4-point rubric with 3
criteria designed by PACT.
Summative
End of Final
Student
Teaching
Semester
Assessment #7:
PACT Teaching
Event
Summative
End of Final
Semester
43 item student teaching
evaluation with a 5 point rubric
administered by supervisor or
trained collaborating teacher.
Items are grouped under four
areas preparation, instruction,
assessment, professionalism.
Candidates show the strategies
they use to make mathematics
accessible to students, and how
they support students in learning
to read, write, and use academic
language. The Teaching Event
consists of 5 distinct tasks as
depicted in Table 5.
TPEs
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11
TPEs
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,
9
TPEs
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,
9
All TPEs and
the Structured
Instructional
Observation
Protocol
(SIOP)
All TPEs
10
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
In Table 3 below, we summarize the data related to completer performance as measured by the
four key assessments detailed in Table 2.
Table 3: Aggregate Data on Completer Performance
ASSESSMENT
TOOLS
CRITERIA/AREA
Assessment #1:
Community
Study
Criteria 1: Critical Components understanding of the critical components
necessary for the creation of an positive
classroom community by providing good
details/variety of examples in overall plan.
Criteria 2: Various Strategies -understanding
from research and theory about effective
implementation of management strategies by
providing good details/variety of examples in
overall plan.
Criteria 3: Reflect and Question - ability to
evaluate and reflect in depth on how one’s
own assumptions and values affect choices one
makes; poses significant questions and offers
thoughtful insights.
Criteria 1: How do the plans support
students’ development of conceptual
understanding, computational/procedural
fluency, and mathematical reasoning skills?
Criteria 2: How does the candidate actively
engage students in their own understanding of
mathematical concepts and discourse?
Criteria 3: How does the candidate monitor
student learning during instruction and
respond to student questions, comments, and
needs?
Criteria 4: How does the candidate monitor
student learning during instruction and
respond to student questions, comments, and
needs?
Criteria 5: How does the candidate
demonstrate an understanding of student
performance with respect to
standards/objectives?
ESTABLISHING A BALANCED
INSTRUCTIONAL FOCUS
ES1: How do the plans support student
Assessment
# 2: MiniPACT
Assessment #3:
Planning
Content Area
MEAN
SCORES
FALL
2008/2009
3.00/3.00
MEAN
SCORES
SPRING
2009/2010
None/3.00
3.00/3.00
None/2.35
3.00/3.00
None/2.96
2.92/2.51
1.762.34
2.67/2.62
1.962.21
2.54/2.64
1.842.06
2.00/2.18
2.12/2.04
2.00/2.07
1.88/2.12
2.50/3.14
3.08/3.97
11
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
ASSESSMENT
TOOLS
CRITERIA/AREA
Task (CAT) for
Science
learning of scientific concepts and inquiry
skills in developmentally appropriate ways?
MAKING CONTENT ACCESSIBLE
ES2: How do the plans make the curriculum
accessible to the students in the class?
DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS
ES3: What opportunities do students have to
demonstrate their understanding of the
standards and learning objectives?
ESTABLISHING A BALANCED
INSTRUCTIONAL FOCUS
EH1: How do the plans support student
learning of developmentally appropriate1
analytic reasoning skills in history or social
science?
MAKING CONTENT ACCESSIBLE
EH2: How do the plans make the curriculum
accessible to the students in the class?
DESIGNING ASSESSMENTS
EH3: What opportunities do students have to
demonstrate their understanding of the
standards/objectives?
ANALYZING STUDENT WORK FROM AN
ASSESSMENT
EL6: How does the candidate demonstrate
an understanding of student performance with
respect to standards/objectives?
USING ASSESSMENT TO INFORM
TEACHING
EL7: How does the candidate use the analysis
of student learning to propose next steps in
instruction?
USING FEEDBACK TO PROMOTE
STUDENT LEARNING
EL8: What is the quality of feedback to
students?
43 items with a 5 point rubric aligned to TPEs
and SIOP addressing planning, instruction,
assessment, academic language, classroom
environment, and professionalism.
Assessment #4:
Planning
Content Area
Task (CAT) for
Social Studies
Assessment #5:
Assessment
Content Task
(CAT) for
Language &
Literacy.
Assessment #6:
Student
Teaching
Evaluation-
MEAN
SCORES
FALL
2008/2009
2.50/3.14
MEAN
SCORES
SPRING
2009/2010
3.08/3.97
2.63/3.08
2.89/3.94
2.33/3.12
2.94/3.97
2.70/None
3.23/3.23
2.70/None
3.26/3.22
2.85/None
3.20/3.17
2.00/None
1.84/3.13
2.00/None
1.80/3.01
2.00/None
1.92/2.57
3.04/3.04
3.67/3.67
12
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
ASSESSMENT
TOOLS
CRITERIA/AREA
Final Semester
Assessment #7: Area I: Planning
PACT Teaching
Event
Area II: Instruction
MEAN
SCORES
FALL
2008/2009
MEAN
SCORES
SPRING
2009/2010
None/2.41 2.55/2.67
None/2.31 2.17/2.51
Area III: Assessment
None/2.21
2.30/2.48
None/2.30
2.16/2.51
None/1.92
1.85/2.15
Area IV: Reflection
Area V: Academic Language
b. Additional information about candidate and program completer performance or
program effectiveness collected and analyzed that informs program decision making.
At this time, the data displayed above is the primary data we use to assess our candidates and
program completers.
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
In this section, we discuss the data displayed in Table 3. We focus our discussion on the
strengths and areas for improvement revealed by the analysis of these data.
Strengths:
a. Student/candidate learning and performance: Student performance on the Embedded
Signature Assignments and Content Area Tasks reveal a high degree of success in the
areas assessed by those assignments. Particular strengths are seen in the areas of the
community study, planning for instruction, and some aspects of assessment.
b. Program effectiveness: Student strengths are reflective of programmatic strengths in
the areas noted in a. above. These results, coupled with those from final student
teaching evaluations and PACT Teaching Events, indicate that there is a strong
connection between theory and practice. Program faculty believe that the fieldwork
component that is built into each methods course is a strong contributor to this finding.
Areas for improvement:
a. Student/candidate performance and program effectiveness: Two areas emerge from an
analysis of the data. First, Using Feedback to Promote Student Learning is the one
assessment item that faculty need to find more successful ways to address. The literacy
methods course faculty, who have the most direct responsibility for this item, have
13
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
already met to develop practices that can be infused into their courses (EDTE 319A and
EDTE 319B) that will strengthen student performance in this area. Second, faculty are
monitoring the relationship between student performance on the five mini-PACT
criteria and student performance on those same criteria when they appear on the PACT
Teaching Event. Preliminary analyses indicate that in some areas students are not
exhibiting growth. During the next academic semester (Fall 2010) these areas will be
monitored carefully to determine if this is in fact a trend which indicates some
programmatic issue. If it does, faculty will work collaboratively in Spring 2011 to
address it.
IV. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate Performance and Program
Effectiveness
The multiple subject program faculty members have met on a regular basis to review program
data and discuss revisions as necessary in order to ensure that candidates have every chance at
addressing potential problem areas. One area of concern, for example, has been whether or not
candidates possess the necessary skills and pedagogical understanding related to assessing
student learning. Even though results for Assessment # 5 (which requires using assessment data
to analyze student learning) are positive, other indicators suggest that candidates' assessment
skills need to be strengthened. As a result, the program is looking for ways to integrate more
assessment pedagogy into its courses. Gradually, course content is being revised to assure that
the following competencies are addressed: (1) Designing assessments, (2) Monitoring student
learning during instruction, (3) Analyzing student work from assessments, (4) Using assessments
to inform teaching, and (5) Using feedback to promote student learning. Particular emphasis has
been placed on item (5) since scores on this item lag behind those of the other items.
Another pattern that emerged based on an analysis of data generated by Assessments 3 and 4 is
an improvement in candidate ability to plan and implement instruction. A more focused unit
designing component has been built into the Science Methods, Social Studies Methods, and
Math Methods courses, where candidates plan instructional units integrating multiple models of
instruction, theoretical approaches and strategies to support differentiated instruction. The
impact of these changes can be seen in the improved scores from the last assessment cycle.
Data from Assessment 5 and 7 suggest a need to strengthen instruction in developing students’
academic language, which has prompted the faculty to investigate what academic language
means and how it can be integrated into coursework and student teaching across the program. In
addition to integrating academic language concepts and strategies into coursework and student
teaching, future Embedded Signature Assignments (ESA) and Content Area Tasks (CATs) will
contain rubrics indicating specific criteria for academic language. Further, the PACT Teaching
Event will be used as a summative assessment, in which academic language is assessed.
Finally, further investigation is needed to determine whether the ESAs are predictive of TE
performance and performance in student teaching. Previous analyses revealed that candidates
typically scored higher on the ESAs than on the TE. We believe this was related to the fact that
candidates are generally allowed to revise and correct their work on ESAs, as achieving mastery
is the primary objective. Thus, the scores tend to reflect the process of revision and therefore,
candidates usually do very well on their ESA assessments. The faculty has continually revised
14
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
the ESAs as necessary to assure validity, and in the 2008-2010 academic year new ESAs that are
aligned with PACT Teaching Event Rubrics were implemented. These ESAs (also called
Content Area Tasks (CATs) were evaluated with TE rubrics and provided better insights into
necessary remediation along with better predictability of Teaching Event success.
The plan as we move forward is to use the report data we run from TaskStream to look at
outcomes programmatically. We will mainly utilize TaskStream functions which allow us to
aggregate data aligned with each TPE, and examine how well candidates are reaching that
outcome. In addition, we plan to examine if our revised signature assignments and PACT tasks
are being assessed consistently across multiple sections of each course. We also plan to continue
to explore how the signature assignments (formative assessments) are helping to prepare the
students for the capstone assignment (summative assessment). We need to work on refining the
assignments and corresponding rubrics to improve this process.
15
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Teacher Education:
Single Subject
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
16
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Program documented in this report: Single Subject Credential Program
Department of Teacher Education
Credential awarded: Single Subject
Is this program offered at more than one site? Yes
If yes, list all sites at which the program is offered:
North Cluster:
Fall 08-Fall 09:
Inderkum High School
Natomas Unified School District
2500 New Market Rd.
Sacramento, Ca. 95835
Spring 10:
Will C. Riles Middle School
Center Unified School District
4747 PFE Rd.
Roseville, Ca. 95843
PULSE Cluster:
Hiram Johnson HS
Sac City Unified School District
6879 14th Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95820
San Juan Cluster:
Will Rogers Middle School
San Juan Unified School District
4924 Dewey Drive
Fair Oaks, CA 95628
Elk Grove Cluster:
Kerr Middle School
Elk Grove Unified School District
8865 Elk Grove Blvd
Elk Grove , CA 95624
17
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: 916-278-4187
E-Mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Name: Robert Pritchard, Former Chair, Department of Teacher Education
Phone #: 916-278-4587
E-mail: [email protected]
18
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A-CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. CONTEXTAL INFORMATION
Table 4
F 2008/F 2009
candidates
180/175
Number
of
enrolled
Number
of
candidates
completing the program
•
44/33
S 2009/S 2010
187/185
103/88
General information to help reviewers understand the program and the context in
which it operates.
Our single subject program is offered in 2 and 3 semester sequences, with credentials granted in
English, History/ Social Sciences, Science, Mathematics, World Languages, Art, Music, and
Health Science. Candidates are admitted into one of four cohort groupings, each cohort is
advised by a coordinator, and cohorts are typically associated with particular local districts. The
relationships with local districts allow us to collaborate closely with our field partners so that
candidates can experience tight alignment between university coursework and their student
teaching experiences.
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
a. Primary Candidate Assessments
This report will focus on four key assessments that are used to make critical decisions about
candidate competence prior to being recommended for a credential, including:
1) Classroom Community (Embedded Signature Assignment in EDTE 371 Schools and
Community): Effective classroom teachers build a positive, equitable, and safe learning
environment. This Signature Assignment is focused on the process of building an
effective classroom management plan and in-depth reflections of your use and your
plan within the context of your own beliefs, the philosophies you've addressed, and the
classroom community.
2) Ethnography (Embedded Signature Assignment in EDTE 372 – Anthropology of
Education): The Classroom/Learner Profile is a narrative account (report or composition)
developed from a range of materials and artifacts and requires candidates to develop a
field record based on a series of observations and interviews in order to analyze and
portray the community, the school, the classroom and the set of learners using a range of
theoretical “lens” including minority status, cultural difference, and educational dynamics
in formal and informal settings along with cognitive, pedagogical and individual factors
affecting student’s language acquisition
19
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
3) Student Teaching Evaluation Final Semester: Student teaching evaluation protocol
containing 43 items with a 5-point rubric administered by supervisor or trained
collaborating teacher. This instrument is based on the Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol and is aligned with the Teaching Performance Expectations. This is a summative
assessment.
4) Teaching Event: The PACT Teaching Event is designed to evaluate the planning,
instruction, assessment and reflection skills of teacher candidates as it focuses on their
application of their subject and pedagogical knowledge (see Table 5 below).
Table 5: Anatomy of the PACT Teaching Event (TE)
Instructional Context
Planning
•
•
•
Daily lesson
plans for
learning
segment
Handouts,
overheads, etc.
Planning
commentary
•
•
Instruction
Video clip(s)
Teaching
commentary
•
Assessment
Analysis of one •
assessment,
•
illustrated by 3
student work
samples + next
steps in
instruction based
on assessment
results
Reflection
Daily reflections
Reflective
commentary
Academic Language
20
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Table 6 below provides additional details about the nature of each key assessment.
Table 6: Overview of Key Assessments
Assessment
Tool
Formative/
Summative
When
administered
Details about Administration
Alignment
with TPEs
Assessment #1:
Classroom
Community
Formative
Individual faculty assess candidate
work based on a standard 3-point
rubric with 4 criteria designed by a
faculty group.
TPE
5,6,7,8,9,11,
12
Assessment #2:
Ethnography
Formative
Summative
Individual faculty assess candidate
work based on a standard 3-point
rubric with 3 criteria designed by a
faculty group.
43 item student teaching evaluation
with a 5-point rubric administered by
supervisor or trained collaborating
teacher. Items are grouped under four
areas preparation, instruction,
assessment, professionalism.
TPEs
1,2,3,4,5,6,
7,8,9
Assessment #3:
Student
Teaching
Evaluation
End of
Community
and School
course
sequence
End of
Anthropology
in Education
course
End of Final
Semester of
Student
Teaching
Assessment #4:
PACT Teaching
Event
Summative
End of Phase
III
Assessed using a set of guiding
questions (GQs) and corresponding
rubrics (on a 4-point continuum) to
rate each candidate’s performance on
each of the GQs. Guiding questions
correspond to five areas: planning,
instruction, assessment, reflection,
and academic language.
All TPEs
and the
Structured
Instructional
Observation
Protocol
(SIOP)
All TPEs
21
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
In Table 7 below, we summarize the data related to completer performance as measured by the
four key assessments detailed in Table 5.
Table 7: Aggregate Data on Completer Performance
ASSESSMENT
TOOLS
#1: Classroom
Community
#2: Ethnography
CRITERIA/AREA
Criteria 1: Strong understanding of the
components and their connection to the
creation of a positive classroom community
by providing a variety of examples (not
limited to those suggested) and their impact
on student behavior and classroom
management.
Criteria 2: The Classroom/Behavior
Management Plan presents a clear and
comprehensive discussion of the beliefs and
theories that inform the decisions involved in
the creation of the Plan. Descriptions of
actions and reflections thereon contain thick
descriptions and rich discussion.
Criteria 3: Complete classroom management
plan and behavior management system.
Includes details about procedures, strategies,
and arrangements related to the components.
and a behavior management plan detailing
classroom rules, reinforcements, positive and
negative consequences, and how will
monitor/prevent misbehavior.
Criteria 4: Reflects in depth on the
effective/ineffective use of classroom
management plan/strategies and discipline
system during student teaching. Identifies
specific strategic changes that will enhance
student learning behavior and thoroughly
links reflection to research/ theories and own
personal belief system.
Criteria 1: How well does the narrative
analyze the culture of the community, the
school, the classroom and students she/he
studied? • How sufficient is the data set
collected by the candidate regarding student
perspectives, and the socio-linguistic aspects
of learning? • How well does the narrative
analyze the data set and explain the routines,
values, and other important aspects of the
community, school, classroom, and students?
Criteria 2: Does the narrative attend to the
dynamics, tensions and representative
differences between students and between
MEAN
SCORES
F 2008/2009
2.62/2.98
MEAN
SCORES
S 2009/S 2010
2.50/2.77
2.54/2.88
2.75/2.65
2.43/2.94
2.50/2.74
2.33/2.69
2.70/2.51
2.28/2.66
2.35/2.62
2.37/2.71
2.50/2.61
22
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
ASSESSMENT
TOOLS
Assessment #3:
Student Teaching
Evaluation
CRITERIA/AREA
students and dominant educational patterns
attend?
Criteria 3: How does the analysis inform
teaching and learning (Planning, Instruction,
Assessment, Parent/Community
Engagement)?
43 item, 5-point rubric aligned to TPEs and
SIOP
MEAN
SCORES
F 2008/2009
MEAN
SCORES
S 2009/S 2010
2.56/2.65
2.33/2.61
3.38/3.75
3.48/3.67
23
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
ASSESSMENT TOOLS
TE Art
TE English
TE Health
TE Math
TE Music
TE Science
TE Social Science
TE World Lang.
CRITERIA/AREA
Area I: Planning
Area II: Instruction
Area III: Assessment
Area IV: Reflection
Area V: Academic Language
Area I: Planning
Area II: Instruction
Area III: Assessment
Area IV: Reflection
Area V: Academic Language
Area I: Planning
Area II: Instruction
Area III: Assessment
Area IV: Reflection
Area V: Academic Language
Area I: Planning
Area II: Instruction
Area III: Assessment
Area IV: Reflection
Area V: Academic Language
Area I: Planning
Area II: Instruction
Area III: Assessment
Area IV: Reflection
Area V: Academic Language
Area I: Planning
Area II: Instruction
Area III: Assessment
Area IV: Reflection
Area V: Academic Language
Area I: Planning
Area II: Instruction
Area III: Assessment
Area IV: Reflection
Area V: Academic Language
Area I: Planning
Area II: Instruction
Area III: Assessment
Area IV: Reflection
Area V: Academic Language
MEAN
SCORES
F 2008/F 2009
2.33/3.33
2.10/3.16
2.40/3.41
2.40/3.00
2.20/2.88
2.67/2.20
2.42/2.10
2.34/2.00
2.34/2.00
2.57/2.00
2.67/2.33
2.00/1.50
2.50/2.00
3.00/2.00
2.00/1.50
2.63/1.83
2.20/2.50
2.20/2.00
2.40/1.75
2.17/2.00
None/2.83
None/3.00
None/2.83
None/3.00
None/2.75
2.75/2.22
2.47/1.76
2.30/2.00
2.57/1.83
2.13/1.98
2.56/2.04
2.67/2.00
2.50/1.85
2.60/2.00
2.60/2.00
2.56/None
2.67/None
2.50/None
2.50/None
2.00/None
MEAN
SCORES
S 2009/S 2010
3,25/2.66
3.13/2.00
3.17/2.06
3.25/1.70
3,25/2.00
2.46/2.61
2.08/2.16
2.28/2.27
2.35/2.12
2.00/1.80
None/2.83
None/2.25
None/2.16
None/2.50
None/2.25
2.42/2.39
2.13/2.20
2.33/2.09
1.75/2.14
1.88/2.06
2.58/3.33
2.632.90
2.83/2.93
2.25/2.70
2.63/2.80
2.69/ /2.73
2.67/2.15
2.47/2.30
2.54/2.34
2.46/2.19
2.86/2.45
1.93/2.02
2.38/2.08
2.00/2.20
1.93/2.08
2.83/2.56
2.75/2.33
2.67/2.50
2.50/2.50
2.75/2.20
24
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
b. Additional information about candidate and program completer performance or
program effectiveness collected and analyzed that informs program decision
making.
At this time, the data displayed above is the primary data we use to assess our candidates and
program completers as well as assess program effectiveness.
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
In this section, we discuss the data displayed in Table 7. We focus our discussion on the
strengths and areas for improvement revealed by the analysis of these data.
Strengths:
c. Student/candidate learning and performance: Student performance on the Embedded
Signature Assignments reveals a high degree of success in the areas assessed by these
assignments, in essence classroom and community cultures. Clearly, candidates
understand the importance of connecting the work students do in school with their lives
outside of school. In addition, candidates understand and implement instructional
practices that effectively connect these areas. PACT Teaching Event scores are
consistent with these conclusions for some subject areas.
d. Program effectiveness: Data across the board reveal that our Single Subject Credential
Program is operating very effectively as measured by candidate understanding of
important learning objectives and candidate ability to demonstrate these understandings
during student teaching. Scores on PACT Teaching Events for some subject areas
(namely, Art, Health, Math, Music) also support these conclusions.
Areas for improvement:
a. Student/candidate performance and program effectiveness: Scores on PACT Teaching
Events in the areas of English, Science and Social Science, while satisfactory, have
dropped from the previous assessment cycle.
IV. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate Performance and Program
Effectiveness
The patterns that emerge from the data underscore the single subject program’s commitment to
candidates’ mastery of skills and knowledge as well as its focus on pedagogical skills and
teacher professionalism. Faculty members meet on a regular basis to review program data and
discuss revisions as necessary in order to ensure that candidates have every chance to address
potential problem areas. For example, the low Assessment scores indicated to faculty that
adequate assessment information was lacking in our existing program, thus we developed a one
unit assessment component and added this to the Psychology of Instruction course. The
assessment component is designed to assure that the following competencies are addressed: (1)
25
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Designing assessments, (2) Monitoring student learning during instruction, (3) Analyzing student
work from assessments, (4) Using assessments to inform teaching, and (5) Using feedback to
promote student learning. Improved scores from the last assessment cycle until this one indicate
that these changes have had the desired impact.
Another pattern that emerged in the past based on an analysis of the “Instruction” component of
the Teaching Event data was the ability to plan and implement instruction. To address this
domain, candidates were provided with more focused instruction on unit design and on
instructional reflection in several courses. Candidates have opportunities to apply this expanded
knowledge base with assignments in which they plan instructional units that integrate multiple
models of instruction, theoretical approaches and strategies to support differentiated instruction.
Again, increased scores show this approach has worked effectively in some areas but not others.
Faculty from the areas in which problems are evident (English, Science and Social Science) will
be meeting together to discuss what can be done to address these issues.
Candidates also scored relatively low on academic language in the past, which prompted the
faculty to delve more deeply into the research base for academic language means and how it can
be integrated into coursework and student teaching more fully across the program. Academic
language is now addressed in virtually every course in the single subject program and is assessed
in a variety of ways with specific feedback to the candidates. Improved scores in this area show
this approach has worked, although there is still room for improvement.
Regarding the finding that Embedded Signature Assignment (ESA) scores are relatively higher
than scores on the Teaching Event, candidates are generally allowed to revise and correct ESAs,
with the primary goal being that they achieve mastery. The scores tend to reflect the process and
final outcomes of revision(s) and therefore, candidates usually do very well on their ESA
assessments. The credibility of each assessment piece is reflected in the common rubrics or
scoring guides. The faculty has continually revised the ESAs as necessary to assure reliability in
scoring.
We intend to use individual and aggregate data we have run from TaskStream to look at
outcomes programmatically. We will mainly utilize the Performance/Outcome Assessment
reports from TaskStream, which will allow us to aggregate data aligned with each TPE, and
examine how well we are reaching those outcomes. In addition, we plan this year to examine
whether our revised signature assignments and PACT tasks are being assessed consistently
across multiple sections of each course. We also plan to continue to explore how the signature
assignments (formative assessments) are helping to prepare the candidates for the capstone
assignment (summative assessment). We need to work on refining the assignments and
corresponding rubrics to improve this process.
26
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Bilingual & Multicultural Education:
Multiple Subject/BCLAD
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
27
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Name of Program: Multilingual/Multicultural Teacher Preparation Program
Credential awarded: Multiple Subject & Multiple Subject BCLAD
Is this program offered at more than one site?
No
Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: 916-278-4187
E-Mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Name: Dr. Susan Heredia
Phone #: 916-278-5942
E-Mail: [email protected]
28
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. Contextual Information
TABLE 8: Candidates Enrolled and Candidates Completing, Fall 2008-Spring 2010
Number of Multiple Subject candidates enrolled
in BMED program (ELA/BCLAD)
Number of Multiple Subject candidates
completing the program (ELA/BCLAD)
Fall
2008
54
Spring
2009
52
Fall
2009
56
Spring
2010
56
8/13
16/15
11/7
14/12
Candidates in the Multilingual/Multicultural Teacher Preparation Program-Multiple
Subject (MMTPP-MS) complete a comprehensive program that includes standards-based
coursework and two semesters of student teaching. The program has an explicit
commitment to multicultural/social justice education and to bilingual education. The
majority of the candidates are students of color and/or bilingual and significant program
resources are directed towards recruiting and supporting diverse candidates. Candidates are
admitted into a cohort that completes the majority of program requirements together. As
much as possible, candidates are placed in clusters at schools sites where program
graduates teach and/or where a significant amount of professional development has been
invested in cooperating teachers over the years. Most placements are at schools serving a
low income and racially, culturally and linguistically diverse student population where
candidates are expected to contribute fully to the student learning in their classrooms and to
the other programs in operation at the school. Program faculty make an effort to link course
activities with student teaching experiences; in fact, many courses include activities that
“push into” partner school classrooms so that candidates experience tight links between
theory and practice. All of the courses are taught by tenured/tenure track faculty and the
majority of student teaching supervision is also done by these faculty members.
Four important contextual factors and/or changes are noteworthy for the period under
review.
• In fall 2008, our program officially implemented SB2042 Standards 19-21 (now
standards 17-20). Though we had piloted several pieces of our assessment system
in the years prior to fall 2008, this official implementation of the system demanded
considerable effort from our program faculty including: (a) significant revisions to
the content, format, and grading system for 3 methods courses to incorporate
administration of a PACT Content Area Task (CAT); (b) significant revisions to the
Fundamentals course series to incorporate support to candidates preparing a PACT
Teaching Event; and, (c) adoption, in fall 2009, of TaskStream as a program
organizational and data management tool, requiring on-going professional
development for faculty members and supervisors and training and a new cost
(TaskStream subscription) for candidates.
• During the 2009-2010 year, EDBM118, the second in a two-course series focused
on the multicultural foundations of public schooling in the U.S. was changed from a
29
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
•
•
2 unit course to a 3 unit course. During fall 2010, this course will also change its
grading structure, from “credit/no credit” to graded.
Beginning in Spring 2009, our department became the “home” campus for an
international (Mexico) BCLAD program. Among other variables, this designation
results in a small cohort (7-12 candidates thus far) integrating into our state-side
program in the spring semester of each year.
Our program has had to make significant and subtle adjustments to respond to the
state’s on-going fiscal crisis and shrinking enrollments in teacher preparation
programs including: (a) limits on instructional time and supervision during the 0910 furlough year, (b) increasing class sizes, and (c) reducing extra-curricular
activities that were previously completed to strengthen cohort cohesion and
professional development for candidates (e.g., Ropes course, conference
attendance, etc.).
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
Table 9 below identifies the key assessments that we use to make critical decisions about
candidate competence.
TABLE 9: Key Assessments for the MMTPP-MS
Assessment Tool
Type of
Assessment
PACT Teaching
Event & CATs*
Summative
When
administered
Details about
administration
Learning
Outcomes
addressed
All TPEs
End of program or
Trained scorers
end of course
assess work based on
(CATs)
a standard rubric
Student Teaching Formative and Mid-term and end
Individual
All TPEs
Evaluations
Summative
of term, Semester supervisors observe organized into
1 and Semester
candidates and use sub categories
2**
resulting evidence to
make judgments
based on 4 point
rubric
*CAT data available for Spring 2010 completers only
**Final evaluations for Semester 1 and 2 included here
30
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
In Tables 10A-10C below, we present data from the PACT assessment system for the period
under review.
Table 10A: Strengths and Weaknesses for the Multiple Subject Program from
2009-2010 PACT Content-Area Tasks (CATs)
(Rubric from 0-4, Passing score = 50% of rubrics at level 2)
1st Time Pass Rate
Average Score
2.1
2
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.9
2.8
2.5
2.5
Science-Planning 1
Science-Planning 2
Science-Planning 3
Social Studies-Planning 1
Social Studies-Planning 2
Social Studies-Planning 3
Math-Assessment 1
Math-Assessment 2
Math-Assessment 3
75%
95%
100%
Table 10B: PACT Teaching Event Scores for Bilingual Elementary Literacy, Spring 2009Spring 2010
(Average Score for Cohort; Rubric from 0-4, Holistic passing score = majority of rubrics above
level 2)
Term
P1
P2
P3
I1
I2
A1
A2
A3
R1
R2
AL1
AL2
Spring
2009
Fall 2009
Spring
2010
3
3.2
2.9
3.1
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.9
3.2
2.5
3.09
1st time
pass %
100%
2.7
2.8
3.2
2.6
3
2.6
3.2
2.3
2.8
2.5
2.8
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.8
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.2
2.4
2.8
2.2
100%
93%
Table 10C: PACT Teaching Event Scores for Elementary Literacy,
Spring 2009-Spring 2010
(Average Score for Cohort; Rubric from 0-4, Holistic passing score = majority of rubrics above
level 2)
Term
P1
P2
P3
I1
I2
A1
A2
A3
R1
R2
AL1
AL2
Spring
2009
Fall 2009
Spring
2010
3.1
3
3.1
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.4
2.8
2.9
2.5
2.9
1st time
pass %
93%
2.6
2.5
2.8
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.1
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.6
2.4
2.6
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.0
100%
100%
31
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Tables 11 and 12 display data related to candidates’ performance in student teaching, as
ascertained at the end of their first semester of student teaching and again at the end of their
second and final semester of student teaching.
TABLE 11: Student Teaching Evaluations – BCLAD Candidates
Assessment
Component
Average Score
(0-4 Scale, predominant score of “4”
for final semester-S2- of student teaching)
F08
Spring 09
*Fall 09
Spring 10
completerscompleterscompleterscompletersS1/S2
S1/S2
S1/S2
S1/S2
3.1 / 3.8
3.1 / 4.0
2.9 / 3.6
3.0 / 3.8
3.0 / 3.8
3.1 / 3.9
3.0 / 3.9
2.8 / 3.7
Preparation
Building Background
Knowledge
Comprehensible Input 3.1 / 3.8
3.1 / 4.0
3.0 / 3.9
2.9 / 3.9
Interaction
2.8 / 3.8
2.9 / 3.9
3.0 / 3.7
2.7 / 3.6
Practice/Application
3.0 / 3.9
3.0 / 3.9
3.1 / 3.8
3.0 / 3.8
Lesson Delivery
3.0 / 3.8
3.1 / 4.0
3.0 / 3.8
2.9 / 3.9
Strategies
3.0 / 3.9
3.1 / 4.0
2.8 / 3.8
3.1 / 3.8
Assessment
2.8 / 3.7
2.9 / 3.8
3.0 / 3.5
2.7 / 3.5
Professionalism
3.3 / 4.0
3.5 / 4.0
3.4 / 4.0
3.6 / 3.9
*Due to an unusually small number of candidates in either BCLAD or ELA programs, the student
teaching evaluation averages for this group are combined.
TABLE 12: Student Teaching Evaluations – ELA Candidates
Assessment Component
Preparation
Building Background
Knowledge
Comprehensible Input
Interaction
Practice/Application
Lesson Delivery
Strategies
Assessment
Professionalism
Average Score
(0-4 Scale, predominant score of “4”
for final semester-S2- of student teaching)
F08
Spring 09
*Fall 09
Spring 10
completers- completers- completers- completersS1/S2
S1/S2
S1/S2
S1/S2
3.0 / 3.9
3.0 / 3.6
2.9 / 3.6
3.0 / 3.7
3.0 / 3.9
2.9 / 3.9
3.0 / 3.9
3.1 / 3.7
3.9 / 3.8
3.9 / 3.8
3.0 / 3.8
3.0 / 3.9
3.0 / 3.8
2.9 / 3.8
3.3 / 3.9
2.9 / 3.9
2.8 / 3.7
3.0 / 3.8
2.9 / 3.8
3.0 / 3.8
2.6 / 3.5
3.3 / 4.0
3.0 / 3.9
3.0 / 3.7
3.1 / 3.8
3.0 / 3.8
2.8 / 3.8
3.0 / 3.5
3.4 / 4.0
3.0 / 3.9
3.0 / 3.6
3.0 / 3.8
3.0 / 3.8
3.1 / 3.8
2.7 / 3.7
3.8 / 3.9
32
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
*Due to an unusually small number of candidates in either BCLAD or ELA programs, the student
teaching evaluation averages for this group are combined.
b) What additional information about candidate and program completer performance or
program effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision
making?
In addition to these performance indicators, the CSU system has conducted an annual survey of
program completers after their first year of employment and their supervisors. These data have
not been readily available at the program level on our campus. However, the department chairs
have viewed general reports related to our campus as a whole. These reports indicate that while
our programs excel in certain areas (preparation to teach specific content areas, preparation in
reading instruction at the elementary levels, for example), there are specific areas that need
focused attention including: (a) teaching students with special needs; (b) teaching English
learners; and (c) using community resources.
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
In Section II above, we displayed data related to candidate performance on the PACT-CATs,
PACT-Teaching Event, and two administrations of our student teaching evaluation. Each
semester, program faculty discuss these data in conjunction with reflections from faculty,
supervisors, and PACT scorers involved in aspects of our assessment system. These discussions
allow us to make sense of the data and to use these insights to identify appropriate changes
designed to improve our candidates’ experience and their performance outcomes. We discuss each
assessment tool in the text below.
PACT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM – CATs: During the period under review, the Science and Social
Studies CATs were administered during the first semester of the program. Theoretical frameworks
for instructional planning are emphasized during this first semester and while theories and
strategies for pupil assessment are introduced in this first semester, they are not emphasized as
much as basic approaches to instructional planning are. In the second semester, pupil assessment
becomes a primary focus in key methods coursework as well as in student teaching supervision.
This program sequencing is certainly evidenced in the CAT scores, which are reasonable for first
semester candidates in the basic elements of instructional planning (planning 1 and 2) but much
weaker in the area of designing assessments (planning 3). By the second semester, candidates
appear to have developed capacity in terms of their capacity to implement and make use of high
quality pupil assessments, as evidenced by the Math Assessment CAT scores.
The faculty noted the distinct differences in first time pass rates across the CATs. We were not
able to do a more detailed analysis of these data for this report, but possible explanatory factors
related to both the newness of supporting candidates to complete the CATs on the part of our
faculty instructors and/or expected variations in candidate competence and development. As we
develop a more robust database of scores related to the CATs and the Teaching Event, we will be
in a position to conduct more in-depth analysis of trends in these scores.
33
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
PACT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM –TEACHING EVENTS: In general, our candidates have
strengths in all aspects of planning, monitoring pupil learning during instruction (instruction 2),
analyzing assessments of pupil learning, and reflecting on teaching. They have uneven
performance in terms of actively engaging pupils in instruction and providing timely feedback to
students. They are relatively weak in designing appropriate assessments. They appear proficient in
implementing strategies for academic language development, but less adept at identifying the
language demands and features of their lessons.
The entire BMED faculty had an opportunity to review these data and discuss their
interpretations. In addition to analyzing these data, faculty who scored the Teaching Events (about
½ of all BMED faculty) shared their impressions of the quality of candidate work on this
performance assessment. Their empirical data matched the quantitative data and provided
additional insight into some of the areas of strength as well as areas for improvement. While we
do not yet have enough experience with this assessment and because the contextual variables
change each semester, we do, nevertheless, see some consistent strength in planning and usually
also in instruction. We also see a continued need to improve elements of our program (coursework
and student teaching) so that candidates develop a deeper understanding of pupil assessment and
of frameworks and strategies for academic language development.
EVALUATION OF STUDENT TEACHING: In addition to data collected through the PACT
system, our candidates are evaluated during both of their student teacher semesters. The
evaluation protocol is based on the TPEs and also incorporates elements of the Structured
Instructional Observation Protocol (SIOP), documented through research to be an effective
framework for teachers of English Learners. This evaluation tool has 43 elements. Because of its
length, not all elements are reported in this report; rather, we have combined elements into
appropriate sub-scales and the average scores for those subscales are displayed in Tables 11 and
12.
Several trends can be identified in the data. First, there are distinct differences in all subcategories between candidates’ performance in the first semester of student teaching compared
with the second; in all cases, their performance improves. This is true for both BCLAD and ELA
candidates. Second, the candidates appear to be in command of a reasonable knowledge base with
regard to instructional strategies, since this is a category that is consistently higher relative to
other categories, in both the first and second semesters of student teaching. Third, candidates
appear to comport themselves in a professional manner and consistently receive high evaluations
for their ability to reflect, collaborate, and act in a respectful manner with diverse colleagues and
students. Finally, relative to other categories, assessment appears to be a category where
candidates neither begin with as solid of a knowledge base as we would like nor do they appear to
demonstrate as much growth.
IV. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Our faculty review program assessment data each semester. In the narrative below, we describe
the faculty’s analysis from each of the two years from the period under review, identifying
program changes that were proposed and providing an update of the status of their
implementation.
34
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
During the 2008-09 review of program assessment data, we concluded that we needed to make
several changes to our MS program including:
• Provide dedicated time and support in the program and/or courses for Teaching Event
preparation. Update: In addition to changes in the content of our Fundamentals course
series (examination of PACT rubrics, critical analysis of PACT prompts, etc.), the
program faculty created a one-week break during the 12th week of the semester – class
sessions, student teaching and assignments were not required during this week so that
candidates could focus intently on finalizing their Teaching Event materials.
• Increase articulation and efficiency between courses and course instructors so that the
PACT support system for candidates functions effectively. Update: The instructors
collapsed assignments, coordinated on assignments, and collaborated on grading criteria
for assignments so that a core assignment would be required in more than one class, with
extra modules added on to address requirements of specific classes. (For example, a
modified PACT Context Task is now also required in EDBM 118 and lesson plans
developed for the Teaching Event can also be submitted for credit in several courses.)
• Align PACT CATs so that they are better coordinated with coursework and are more
developmentally appropriate. Update: The focus of the CATs was shifted with input
from course instructors. Candidates who began the program in fall 2009 experienced a
different sequence of assessments. (For example, a Planning-focused CAT is now aligned
with the science methods course, a first semester class that has an extensive guided field
experience with science curriculum development as a key activity.)
Our review of the 2009-2010 data indicate that the following modifications should be made for
the 2010-2011 academic year:
• The major assessment tools used by the MS program faculty continue to identify
assessment of pupil learning and full integration of academic language development
strategies as areas for continued improvement. At the year-end faculty retreat, the
program faculty conducted a careful analysis of each course and identified ways in which
we could strengthen and tighten our focus on these two components. These discussions,
which were informed by the quantitative and qualitative data mentioned above, led to
course and program modifications that include a more deliberate sequencing of these two
important components such that the faculty is more clear about how and when key
concepts are introduced to students, the kinds of readings, assignments and activities that
will be used to deepen their understanding of these components, and when and how we
should be expecting to see candidates demonstrating appropriate levels of knowledge
about these components in assignments and in student teaching. This discussion resulted
in an updated master calendar of assignments and activities that faculty will adhere to as
they plan their courses for the 2010-2011 year. [NOTE: Analysis of candidate outcome
data occurred simultaneous with a review of the program and its alignment to new
BCLAD program standards. We anticipate that many of the program improvements
arising from the data will also contribute to a new BCLAD program document currently
in preparation.]
• In-depth and correlational analyses of each of our key MS assessments to determine how
best to use these data in formative and summative ways, both for the purposes of
advising/instructing candidates and for making program changes. Update: by the end of
fall 2010, we should be fully transitioned into using TaskStream to store all of our
35
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
•
•
candidate performance data. Having the data available in this format will greatly facilitate
this kind of performance data analysis.
Based on informal student feedback to instructors, it appears that the program
modifications made for 2009-2010 have resolved some issues identified in earlier cycles
of program assessment. While the candidates are still fairly anxious about preparing the
Teaching Event, we feel the one week break does alleviate their stress, as much as is
possible with a high-stakes assessment. We intend to continue with this practice.
The adjustment of the CATs reduced some of the internal tension present previously. We
will continue with the current organization of the CATs.
36
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Bilingual & Multicultural Education:
Single Subject/BCLAD
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
37
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Year 2009-10
Name of Program: Multilingual/Multicultural Teacher Preparation Program
Credential awarded: Single Subject & Single Subject BCLAD
Is this program offered at more than one site?
No
Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: 916-278-4187
E-Mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Name: Dr. Susan Heredia
Phone #: 916-278-5942
E-Mail: [email protected]
38
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. Contextual Information
TABLE 13: Candidates Enrolled and Candidates Completing, Fall 2008-Spring 2010
Number of Single Subject candidates enrolled in
BMED program (ELA/BCLAD)
Number of Single Subject candidates completing
the program (ELA/BCLAD)
Fall
2008
12/10
Spring
2009
9/10
Fall
2009
9/4
Spring
2010
9/4
na
9/10
na
7/3
Candidates in the Multilingual/Multicultural Teacher Preparation Program-Single Subject
(MMTPP-SS) complete a comprehensive program that includes standards-based
coursework and two semesters of student teaching. The program has an explicit
commitment to multicultural/social justice education and to bilingual education. The
majority of the candidates are students of color and/or bilingual and significant program
resources are directed towards recruiting and supporting diverse candidates. Candidates are
admitted into a cohort that completes the majority of program requirements together.
Candidates begin their program in the fall semester and conclude in the spring semester;
during the period under review, we did not admit single subject applicants in the spring
semesters. As much as possible, candidates are placed in clusters at schools sites where
program graduates teach and/or where a significant amount of professional development
has been invested in cooperating teachers over the years. Most placements are at schools
serving a low income and racially, culturally and linguistically diverse student population
where candidates are expected to contribute fully to the student learning in their classrooms
and to the other programs in operation at the school. Though our candidates are content
specialists, in addition to teaching their subject matter, they also teach at least one period
per day in a SDAIE or ELD classroom at their sites. All of the courses are taught by
tenured/tenure track faculty and the majority of student teaching supervision is also done
by these faculty members.
Four important contextual factors and/or changes are noteworthy for the period under
review.
• In fall 2008, our program officially implemented SB2042 Standards 19-21 (now
standards 17-20). Though we had piloted several pieces of our assessment system in the
years prior to fall 2008, this official implementation of the system demanded
considerable effort from our program faculty including: (a) significant revisions to the
Fundamentals course series to incorporate support to candidates preparing a PACT
Teaching Event and (b) adoption, in fall 2009, of TaskStream as a program
organizational and data management tool, requiring on-going professional development
for faculty members and supervisors as well as additional instruction and a new cost
(TaskStream subscription) for candidates.
39
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
• During the 2009-2010 year, EDBM 128, the second in a two-course series focused on the
multicultural foundations of public schooling in the U.S. was changed from a 2 unit
course to a 3 unit course. During fall 2010, this course will also change its grading
structure, from “credit/no credit” to graded.
• Our program has had to make significant and subtle adjustments to respond to the state’s
on-going fiscal crisis and shrinking enrollments in teacher preparation programs
including: (a) limits on instructional time and supervision during the 09-10 furlough
year, (b) increasing class sizes, (c) changing our methods coursework and supervision
from an integrated content methods/supervision course taught as a year-long course by
the same instructor to a more traditional structure where the methods course instructor
did not necessarily supervise the candidates in the field and the methods course was
only one-semester in length (though total number of course units did not change); and,
(d) reducing extra-curricular activities that were previously completed to strengthen
cohort cohesion and professional development for candidates (e.g., Ropes course,
conference attendance, etc.).
I. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
Table 14 below identifies the key assessments that we use to make critical decisions about
candidate competence.
Assessment
Tool
PACT Teaching
Event
Student Teaching
Evaluations
*SS Candidate ISearch Paper
TABLE 14: Key Assessments for the MMTPP-SS
Type of
When
Details about
Assessment
administered
administration
Summative
End of program Trained scorers assess
work based on a
standard rubric
Formative and
Mid-term and end Individual supervisors
Summative
of term, Semester observe candidates and
(only summative
1 and Semester 2 use resulting evidence
included in this
to make judgments
report)
based on 4 point rubric
Formative SelfMid-program/
Rubric
Assessment
transition point
*SS Candidate
Formative
Mid-program/
Rubric
Multicultural
transition point
Unit Conceptual
Framework
*SS Candidate
Summative
End of program
Rubric
Multicultural
Portfolio
*Analysis of these qualitative data is provided in narrative form.
Learning Outcomes
addressed
All TPEs
All TPEs organized
into sub categories
Select TPEs, including
department-created
TPEs
Select TPEs, including
department-created
TPEs
Department-created
TPEs
40
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
In Tables 15A and 15B below, we present data from the PACT Teaching Event for the period
under review.
Table 15A: PACT Teaching Event Scores for BCLAD Secondary Candidates, Spring 2009 &
Spring 2010
(Average Score for Cohort; Rubric from 0-4,
Holistic passing score = majority of rubrics above level 2)
Term
P1
P2
P3
I1
I2
A1
A2
A3
R1
R2
AL1
AL2
Spring
2009
Spring
2010
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
1st time
pass %
100%
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.3
1.7
2.0
1.7
1.7
2.3
2.0
1.7
2.3
100%
Table 15B: PACT Teaching Event Scores for ELA Secondary Candidates
Spring 2009 & Spring 2010
(Average Score for Cohort; Rubric from 0-4,
Holistic passing score = majority of rubrics above level 2)
Term
P1
P2
P3
I1
I2
A1
A2
A3
R1
R2
AL1
AL2
Spring
2009
Spring
2010
2.7
2.4
2.6
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.0
1st time
pass %
100%
2.6
2.8
2.4
2.0
2.2
2.0
1.8
2.2
2.2
2.6
2.3
2.3
90%
In addition to data collected through the PACT system, our candidates are evaluated during both
of their student teacher semesters. The evaluation protocol is based on the TPEs and also
incorporates elements of the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP), documented
through research to be an effective framework for teachers of English Learners. This evaluation
tool has 43 elements. Because of the length of our evaluation instrument, we have combined
elements into appropriate sub-scales and the average scores for those subscales are displayed in
Table 16-A and Table 16-B.
41
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
TABLE 16A: Student Teaching Evaluations – BCLAD Candidates
Assessment Component
Average Score
(0-4 Scale, predominant score above a level “3”
required for final semester-S2- of student teaching)
Spring 09 completers- S1/S2 *Spring 10 completers-S1/S2
Preparation
3.1 / 3.6
2.7 / 3.3
Building Background
2.9 / 3.8
2.6 / 3.4
Knowledge
Comprehensible Input
2.9 / 3.6
2.6 / 3.4
Interaction
3.0 / 3.6
2.3 / 3.3
Practice/Application
3.1 / 3.7
2.6 / 3.4
Lesson Delivery
2.9 / 3.7
2.6 / 3.4
Strategies
3.1 / 3.7
2.6 / 3.4
Assessment
2.9 / 3.5
2.3 / 3.3
Professionalism
3.5 / 3.9
3.3 / 3.8
Due to the small number of BCLAD candidates in this cohort, the averages include BCLAD and
ELA candidates.
TABLE 16B: Student Teaching Evaluations – ELA Candidates
Assessment Component
Average Score
(0-4 Scale, predominant score above a level “3”
required for final semester-S2- of student teaching)
Spring 09 completers- S1/S2 *Spring 10 completersS1/S2
Preparation
3.2 / 3.8
2.7 / 3.3
Building Background
3.3 / 3.8
2.6 / 3.4
Knowledge
Comprehensible Input
3.3 / 3.8
2.6 / 3.4
Interaction
3.1 / 3.7
2.3 / 3.3
Practice/Application
3.3 / 3.7
2.6 / 3.4
Lesson Delivery
3.3 / 3.7
2.6 / 3.4
Strategies
3.3 / 3.8
2.6 / 3.4
Assessment
3.2 / 3.7
2.3 / 3.3
Professionalism
3.3 / 4.0
3.3 / 3.8
Due to the small number of BCLAD candidates in this cohort, the averages include BCLAD and
ELA candidates.
42
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
In addition to the data elements presented above, the MMTPA-SS program faculty have
developed three additional qualitative assessment tools that focus specifically on the program’s
multicultural/social justice framework, including a multicultural education portfolio, an I-Search
paper, and a unit plan. The quantitative data for the portfolio is displayed in Table 17 below.
Analysis of these data along with a narrative discussion of insights garnered from the
administration of the other two assessments are presented in Section III of this report.
Table 17: Assessment of SS Candidates’ Multicultural Education Portfolio
Candidate’s Credential Content
Area
English
English
Foreign language
Foreign language
Math
Math
Math
Science
Science
Science
Social Science
Social Science
Social Science
Social Science
Social Science
Social Science
Social Science
Portfolio Score
1=unacceptable, 2=developing, 3=capable
2
3
2
1-2
2
2
2
3
2-3
3
2
1-2
2-3
2-3
3
3
2-3
b) What additional information about candidate and program completer performance or
program effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision
making?
In addition to these performance indicators, the CSU system has conducted an annual survey of
program completers after their first year of employment and their supervisors. These data have
not been readily available at the program level on our campus. However, the department chairs
have viewed general reports related to our campus as a whole. These reports indicate that while
our programs excel in certain areas (preparation to teach specific content areas, preparation in
reading instruction at the elementary and secondary levels, for example), there are specific areas
that need focused attention including: (a) teaching students with special needs; (b) teaching
English learners; and (c) using community resources.
43
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
At the conclusion of each semester, our faculty participate in a day long retreat and a key activity
is the review and discussion of candidate performance data. We couple an examination of
quantitative reports with general impressions from Teaching Event scorers (consistently our
faculty instructors) and from student teaching supervisors (a mix of faculty instructors and parttime supervisors). We have not yet had a discussion in which the faculty impressions contradict
the quantitative reports; but frequently, these faculty impressions allow us to garner the more
nuanced understanding of the data that can produce concrete ideas for program improvement.
Below we provide our analysis of each of the tables presented in Section II along with a narrative
presentation of the data and analysis from our multicultural unit plan and our I-Search paper.
PACT TEACHING EVENT DATA: In general, our candidates mirror trends observed at the state
level for the Teaching Event. They are strongest in the planning domains and are weakest in
domains related to assessment and academic language development. It is noteworthy that the
BCLAD candidates do not consistently score higher than the ELA candidates in the academic
language domain; research would suggest that the opposite would typically be in evidence.
However, given the small numbers of BCLAD candidates, particularly in spring 2010, we do not
yet have enough data to establish a trend. This is an area that our program faculty will monitor.
STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATIONS: In addition to data collected through the PACT system,
our candidates are evaluated during both of their student teacher semesters. The evaluation
protocol is based on the TPEs and also incorporates elements of the Structured Instructional
Observation Protocol (SIOP), documented through research to be an effective framework for
teachers of English Learners. This evaluation tool has 43 elements. Because of its length, not all
elements are reported in this report; rather, we have combined elements into appropriate subscales and the average scores for those subscales are displayed in Tables 16A and 16B.
The majority of our candidates successfully complete both semesters of student teaching. We have
a comprehensive system of formative, transitional, and summative evaluation points for student
teaching and this is reflected in the high percentage of candidates who successfully complete
student teaching. Upon occasion, candidate performance in their classrooms does not evidence
attainment of the required TPEs and this is reflected in our program numbers in Table 13
(difference between fall enrolment and spring completion numbers). Candidates who are judged
as having not met the TPEs typically have the opportunity to complete an additional semester of
student teaching with an action plan that specifically details the areas that must be developed
more fully.
In the case of the student teaching evaluations presented in Table 16-A and 16-B, it is evident that
candidates make significant improvements in their student teaching performance from the initial
semester to the final semester of student teaching in all categories of performance.
Professionalism is a category of performance that candidates in which candidates seem to excel,
in both semesters, through growth is evident by the second semester. Further analysis of this subcategory indicates that candidates improve on their ability to reflect critically on their teaching
performance. There do not appear to be strong trends in candidate performance across the cohorts,
beyond these observations; weak performance by candidates in the Spring 2009 completer group
44
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
occurs in different categories than weak performance by candidates in the Spring 2010 completer
group and the same can be said, generally, for strong sub category performance for either group.
As we amass a more robust data base for student teaching evaluations, we will be in a better
position to comment on these data and what they might mean.
PROGRAM SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS: This program conducts two additional formative
assessments (unit plan and I-Search paper) and one additional summative assessment
(multicultural education portfolio). The formative assessments are designed to enable program
faculty to determine whether candidates are making adequate progress towards program
outcomes (TPEs and other program-defined student outcomes related to multicultural education,
social justice dispositions, etc.). They are administered during a transition point between the first
(fall) and second (spring) semesters of the program. Faculty members review both the formative
and summative assessments to determine whether candidates: (a) design/plan instruction in
response to contextual factors related to their pupils’ lives and communities; (b) design/plan
instruction in ways that address pupils’ learning styles; (c) integrate material from their subject
matter methods coursework; (d) connect their instruction to the critical pedagogy/multicultural
education frameworks presented in their coursework; and (e) address the language demands of
the lesson/unit. The actual qualitative data used to compose this analysis is available upon
request.
Analysis of Candidates’ Unit Plans
A key outcome for this assessment was for candidates to demonstrate a clear link between the
content of the lessons planned and the interests, learning needs, and learning strengths of their
pupils. We have often found that novice teachers plan for a “generic” pupil, rather than planning
to meet the authentic needs and interests of the pupils they are actually teaching; the “generic”
plans almost always provide pupils with a mismatched or even sub-standard educational
experience. Review of candidates’ unit plans revealed that their planning fell at distinct points
along a continuum. On one end, six of the candidates clearly tied pupil interests and learning
needs and strengths to the content of their unit plans; thus, building on pupil knowledge,
deepening pupil understandings, and maintaining pupil interest in the subject matter. At the other
end of the continuum, four of the candidates address useful and important topics, but the focal
topics had no substantiated connection to the pupils in those candidates’ classrooms. The
remaining 6 candidates’ work fell within the two extremes of this continuum.
Analysis of Candidates’ “I-Search” Papers
The “I-Search” paper is intended to have candidates think deeply about the pedagogical,
curricular, and content-knowledge tensions that exist within their discipline, and to identify the
implications that such tensions have for teaching culturally and linguistically diverse pupils. In
addition, candidates are to think critically about what constitutes knowledge, who decides which
knowledge is taught and learned, and for what purposes that knowledge is expected to be
transmitted and/or applied. The need for our candidates to understand the politics of curriculum
is imperative because as aspiring agents of change, they have to be aware of the forces acting
upon them as they seek to transform the schools into more equitable institutions.
An analysis of these assessments revealed that at the mid-point of the program candidates
continued to struggle with transforming their views about their content area and their pedagogy
from traditional and conventional conceptualizations to ones that were more transformative and
45
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
equity oriented. These data revealed that the deep beliefs that our candidates have about their
content area, the art of teaching, and the nature of learning were still being questioned at the midpoint of the program, and that the majority of the candidates needed additional support,
experience, and guidance to achieve the kind of thinking, planning, teaching and reflection that
we have established as desired program outcomes.
Analysis of Candidates’ Multicultural Education Portfolios
The Single Subject faculty also administer a summative assessment during the final semester of
the program (spring): the multicultural education portfolio. Candidates include such artifacts as
original curriculum units, philosophy of education statement, planning commentary, and specific
assignments requested by subject matter method instructors. This portfolio is collaboratively
scored by the program faculty using a rubric that the entire BMED faculty developed (rubric
available upon request).
The scores for this assessment are displayed in Table 17. Our interpretation follows. In
comparison to fall semester, candidates improved in contextualizing their units to the learning
and personal experiences of their pupils. Thus, unit topics were culturally relevant and correlated
to the state standards for their specific subject matter. Faculty noted that candidates deliberately
integrated learning strategies and scaffolds to help pupils meet the language demands of the
content. Faculty also highlighted candidates’ use of formative/summative assessments and how
those assessments were utilized to guide instruction and offer feedback to the pupils as areas
needing improvement. The majority of candidates were able to position their philosophy of
education in relation to a multicultural/critical pedagogy framework. In addition, they offered
concrete examples of how their framework would be actualized when thinking about: the
purpose of education, their role as teachers, how pupils best learn, and what kind of curriculum
should be developed for pupils.
When comparing the formative assessments to this summative assessment, growth was evident;
nevertheless, candidates are still on a learning curve with respect to developing a deep
understanding of the epistemology of their content area, applications of their content area to real
world issues, connecting their content to pupil interests, etc. Further analysis of the data revealed
that all candidates scoring below a two were not in a student-teaching placement when they
completed the assignment; this might explain why their performance was sub-par in such
elements of the assignment as “backwards planning,” relating content to their pupils’ needs, and
creating a learning sequence that reflected unified objectives and themes. However, it is
important to note that two other candidates who did not teach during Spring term, one in math
and another in English, scored at the level of two and did demonstrate understanding of the
aforementioned items. Thus, while combining student teaching with this summative assessment
clearly is desirable, it is not essential.
In all content areas there were candidates who scored at a level of three, except for math. All
math candidates met the competency but scored no higher than a level two. A number of social
science and science candidates scored above the level two; their portfolios demonstrated a
concerted effort to teach thematic content that reflected key Multicultural Education frameworks.
Very few candidates created units that reflected the Critical Pedagogy framework to which they
had been exposed to through the Project Citizen training in Fall 2009. As the faculty studied this
46
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
trend, we found that the majority of the candidates used their PACT Teaching Event as the
central original curriculum product in their multicultural education portfolio. Given that the
PACT Teaching Event is a high-stakes assessment, the candidates who focused the majority of
their effort on this assessment certainly took an efficient and logical approach. At the same time,
it is our belief that the skills-based focus of the curriculum/instructional sequences required by
PACT may have led them to implement frameworks where direct instruction and measurable
cognitive and behavioral outcomes were predominant features. Lesson sequences that evidenced
constructivist pedagogy, values clarification, critical thinking and a longitudinal approach to
pupil assessment would have better met the desired outcomes for this assessment (but such
approaches are not clearly emphasized in the PACT rubrics). This is a philosophical and
logistical limitation in our assessment system and highlights a tension between the program
outcomes defined by our department and those defined by the CTC for programs throughout the
state.
IV.Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program
This report covers 4 semesters of candidate performance data. Our program faculty review these
data each semester and generate ideas for program improvement accordingly. Below, we present
the program improvements we have identified along with an update for each idea, as appropriate.
During the 2008-2009 program review cycle, the MMTPP-SS program faculty identified several
areas for program improvement. These are detailed below along with an update on their status.
•
•
•
•
More cohesive alignment between courses through common planning and co-created
Signature Assignments. Update: Monthly center faculty meetings allow for common
planning time. In addition, the program faculty met several times during the summer to
identify a central theme from which content specific class sessions, assignments and
activities could be created. This integrated curriculum plan was piloted during the 20092010 year. Further, the program faculty did create signature assignments; results for two
of these signature assignments were presented in Sections II and III.
Integration of Critical Pedagogy through Project Citizen Training to help candidates
understand the process of democratic decision making and civic engagement, which will
serve as the framework for the creation of their PACT lesson sequence. Update: Project
Citizen training was provided for candidates in fall 2009 however they found it difficult
to frame their curriculum from a problem based approach (developed by the pupils in
their class) due to 1) the pacing and goals set by their cooperating teacher and 2) their
own apprehensions about meeting the content standards and goals of their grade level.
Program faculty will not be able to offer the Project Citizen training again, but will
continue to develop approaches to address the candidates’ areas of conceptual and
technical need.
Integration of a Curriculum I-Search inquiry project. Update: This I-Search paper was
assigned in fall 2009 and the results were presented in Section III. It will continue to be a
required signature assignment for the program.
Co-develop an Academic Language module and integrate elements of the SIOP
(Structured Instructional Observation Protocol) into Content Methods courses. Update:
47
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Methods instructors made initial changes to their curriculum in fall 2009, but subsequent
reviews reveal the need to continue to do more in this area.
Our review of the 2009-2010 data indicate that the following modifications should be made for
the 2010-2011 academic year:
•
•
Data from the PACT Teaching Event and the Student Teaching Evaluations send a range
of messages about Single Subject candidate performance. In terms of a “snapshot” of
Single Subject candidate performance, garnered from the PACT, key areas for program
improvement center on the candidates’ ability to engage students during instruction, their
design and use of assessments, and their ability to incorporate academic language
development strategies into their planning and instruction. A more holistic evaluation of
Single Subject candidates’ performance, offered by the student teaching evaluations
which result from observations conducted over time, shows no clear trends across cohorts
or within subcategories of evaluation. These quantitative data were the subject of faculty
discussion and reflection at the year-end faculty retreat. Plans for continuing to hone
program elements so that pupil assessment and academic language development are a
more focused part of coursework and student teaching were developed.
Analysis of the signature assignments for the program revealed that while candidates’
ability to plan deliberately for their specific pupils improved during their time in the
program, they still struggled as a group to view/conceptualize their subject matter from a
truly multicultural and/or critical pedagogy lens. This is not surprising, given that these
frameworks are not typically part of the college curriculum (where they obtain their
subject matter preparation) and so, for most of our candidates, engaging with the
epistemological and philosophical bases of their content area is an unfamiliar and
intellectually challenging proposition. For the 2010-2011 year, we intend to implement
new strategies (sharing high quality examples, using video and strategic field
experiences, etc.) in an effort to strengthen this important component of our program.
48
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Teacher Education:
Reading Certificate,
Reading Language Arts Certificate
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
49
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Program documented in this report: Reading Specialist
Name of Program: Language and Literacy
Credential awarded: Reading Certificate; Reading Language Arts Specialist Credential
Is this program offered at more than one site?
No
Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: 916-278-4187
E-Mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Name: Porfirio M. Loeza
Phone #: (916) 278-3464
E-mail: [email protected]
50
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A –PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. Context
Table 18: Total Number of Candidates Enrolled and Completers
Number of candidates
enrolled**
Number of completers
Fall 2009
16
Spring 2010
16
4
(3=Rdg/Language Arts
Specialist Credential;
1=Reading Certificate)
3
(All Rdg/Language Arts
Specialist Credential)
** Estimates
Most of the students in our certificate/credential programs enroll for the M.A. in Language and
Literacy. As such, it is difficult to ascertain precisely whether students are only completing a
certificate or credential. CSUS has instituted a policy since 2010 wherein posbaccalaureate
students are only able to apply for admissions into the M.A. program.
Most of our students are practicing teachers and complete the program on a part time basis. The
typical student enrolls in two courses (6 units) every semester.
The Reading Certificate and Reading Language Arts Specialist Credential Program are organized
into tiers. Several years ago our program instituted a system of “tiers” or levels. Each tier
represents either the certificate or credential level of the program. Tier one represents the four
sequence courses for the certificate and tier two represents the second level of courses, a
sequence which comprises the credential course. Although students are not cohorted per se, the
course schedule attempts to sequence the courses in a way where students sequentially progress
through the program. Candidates take Tier 1 classes (12 units) to obtain the Reading Certificate.
If candidates wish to obtain the Reading Language Specialist Credential, they build on the Tier 1
knowledge by continuing on to the Tier 2 classes (12 units).
Fall Entrance to the Program
No significant changes have been made to this program since its approval by CCTC on
November 12, 2003. There have been no changes in admission requirements and our course
content has not been revised. We continue to use Signature Assignments as well as the end-ofprogram portfolio as a summative assessment for both the certificate and credential. The
following is our course sequence:
51
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Reading Certificate
(12 units)
Year/Tier
Reading Language Arts Specialist Credential
(24 units)
Fall – EDTE 200 + EDTE 205
Fall – EDTE 200 + EDTE 205
Spring – EDTE 201 + EDTE 203
Spring – EDTE 201 + EDTE 203
1
Fall – EDTE 202 + EDTE 207
2
__________
Spring – EDTE 206 + EDTE 209
Tier 1 (12 units)
EDTE 200 – Practicum in Decoding and Fluency: Assessment and Instruction (3 units)
EDTE 201 – Practicum in Comprehension: Assessment and Instruction (3 units)
EDTE 203 – Teaching and Assessing Writing in the PreK-12 Classroom (3 units)
EDTE 205 – Psychology and Sociology of Literacy Instruction (3 units)
Tier 2 (12 units)
EDTE 202 – Language and Literacy Development in Multicultural Settings (3 units)
EDTE 206 – Leadership in Literacy (3 units)
EDTE 207 – Advanced Practicum in Reading Difficulties: Assessment and Intervention (3
units)
EDTE 209 – Literature for the Diverse PreK-12 Classroom: Issues, Models and Strategies
(3 units)
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
a. Primary Candidate Assessments
Our program has consistently used the same assessments since our program was approved on
November 12, 2003. The core faculty in the program has met to review our assessment measures
and discuss their effectiveness. We continue to use the following course-embedded assessments
to appraise our program.
1. Comprehensive case study of a student in EDTE 200 (fluency emphasis) and EDTE
201(comprehension emphasis)
2. Comprehensive case study of a school/district’s literacy program in EDTE 206
3. Culminating Portfolio
52
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
The table below provides additional details about the nature of each key assessment.
Table 19: Overview of Key Assessments
(* = Reading Certificate; ** = Reading Language Arts Specialist Credential)
Assessment Tool
Assessment #1.
Comprehensive
case study of a
student in EDTE
200 and EDTE 201
(* and **)
Assessment #2.
Comprehensive
case study of
student with severe
reading difficulties
in EDTE 207
(**)
Assessment #3.
Comprehensive
case study of a
school/district l
literacy in EDTE
206
(**)
Assessment #4.
Culminating
Portfolio
(* and **)
Type of
Assessment
(formative/
summative)
Formative
When
administered
Details about
Administration
CCTC Standards,
Performance
Outcomes, etc.
Addressed
Program Standards
2,3,4, 5, 7, 8-11
End of each
semester (Tier 1)
Individual faculty
assesses candidate
work
Formative
First semester:
Tier 2
Instructors of class
assess candidate
work
Program Standards
2,3,4, 5, 7, 8-1,13, 14,
15, 16
Formative
End of Tier 2
Instructor of class
assesses candidate
work
Program Standards
2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8-11,
12, 13, 14, 15
Summative
End of program
Faculty in program
work
collaboratively to
assess each
candidate
Program Standards
2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8-11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 1720
Our program is continuing to use Signature Assignments within each course as formative
assessments for our certificate and credential candidates. Each course in the certificate as well as
the credential program includes a Signature Assignment. These assignments are intended to be
core assignments that are central to the content of the course. In sum, they represent essential
content for each course.
Signature Assignments used for Formative Assessment
EDTE 200
Case Study: Fluency
EDTE 201
Case Study: Comprehension
EDTE 202
Case Study: Language, Literacy and Culture
EDTE 203
Case Study: Self as a Teacher of Writing and Authentic Writing Assessment
53
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
EDTE 205
EDTE 206
EDTE 207
EDTE 209
Case Study: Applying Research to a Reading Curriculum
Case Study: Examining a Whole School
Case Study: A Seriously Disabled Reader
Position Paper: A Professional Perspective on an Issue Related to Juvenile
Literature
As summarized in Table 18, our program had 4 Program Completers in Fall 2009 and 3 Program
Completers in Spring 2010. In Table 20 below, we summarize the data related to completer
performance as measured by the 4 key assessments detailed in Table 19.
Table 20: Aggregate Data on Completer Performance
Assessment Tools
#1.
Comprehensive case study of a
student in EDTE 200 and EDTE
201
#2.
Comprehensive case study of a
seriously disabled reader in EDTE
207
#3.
Comprehensive case study of a
school/district l literacy in EDTE
206
#4.
Culminating Portfolio
Fall 2007
N= 3
100%
Spring 2008
N= 3
100%
85%
(not required of certificate
candidate)
85%
(not required of certificate
candidate)
85%
(not required of certificate
candidate)
85%
(not required of certificate
candidate)
100%
100%
b. Additional information about candidate and program completer performance
The core measure of completer performance in our program continues to be the three major case
studies that are completed in EDTE 200, 201 and 206. Completers also submit either a certificate
or credential portfolio. Most students submit this portfolio at the end of their coursework. Our
program previously reported that we completed (1) an Advisory Group Survey and (2)
Dispositions Papers for candidates. Our goal with the Advisory Group Surveys was to continue
our close relationships with working professionals in our local school districts. Our attempt was
to formalize what has always been a professional relationship. We have periodically asked these
individuals to give us feedback about the content of our program and the preparation of our
candidates. From this qualitative data, faculty continues to discuss at their monthly area group
meetings, concerns expressed by the advisory group. Since the new standards for the Reading
Certificate and Reading Language Arts Specialist Credential are currently being published, our
goal will be to systematically establish regular Advisory Group meetings to seek their input and
continuously assess our program.
In addition to the end-of-program portfolio, a consistent practice in our program has been to
assess candidates through their performance on the Signature Assignments for each course. As
54
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
previously stated, each course within our certificate and credential has a Signature Assignment.
Faculty instructors rate these papers on the following criteria which go beyond the course
content: (a) clarity of writing and responsiveness to the assigned task; (b) integration of
theory/research to support response; (c) demonstration of willingness to consider alternative
perspectives as well as those that differ significantly from their own; and (d) demonstration of
higher order thinking/intellectual curiosity. These mirror the core outcomes which all graduate
students in the Teacher Education Department must achieve. A passing grade for these papers is
a “B.” These are formative assessments and candidates are allowed to re-write and re-submit
these papers so all candidates should ultimately achieve a passing grade, if they opt to re-write
these papers.
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
Our data (see table 20) indicates that we have a small number of completers for either the
certificate or credential relative to the number of students in our M.A. program. We suspect that
many of our students complete the M.A. but then do not complete the portfolio which is a
requirement for either the certificate or credential.
Strengths:
a. Candidate Performance: Our candidates continue to exhibit strong assessment skills in
the area of decoding. The certificate/credential portfolios reflect depth of understanding
in reviewing an entire school/district level literacy program. Our completers show
evidence in their portfolios of this skill.
b. Program effectiveness: Anecdotal feedback from our local partners confirms that our
completers are successful once they read the field.
Areas for improvement:
a. Candidate performance: Academic writing was previously identified as an area for
improvement. CSUS has approved a new Graduate Writing Assessment Requirement.
All students must pass this requirement as of Fall 2010 or take an approved course that
improves writing skills.
b. Program effectiveness: Each course in either the certificate or credential our program
has a Signature Assignment. A few of the courses have a rubric for their Signature
Assignments that have been reviewed by the core faculty. Our goal for the current year
is to establish systematic rubrics for each of our courses and to have them reviewed by
the core faculty. A second area for improvement is increasing the feedback we get from
our school/district level partners in university’s service area.
IV.Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Our program is excited and has been waiting for the new standards for the Reading Certificate
and Reading Language Arts Specialist Credential. We plan on exploring using one of our courses
(possibly EDTE 206) as a graduate capstone class. Another area which we wish to explore is
increasing the amount of content that we present in non-traditional formats. This includes greater
online content delivery as well as changing course offering to include weekend classes. Since
most of our students are working teachers, our goal is meet the challenge faced in terms of
literacy instruction in a diverse state such as California.
55
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Kinesiology & Health Science:
Single Subject PE Blended/
Adapted PE
College of Health and Human Services
California State University, Sacramento
56
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Name of program: Single Subject in Physical Education (Blended)
Credential awarded: Single Subject Credential
Is this program offered at more than one site? No
Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: 916-278-4187
E-Mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Single Subject PE Program Contact:
Michael Wright, Ph.D.
Kinesiology and Health Science
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (916) 278-5689
APE Specialist Credential Contact:
Scott J. Modell, Ph.D.
Kinesiology and Health Science
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (916) 278-5041
Joan Neide, Chair
Department of Kinesiology and Health Science
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (916) 278-5383
57
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A - PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. Context
Table 21: Total Number of Candidates Enrolled and Completers
Number of candidates
enrolled
Number of completers
Number candidates enrolled
for APE Specialist
Credential
Number of completers for
APE Specialist Credential
Fall 2009
8
Spring 2010
6
8
2
6
3
2
3
Program Description:
The blended Single Subject Credential program in Physical Education culminates with a 16 week
student teaching experience. Candidates are placed in an elementary setting for 8 weeks and then
transition to an 8 week secondary student teaching experience at either a middle school or high
school. Blended candidates are in a cohort. Candidates service Title I schools in Sacramento,
Placer, El Dorado, Amador, San Joaquin, Solano, Yolo, Sutter, and Yuba Counties. Placements
can occur in one county for the elementary experience and another county for the secondary
experience. During the elementary student teaching experience every attempt is made to place
two candidates in the same school and many time candidates are placed near one another (e.g.middle school near high school) to assist supervisors with their roles and responsibilities.
Single Subject Credential in Physical Education Candidates who are seeking the Adapted
Physical Education Specialist Credential have at least one-third of their student teaching classes
include students with disabilities or spend at least twenty percent of each week teaching an
adapted physical education class under the supervision of an APE credentialed teacher.
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness
a. Primary Candidate Assessments
This report will focus on 5 key assessments that are used to make critical decisions about
candidate competence prior to being recommended for a credential, including:
1. Student Teaching Evaluation-Elementary
2. Student Teaching Evaluation- Secondary
3. Diagnostic Video Assignment-Elementary
4. Capstone Video Assignment-Secondary
5. Competency Checklist- Elementary
The table on the following page provides additional details about the nature of each key
assessment.
58
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Table 22: Overview of Key Assessments
Assessment Tool
Assessment #1.
Student Teaching
Evaluation-Elementary
Type of
Assessment
(Formative/
Summative)
Summative
Assessment #2
Student Teaching
Evaluation- Secondary
Summative
Assessment #3.
Diagnostic Video
Assignment-Elementary
Formative
Assessment #4.
Capstone Video
Assignment-Secondary
Formative
Assessment #5.
Competency ChecklistElementary
Formative
When
Administered
End of
Elementary
Student
Teaching
Experience
End of
Secondary
Student
Teaching
Experience
Completed
during
Elementary
Student
Teaching
Experience
Completed
during
Secondary
Student
Teaching
Experience
Completed
during
Elementary
Student
Teaching
Experience
Details about
Administration
TPE’s
Addressed
Assessment performed
by both the
Cooperating Teachers
and University
Supervisors
Assessment performed
by both the
Cooperating Teachers
and University
Supervisors
Student teachers must
videotape and perform
systematic observations
on teaching behaviors
related to teaching
effectiveness.
Candidates must
videotape and perform
systematic observations
on teaching behaviors
related to teaching
effectiveness.
Candidates must
demonstrate specific
teaching behaviors.
Cooperating teachers,
university supervisors
and/or elementary
student teaching
coordinator can verify
competencies.
Candidates must meet
90% of elementary
competencies to
advance to secondary
portion of the student
teaching experience.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13
59
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
As summarized in Table 21, our program had 8 Program Completers in Fall 2007 and 15
Program Completers in Spring 2008. In Table 23 below, we summarize the data related to
completer performance as measured by the 5 key assessments detailed in Table 22.
Single Subject Credential in Physical Education Candidates who are seeking the Adapted
Physical Education Specialist Credential are additionally evaluated on 5 competency areas as
follows: Competency Area A - Scientific knowledge base (8 competencies); Competency Area
B - Assessment (17 competencies); Competency Area C - Development and Implementation of
Programming (21 competencies); Competency Area D - Behavior Management (4
competencies); and Competency Area E - Leadership and Professional Development (17
competencies). Students are rated on each competency as either “Exceptional (E)”, “Satisfactory
(S) or “Needs Improvement (NI). Students must receive an “S” or better in all of the
competencies to pass. All 5 completers (from both Fall 2009 and Spring 2010) met this
requirement.
Table 23: Aggregated Data on Single Subject Completer Performance
Assessment Tools
Assessment #1.
Student Teaching EvaluationElementary
Assessment #2
Student Teaching EvaluationSecondary
Assessment #3.
Diagnostic Video AssignmentElementary
Assessment #4.
Capstone Video AssignmentSecondary
Assessment #5.
Competency ChecklistElementary
Fall 2007 N=8
8 out of 8 student teachers
successfully completed
assessment #1
8 out of 8 student teachers
successfully completed
assessment #2
8 out of 8 student teachers
successfully completed
assessment #3
8 out of 8 student teachers
successfully completed
assessment #4
8 out of 8 student teachers
successfully completed
assessment #5
Spring 2008 N=6
5 out of 6 student teachers
successfully completed
assessment #1
6 out of 6 student teachers
successfully completed
assessment #2
6 out of 6 student teachers
successfully completed
assessment #3
6 out of 6 student teachers
successfully completed
assessment #4
5 out of 6 student teachers
successfully completed
assessment #5
b. Additional information about candidate and program completer performance
In addition to the 5 key assessments used to evaluate completer performance already reported
above, we use one additional formal assessment to help inform decisions made about our
courses and our program: the final reflection paper on elementary student teaching
experience. The type of data collected, the data collection process and key findings are
presented below.
Final Reflection Paper on Elementary Student Teaching Experience: Candidates
typically produce a 4-6 page paper at the conclusion of their elementary student teaching
60
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
experience. They respond to several prompts and their responses are evaluated by the
elementary student teaching coordinator on the following criteria: a) clarity of writing and
responsiveness to the prompts; b) demonstration on of willingness to engage in reflective and
problem solving behaviors; c) a willingness to engage in leadership qualities that will
promote advocacy of the profession. A passing grade for this paper is a “B.” This is a
summative assessment and candidates are not allowed to re-write or re-submit this paper. In
Fall 2009, 100% of completers received a passing grade or above. In Spring 2010, 100% of
completers achieved or surpassed the target grade.
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
In this section, we discuss the data displayed in Table 23 and the additional data that was
summarized in Section IIb. We focus our discussion on the strengths and areas for improvement
revealed by the analysis of these data.
Strengths:
a. Candidate performance: Currently our candidates seem very strong in the 5 key
assessment areas utilized by the Single Subject Blended Physical Education program.
The majority of our candidates successfully completed the assessments and these
numbers highlight the strength of our program and faculty.
b. Program effectiveness: One major area of effectiveness in our program is our faculty.
Our tenure track faculty members supervise candidates in our elementary and
secondary student teaching experiences. By having tenure track faculty members
supervise candidates, candidates are working with content knowledge experts who are
helps them make important connections between theory and practice. Having tenure
track faculty members work with candidates in authentic classroom situations helps
build relationships with public school practitioners and dispels the notion of an “ivory
tower” mind set on the part of university professors. Our faculty is also very involved
in their professional organizations and has used their professional organizations to
cultivate relationships with local practitioners. Some of these practitioners now serve
as university supervisors and convey the same message about our profession to our
candidates.
Areas of improvement:
a. Candidate performance: While our data suggests our candidates are very strong in the
domains evaluated by our 5 key assessments, our faculty have identified areas of
improvement within our program. In the future, our program would like to expand the
assessment of our candidates’ teaching effectiveness. We are planning to examine
additional discipline-specific questions as they relate to a) Preparation, Instruction
(Building Background, Comprehensible Input, Strategies, Interaction,
Practice/Application and Lesson Delivery), b) Pupil Assessment and c)
Professionalism.
b. Program effectiveness: Areas of improvement that are needed within our program
center on the practitioners that support our candidates during their student teaching
experiences. Cooperating teachers are the most important actors during the student
teaching experience. Alignment of support, expectations, and interventions between
61
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
cooperating teachers and our program is critical. Currently, we do very little to
support and/or mentor the development of our cooperating teachers.
IV. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
As we begin to reflect on the results of our candidate data we are encouraged by the performance
of the Single Subject Blended Physical Education program. We feel a significant strength of our
program is that tenure track faculty members are supervising candidates at the local elementary,
middle, and high schools. Faculty members are establishing and growing professional
relationships with these educators and as a result faculty members are able to better prepare the
next set of teacher candidates with the realistic demands of the profession. During conversations
with our cooperating teachers positive comments are commonly made about our teacher
candidates and their preparation to meet the demands of the profession.
While the data suggests are candidates are doing very well in the 5 key assessment areas our
faculty know we can do a better job in their preparation. As a result of this report we realize that
our program must do a better job of connecting with our local teachers. While conversations
during student teaching observations seem to offer very positive feedback, this report has helped
our program identify a need to systematically collect and analyze cooperating teacher feedback
about our teacher candidates and our Single Subject Blended Physical Education program.
Conversations with various faculty members in the Department of Kinesiology and Health
Science, the College of Education and specifically with members of the College of Education
Assessment/Accreditation Committee have helped to identify strategies and technologies that
will assist our program in reaching out to our cooperating teachers. Our program realizes that we
need to do a better job of understanding the needs of our cooperating teachers. By identifying
and addressing their concerns within our program we can continue to improve the teacher
candidate they will host in their classrooms. The first step will be to explore the development of
a survey that will be administered to our cooperating teachers. Ideally this survey will be
electronically disseminated and easily completed. Questions will address a variety of areas and
most importantly address what types of skills, knowledge and dispositions our cooperating
teachers would like to be developed articulated within our teacher candidates.
Secondly, since the writing of the last report, PACT has truly impacted our work with student
teachers. Our student teaching seminars (198a & b) has become a center piece for the
completion of the PACT assignments and remediation if necessary. To date, only one of our
student teachers has had to perform remediation work on their PACT work and all of cooperating
teachers have been minimally impacted due to the fact that the work of PACT has been
facilitated in our own coursework.
62
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Special Education, Rehabilitation,
School Psychology & Deaf Studies:
EDS Mild/Moderate,
Mild/Moderate with MS
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
63
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Name of Program: Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, School Psychology, &
Deaf Studies
Credentials Awarded: Education Specialist Credential: Mild/Moderate Disabilities
Education Specialist Credential: Mild/Moderate Disabilities with
Multiple Subject Credential
Is this program offered at more than one site?
Yes
If yes, list all sites at which the program is offered:
1. California State University, Sacramento
2. California State University Bay Area Program, San Pablo, California
Program Contact:
Name: Dr. Kathy Norman , Associate Dean
Phone #: (916) 278-4187
E-mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
1. Dr. Paula Gardner
2. Dr. Bruce Ostertag
916-278-5540
916-278-5541
[email protected]
[email protected]
64
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A –PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. CONTEXT
The table below reflects data on candidates enrolled during the Fall ’08 through Spring ’10
semesters of our 4 semester Mild Moderate Specialist Credential only program and our 5
semester Mild Moderate and Multiple Subject Credential program. Candidates may apply to our
credential programs during both the fall and spring application cycles. Credential candidates
can progress through the program according to one of three pathways (see below). Currently,
our Mild/ Moderate and Mild/Moderate-Multiple Subject credential candidates are not assigned
to a cohort.
Table 24: Total Number of Candidates Enrolled and Completers
Mild/Moderate: Level I On-campus
Credential Candidates
Number of candidates enrolled
Number of completers
Fall 2008
54
26
Spring 2009
57
33
Fall 2009
53
18
Spring 2010
51
28
Mild/Moderate/Severe: Level I Bay Area
Credential Candidates
Fall 2008
Number of candidates enrolled
19
Number of completers
2
Spring 2009
17
5
Fall 2009
20
5
Spring 2010
21
15
Multiple Subject- Mild/Moderate Specialist Credential Programs:
The Level I Multiple Subject-Mild/Moderate Specialist credential program is a unique,
collaborative dual-credential special and general education program designed to provide candidates
with the knowledge and competencies necessary for earning both credentials. The Level I
Mild/Moderate Specialist credential program at CSUS focuses on 14 state standards developed by
the California Teacher Credentialing Commission. Candidates entering with no previous
credential follow a 2-2.5 year sequence, and candidates entering with a multiple subject or
secondary credential follow a 1+ year sequence. University coursework is tied closely to a series
of district supervised and university supervised field experiences in schools working with a diverse
student population. Many of the program’s field experiences are completed in conjunction with
several Professional Development Schools.
CSUS Provides Multiple Pathways to Pursue a Both a Multiple Subject and Preliminary
Mild/Moderate Specialist Credential
•
Traditional Mild Moderate Credential Program: A post BA credential program for
candidates in non-teaching or teaching positions interested in flexible scheduling.
•
Intern Mild/Moderate Credential Program: A post BA 4-semester program designed for
teachers who are eligible for an internship credential and are hired by a school district.
65
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
•
Multiple Subject/Mild Moderate Credential Program: A post BA 5-semester program
designed for candidates interested in pursuing two credentials
Courses of Study for Special Education Programs
The credential courses and field experiences are sequenced to reflect a progression from theoretical
foundations, to instruction in consultation skills, to instruction in methods (including guided practice
in early field experiences), to independent practice. LEVEL I courses and field experiences have
been designed to include experiences that emphasize creating, developing, and implementing,
individualized adaptations and accommodations to facilitate access to learning in a wide variety
of environments.
• The Mild/Moderate LEVEL I coursework and field experience (already hold
multiple subject credential): Candidates who already hold a multiple credential follow a
sequence of 24 units of coursework, 10 units of supervised student teaching, and 1 unit of
student teaching seminar (a total of 35 units).
• The Mild/Moderate LEVEL I coursework and field experience: Candidates entering
in to the Mild/Moderate specialist credential program who do not hold any other teaching
credential, follow a sequence of 36 units of coursework, 15 units of supervised
fieldwork/student teaching, and 3 units of student teaching seminar (a total of 54 units).
This includes all pre-requisite requirements.
• The Mild/Moderate LEVEL I & Multiple Subject coursework and field experience:
Candidates pursuing both a Mild/Moderate and Multiple Subject credential follow a
sequence of 51 units of coursework, 21-26 units of supervised fieldwork/student
teaching, and 3 units of student teaching seminar (a total of 75/80 units). This includes all
pre-requisite requirements.
Significant changes, deletions or innovation in the program since the last program
document was approved:
Changes to our program document as of 2008 included the adding of a course on emotional
disturbance, eliminating one course on physical disabilities and specialized health care, allowing
the health and technology courses to be completed during Level II (clear), and reconfiguring the
initial seminar and instructional strategies course (see summary below).
Additional required course:
• EDS 276A/B Education of Students with Emotional Disturbance/Behavior Disorders
Meets Standard 15 (Managing Learning Environments), Standard 22 (Assessment and
Evaluation of Students), and Standard 24 (Positive Behavioral Support).
Courses modified or no longer required for the Mild/Moderate Credential:
• No Longer required: EDS 216 A/B -Movement, Mobility & Specialized Health Care
• Modified: Social Science Methods (EDS 122A/B) and Science Methods (124A/B)
frameworks are now covered in the Initial Seminar (EDS 232) and Instructional
Strategies course (EDS 273A/B)
66
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
•
•
EDS 232 Initial Seminar: Mild/Moderate now addresses Core Educational Specialist
Standards: 12, 16, 17, 20, 23 and Multiple Subjects Teaching Performance Expectations
1-13.
Level I or II option: EDS291A/B Technology in Special Education and HLSC 136 School
Health Education.
For an online program overview, please see
<http://edweb.csus.edu/eds/special_education/programs_credential/L1_Mild_Mod_MultSubOve
rview.html>.
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
a. Primary Candidate Assessments
There are several arenas for a both formative and summative evaluation of candidates in the
LEVEL I Mild/Moderate & Multiple Subject credential programs, ensuring that each
candidate has satisfied each professional competency prior to being recommended for the
credential(s); university coursework, evaluation of key assessments, determination of
competence by field supervisors (district and institutional); and evaluation of competency by
special education faculty advisor, and, when warranted, by the Special Education Area
Group and Department Chair.
Candidates participating in these student teaching field experiences are evaluated by master
teachers designated by the student teaching program coordinator and local school districts.
Special Education intern candidates approved for an intern teaching assignment may be
evaluated by the employer and university supervisor. Written procedures for requesting a
supervised intern teaching field experience are included in the student teaching placement
application and follow CCTC policies governing the issuance of intern credentials.
Fieldwork supervisors maintain detailed accounts of candidate performance. Written
accounts include faculty observations and master teacher reports. Faculty supervisors of
fieldwork also maintain close relations with site personnel in order to gather as much
information as possible on the professional performance of the candidate. Evaluations by
master teachers and university supervisors are maintained in candidate files, located in the
Teacher Preparation and Credentials Office (TPAC). Copies of fieldwork evaluation forms
are made available to candidates in the various student teaching manuals.
This report will focus on 4 key assessments that are used to make critical decisions about
candidate competence prior to being recommended for a credential, including:
1. Elementary Literacy Commentary Assessment:
As part of the literacy commentary assessment project the candidates will do the
following: Select one test in the area of phonological awareness, phonics, sight
words, comprehension (such as the silent assessment that is given in informal reading
inventories that is designed to assess a student’s knowledge of silent reading). The
candidates will indicate in the commentary how appropriate these assessments are for
67
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
assessing English learners and students with special learning needs. As part of this
assessment commentary the candidates will also create a summary of how applicable
each assessment noted above would be for beginning, early intermediate,
intermediate, and advanced students who are English learners. Also, as part of the
assessment commentary the candidate will take each assessment and describe the
prior knowledge of the content and student individual strengths and challenges (for
example, academic development, language proficiency, and special needs) that
students may have if these assessments were given to the students. Further, the
candidates will specifically describe what would be done for each assessment or
describe what would be written in the assessment results if the candidate were
administering each assessment to a child who is special needs and is an English
learner. The assessment commentary will also include information on the SOLOM
(Student Observation Language Matrix) is appropriate for candidates who are English
learners and who are also students with special needs. Additionally, the report will
include a review of the El Paso Phonics Survey and whether it is appropriate or not
appropriate for English learners and special needs students who are low readers and
or struggling readers. Additionally, the candidate will have a section in the
commentary for what parents would be told if their son or daughter has taken these
assessments. Finally, candidates will review articles (as part of this commentary)
related to assessing English learners and students with special needs who are low
and/or are struggling readers and explain information that is relevant to assisting
students who are assessed with these type of assessments.
2. Mild/Moderate Teaching Portfolio:
Evidence of attainment of all Level I Preliminary Program Standards is a
requirement in the culminating Mild/Moderate EDS 233 seminar. Each candidate is
required to develop a Professional Teaching Portfolio. This portfolio provides faculty
members with an important opportunity to assess the candidate’s potential for
developing reflective thinking and inquiry into professional practice. The candidate’s
ability to reflect on his/her growth and document what he/she has accomplished as
he/she develops the portfolio is evaluated. The portfolio is organized around the
CCTC Core Standards for all Specialists and Service Credentials, the Preliminary
Level I: Specialist Teaching Standards, the Preliminary Level I:
Mild/Moderate/Severe Common Standards, and the Preliminary Level I:
Mild/Moderate Standards. The standards respond to the evolving nature of special
education service delivery and integrate general and special education professional
preparation. The “core” standards address the need for special educators to be
prepared to work with a variety of disabilities, to gain greater knowledge and
understanding of the diversity of individual differences and needs of students, and
instructional techniques that are effective with many types of learners. For each
standard, the candidate selects artifacts that they deem evidence for having met
competency in the particular area(s). A minimum of two artifacts per standard is
required and for each artifact, a written justification/explanation of how it
demonstrates competency must be provided. An artifact is tangible evidence of
knowledge that is gained, skills that are mastered, values that are clarified, or
68
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
dispositions and attitudes that are characteristic of the candidate. Examples of
artifacts are course assignments, photographs, student work, journals, lesson plans,
audio- or video-tapes. To evaluate the portfolio (based on Level I Matrix), a rubric is
used. The portfolio is evaluated, using the rubric, for the quality of its overall
organization, visual layout, reflection and justification of personal artifacts, and
specific evidence of standards. The portfolio is evaluated for the quality of its overall
organization, visual layout, reflection and justification of personal artifacts, and
specific evidence of standards. Candidates must earn a minimum score of 2 in order
to receive credit for the portfolio. The Portfolio Review Sheet must be completed and
signed by the seminar instructor.
Multiple Subjects Teaching Portfolio: Evidence of meeting all Multiple Subject
Teaching Performance Expectations is a requirement in the culminating EDTE 332
PACT Seminar (replacing EDTE 307 as an equivalent). Each candidate also pursuing
a Multiple Subjects Credential is required to develop a section in their Professional
Teaching Portfolio specific to the Multiple Subjects Teaching Performance
Expectations (TPEs). Candidates are required to organize their portfolio around each
of the 13 Teaching Performance Expectations. The evaluation of the portfolio is
based on a rubric for the quality of its overall organization, visual layout, reflection
and justification of personal artifacts, and specific evidence of standards. Candidates
must earn a minimum score of 2 in order to receive credit for the portfolio. The
Portfolio Review Sheet must be completed and signed by the seminar instructor.
3. RICA (The Reading Instruction Competence Assessment):
The RICA requirement applies to candidates who complete our combined Multiple
Subject Teaching Credential and Education Specialist Credential programs. It is a
standardized exam that focuses on core knowledge and skills needed to provide
effective literacy instruction. All program completers must pass the RICA to apply
for their credential.
Multiple Subject and Mild/Moderate Culminating Student Teaching Evaluation:
The evaluation of student teaching is a continuous process that facilitates the
development of competencies in teaching and assists the candidate in developing
techniques of self- evaluation. All candidates are evaluated both at the mid point and
at the completion of both the Multiple Subject and Mild/Moderate student
teaching/fieldwork experience. The final evaluation is held near the end of the
semester and serves as a summative assessment of the teaching competencies of the
candidate. The cooperating teacher, university supervisor, and candidate//intern are
required to respond to each of the competencies by using the performance evaluation
criteria provided. Candidates completing their Multiple Subject field experience are
expected to demonstrate a score of level 3 (developing proficiency) or level 4 on all
categories (proficiency). There are 52 items divided into 9 categories on the
69
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
evaluation tool including: 1) Preparation; 2) Instruction-Building Background; 3)
Instruction-Comprehensive Input; 4) Instruction-Strategies; 5) Instruction-Interaction;
6) Instruction-Practice/Application; 7)Instruction-Lesson Delivery; 8) Assessment;
and 9) Professionalism.
Student teachers completing their Mild/Moderate field experience are expected to
demonstrate Level 2 “At Entry Level” proficiency or Level 3 “Above Entry Level”
proficiency on all categories of a separate evaluation tool, distinct from that used for
candidates seeking dual certification in multiple subjects. There are 6 categories on
this evaluation tool including: 1) Professional and Interpersonal Skills; 2)
Communication and Collaborative Partnerships; 3) Planning and Managing the
Teaching and Learning Environment; 4) Managing Student Behavior and Social
Interaction Skills; 5) Instructional Content and Practice; and 6) Assessment,
Diagnosis, and Evaluation. Each area has a list of descriptors (varying in number)
with a descriptive rubric across 3 levels for each one; above entry, at entry, or below
entry level. Each rating reflects the candidate’s “common and typical” performance
in the classroom. Additionally, the University supervisor should indicate for each
competency whether the rating is based on: O = Observation, I = Interview, and/or P
= Portfolio. The cooperating teacher, university supervisor, and candidate/intern are
required to respond to each of the competencies by using the performance evaluation
criteria provided and completing the comments portion following each section.
70
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Table 25: Overview of Key Assessments
The table below provides additional details about the nature of each key assessment.
Assessment Tool
Type of
Assessment
(formative/
summative)
Formative
When
administered
Details about
Administration
At the end of the
EDS 221 course
Individual course
instructors assess
candidate work
based on a standard
rubric designed by
the course instructor
Assessment #2:
Candidate
Portfolio
Summative
At the end of the
EDTE 307 and
EDS 233 seminar
courses
TPEs 1-13
MM Specialist
Standards: 10, 11,
12, 15, 16, 17, 19,
20, 22, 23, 24, 25
Assessment #3:
RICA Exam
Summative
*Students do
have the
option of
retaking the
exam if they
fail the exam
After the
completion of the
EDS 221 course
Individual seminar
instructors assess
candidates’ portfolio
based on a rubric
designed by the
faculty group
The RICA is
administered by an
outside agency.
Assessment #4:
Multiple Subject
and Mild
Moderate Student
Teaching/Field
Experience
Evaluation
Summative
In final semester at
the midterm and at
the end of the
semester
Implemented by the
supervisor and
mentor teacher at
midterm and at the
end of the semester
of the final student
teaching experience
All TPEs and
Mild/Moderate
Competencies and
the Structured
Instructional
Observation
Protocol (SIOP)
Assessment #1:
Elementary
Literacy
Commentary
Project
CCTC Standards,
Performance
Outcomes, etc.
Addressed
TPEs 1-13
MM Specialist
Standards: 14 b,
14c, 14d, 14e
All domains of
effective literacy
instruction as
defined by the CCT
and State
Department of
Education
71
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
As summarized in Table 24, our program had 45 Program Completers in Fall 2007 and 36
Program Completers in Spring 2008. In Table 26 below, we summarize the data related to
completer performance as measured by the 4 key assessments detailed in Table 25.
Table 26: Aggregate Data on Completer Performance
Assessment Tools
Assessment #1:
Elementary Literacy Project
(100 pts)
Assessment #2: Candidate
Portfolio
EDTE 332 Multiple Subject
Seminar (PACT)
EDS 233 Mild/Moderate
Seminar
Assessment #3: RICA Exam
Assessment #4:
EDTE 420B: Multiple
Subject
EDS 472: Mild Moderate
Specialist Credential Student
Teaching
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
N= 24
Passing: 100%
Scoring Range:
80-100
Mean: 98.19%
EDTE 332 N: 8
Passing: 100%
EDS 233 N: 21
Passing: 100%
N=21
Passing: 100%
Scoring Range:
80-100
Mean: 97.16%
EDTE 332 N: 10
Passing: 100%
EDS 233 N: 25
Passing: 100%
N=33
Passing: 100%
Scoring Range:
80-100
Mean: 98.38%
EDTE 332 N: 9
Passing: 100%
EDS 233 N: 22
Passing: 100%
N=28
Passing: 100%
Scoring Range:
80-100
Mean: 93.8%
EDTE 332 N: 10
Passing: 100%
EDS 233 N: 22
Passing: 100%
N: 24
Passing: 24 /24
Passing: 100%
N: 21
Passing: 21/21
Passing: 100%
N: 33
Passing: 32/33
Passing: 100%
N: 28
Passing: 30 /31
Passing: 97%
EDTE 420B N=8
Passing: 100%
EDTE 420B N=10
Passing: 100%
EDTE 420B N=9
Passing: 100%
EDTE 420B N=10
Passing 100%
EDS 472 N=19
Passing: 100%
EDS 472 N=25
Passing: 100%
EDS 472 N=28
Passing: 100%
EDS 472 N=22
Passing: 100%
Additional information about candidate and program completer performance:
In addition to the 4 key assessments used to evaluate completer performance already reported
above, we use the following assessments to help inform decisions made about our courses and
our program. These additional assessments include: (1) a Functional Behavioral
Assessment/Analysis Report; (2) a positive behavioral intervention support plan (BIP); (3) an
IEP Initial Assessment Flowchart and Timeline, Procedures, and Exceptions Process; (4) a
Comprehensive Case Study Assessment Report; and (5) feedback from university supervisors,
cooperating/mentor teachers in the field.
1) Functional Behavioral Assessment/Analysis Report:
A Functional behavioral assessment is considered to be a problem-solving process for
addressing student problem behavior. It relies on a variety of techniques and strategies to
identify the purposes of specific behavior and to help IEP teams select interventions to
directly address the problem behavior. Functional behavioral assessment should be
integrated, as appropriate, throughout the process of developing, reviewing, and, if
necessary, revising a student’s IEP. A functional behavioral assessment looks beyond
the behavior itself. The focus when conducting a functional behavioral assessment is on
identifying significant, pupil-specific social, affective, cognitive, and/or environmental
72
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
factors associated with the occurrence (and non-occurrence) of specific behaviors. This
broader perspective offers a better understanding of the function or purpose behind
student behavior.
2) Positive Behavioral Intervention Support Plan (BIP):
A Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) takes the observations made in the Functional
Behavioral Assessment and turns them into a concrete plan of action for managing a
student's behavior. A BIP may include ways to change the environment to keep behavior
from starting in the first place, provide positive reinforcement to promote good behavior,
employ planned ignoring to avoid reinforcing bad behavior, and provide supports needed
so that the student will not be driven to act out due to frustration or fatigue. When a
behavior plan is agreed to, the school and staff are legally obligated to follow it, and
consequences of not following it should not be inflicted on the student. Behavioral
intervention plans based on an understanding of "why" a student misbehaves are
extremely useful in addressing a wide range of problem behaviors.
3) IEP Initial Assessment Flowchart and Timeline, Procedures, and Exceptions Process:
Each candidate is required to create a IEP Assessment flowchart (or creative visual) of
the IEP initial assessment process, from beginning to end, including timelines and all the
essential participants and information related to the IEP process.
4) Comprehensive Assessment Report:
The Comprehensive Assessment Report requires candidates demonstrate the basic
principles and strategies related to using and communicating the results of a variety of
assessment and evaluation approaches appropriate for general education and for those
students receiving special education services with mild/moderate challenging conditions.
Candidates will make educational decisions on the basis of a variety of nonbiased
standardized techniques, instruments, and processes that are functional, curriculum
referenced, performance based, and appropriate to the diverse needs of individual
students. Candidates will use these approaches to assess the developmental, academic,
behavioral, social, communication, vocational, and or community life skill needs of
students and the outcomes of instruction.
5) Feedback from university supervisors, cooperating/mentor teachers in the field:
Feedback from our university supervisors and cooperating teachers/mentors is ongoing
during formal evaluation meetings with candidates, but also informal conversations, and
1:1 with the student teaching field placement coordinator and coordinator of the
mild/moderate credential program. These individuals provide ongoing suggestions and
feedback in the preparation of our candidates. Additionally, at the end of each semester,
the field placement coordinator holds a meeting with all university supervisors to discuss
individual candidate concerns and the overall evaluation process. Suggestions for change
and/or improvement are shared with the mild/moderate coordinator, mild/moderate
faculty area group (MMAG), and Special Education Area Group (SEAG). Action for
change and /or improvement is decided by majority vote among the Mild/Moderate are
group and the SEAG. 73
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
Strengths:
a. Candidate performance: All of our 4 key assessments provide in-depth analysis of
direct application of knowledge, skills, and clinical practice with focus children/youth
and their school/family teams. Candidates demonstrated highly proficient to proficient
results on the assessments in each key area by the end of the program. The
Mild/Moderate faculty are confident that the completers have proficient skills in
Literacy, IEP development, systematic and data-based instruction, valid and reliable
assessment procedures, functional assessment, and positive behavioral support. Our
completers also show strengths in collaborative teaming with families and
professionals, advocacy, and systems change skills. Completers also demonstrated high
level of skill in supporting students with mild/moderate disabilities in integrated and
natural settings utilizing principles of Universal Design for Learning, partial
participation, and modified outcomes referenced to the general education curriculum
standards.
b. Program effectiveness:
Overall, the program has strong ties between
cooperating/mentor teachers and University faculty and supervisors. This has had a
direct effect of high program quality. Candidates/interns are carefully mentored, their
progress is systematically tracked and there are numerous opportunities for critical
feedback. Candidates/interns demonstrated high success in the final evaluation and
portfolio development. The program has demonstrated success in the key areas
nationally recognized in the field as core to mild/moderate disabilities, person/family
centered planning, collaborative IEP development, positive behavioral supports,
supporting students to access the core curriculum, and research-based practice and
systems change.
Areas for improvement:
a. Candidate/Intern Competency Evaluation:
Review of the data indicates that our current EDS 472 Competency Evaluation tool
needs to be revised to more clearly articulate and operationally define each of the
mild/moderate competencies. For example, on the first page of the current evaluation
tool a Performance Criteria is provided. The Performance Criteria breaks down the
three levels of performance as follows; Level 3: “Above Entry Level,” Level 2 “ At
“Entry Level”, and Level 1 “Below Entry.” However, on each of the pages of the
evaluation tool, only the descriptive level is provided not the numeral level e.g. “Above
Entry Level”. As a result, it is very time consuming to convert the performance criteria
score to a numeral value in order to identify the mean-median score across candidates.
b. Program effectiveness for interns: Overall, the program’s effectiveness for interns has
in some cases been somewhat compromised depending on whether the intern is able to
get the adequate on-site support he or she needs, and whether the intern is provided with
important opportunities to observe master teachers identified as effective and highly
qualified.
74
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
c. Modified outcomes and instructional strategies within the general education
curriculum and environment: The effectiveness of the program in establishing skills
for modified outcomes and instructional strategies within the general education
curriculum, using adaptations, and understanding how to reference goals to the general
education curriculum for students with the mild/moderate cognitive and behavioral disabilities is an area that needs improvement for the intern teachers as well. IV.Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Based on the data in Section III above, the program will take the following steps.
•
Modified outcomes and instructional strategies within the general education curriculum
and environment: Faculty in the mild/moderate program will have two retreats; one at
the beginning and one at the end of each semester in order to review the effectiveness of
the program in establishing skills for modified outcomes and to review all coursework
and assignments and problem solve new teaching strategies for various concepts. These
retreats will focus on data-based and systematic instruction, modifying the curriculum
and designing IEP goals referenced to general education standards, and systems change.
• The mild/moderate student teaching evaluation tool will be revised based on input from
faculty and supervisors. The EDS 472 Competency Evaluation tool will be revised to
more clearly articulate and operationally define each of the mild/moderate competencies.
Each competency will identify the Performance Criteria based on 3 numerical values;
Level 3: “Above Entry Level,” Level 2 “ At “Entry Level”, and Level 1 “Below Entry.”
This will allow for faculty to convert the performance criteria score to a numerical value
in order to identify the mean-median score across candidates. A written description of
the process to be used will be added and better information and training for actual
grading will be implemented.
The Student Teaching and Internship Handbook containing these revisions can be found
online at http://edweb.csus.edu/eds/forms/spec_ed.html.
75
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Special Education, Rehabilitation,
School Psychology & Deaf Studies:
EDS Moderate Severe
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
76
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Program documented in this report: Education Specialist - Moderate/Severe
Name of Program:
Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, School Psychology,
& Deaf Studies
Credential awarded: Moderate/Severe Educational Specialist Credential
Is this program offered at more than one site?
No
If yes, list all sites at which the program is offered: NA
Program Contact:
Name: Dr. Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: (916) 278-4187
E-mail: [email protected]
If the preparer(s) of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
1. Dr. Kathy Gee
[email protected]
2. Dr. Bruce Ostertag [email protected]
(916) 278-4077
(916) 278-5541
77
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A –PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. Context
Table 27. Total Number of Candidates Enrolled and Completers
The table below shows data on candidates in the requested two semesters, Fall ’07 and
Spring ’08. Please note, however, that this is a two year preparation program and candidates may
enter either in Fall or Spring semester. The majority of candidates starts in the Fall and end in the
Spring of their second year in the program. Thus, the numbers of those enrolled will not equal
those completing in any given semester as some are in their first year and some are in their
second year.
Table 27. Enrollment
Moderate/Severe: Level I On-­‐campus Credential Candidates Fall 2008 Number of candidates enrolled 25 Number of completers 5 Moderate/Severe: Level II On-­‐Campus Credential Candidates Fall 2008 Number of candidates enrolled 11 Number of completers 6 Spring 2009 25 13 Fall 2009 35 4 Spring 2009 20 16 Spring 2010 33 6 Fall 2009 12 4 Spring 2010 18 10 Brief description of program characteristics. The Level I moderate/severe specialist
credential program at CSUS focuses on 16 state standards developed by the California Teacher
Credentialing Commission. This credential covers an age range of K-21 and a very wide range of
disability types and issues. Candidates entering with no previous credential follow a 2-year
sequence, and candidates entering with a multiple subjects or single subject credential follow a
1+ year sequence. Candidates are grouped in either a one-year cohort or a two-year cohort but
these cohorts combine in the core moderate/severe courses. Candidates who already hold a
multiple subjects or single subject credential follow a sequence of 30 units of coursework, 15
units of supervised student teaching, and 2 units of student teaching seminar (a total of 47 units).
Candidates entering with no other teaching credential, follow a sequence of 45 units of
coursework, 18 units of supervised fieldwork/student teaching, and 2 units of student teaching
seminar (a total of 65 units).
The core methods courses are directly connected to demonstration competencies in the
supervised fieldwork and student teaching experiences. The 3 semesters of supervised student
teaching are competency based. Candidates must demonstrate mastery before moving on to the
next experience. This means that candidates in the first supervised fieldwork experience must
have a level of at least 3 out of 4 on the rubric in all competency areas in order to move on to the
Student Teaching I semester; and, candidates in the Student Teaching I semester must
demonstrate a level 3 out of 4 in all areas to move on to the final student teaching semester.
Approximately half of the candidates are interns, and half of the candidates are traditional
78
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
student teachers. There is a close relationship between the school sites in which we place our
student teachers and the core faculty in the moderate/severe program.
The moderate/severe credential program works with a large number of school districts
and county programs since we have student teachers, intern teachers and traditional teachers in
our program. Candidates who are not interns get 3 semester-long supervised experiences across
both secondary and elementary grades, and experience with a wide range of disabilities. In
addition the program has a strong commitment to ensuring that student teachers have experience
in urban and non-urban districts and schools with English Language Learners. Intern teachers
are also supervised over 3 semesters in their own programs. Through agreements with districts
and counties, candidates who are employed as interns are supported to take days of leave to
spend time in other programs for two purposes: 1) to give them an opportunity to observe best
practice models; and, 2) to give them needed experiences in other age-groups and with other
types of children with significant disabilities.
Background about any significant changes, deletions or innovations in the program
since the last program document was approved (2005). We have not made any significant
changes or deletions to the program; however we have undertaken some fruitful innovations
since 2005. These include: establishment of the “end of first year review” for candidates in the
2-year sequence (they hold no prior teaching credential); a new rubric for the first supervised
fieldwork semester; a new rubric for Student Teaching 1 and II; and, the establishment of a
mentoring program called “community of practice.”
The “end of first year review” was established to provide an opportunity for the program
coordinator and the candidates to examine the candidate’s progress over the first year, both in
classes and supervised fieldwork. By reviewing and discussing the candidate’s evaluations in the
field and performance in classes, we are able to carefully plan for the two student teaching
semesters in the 2nd year, give guidance, and provide overall advising for success. For intern
candidates this process also provides an opportunity to discuss ways to facilitate spending time in
mentor teachers’ classrooms and accessing experiences outside of their internship setting.
The rubrics for the 3 semesters of fieldwork and student teaching were re-structured as
written rubric statements and replace a numeric scale, used previously. This has made it easier
for supervisors and candidates alike to be very clear on exactly where candidates are in their
progress toward becoming a proficient first-year teacher.
We received a new federally funded personnel preparation grant in August, 2008. Part of
that project involves the establishment of a mentoring community online. A number of our
highly successful program completers have agreed to participate in an online community which
will support new teachers and interns through offering ideas and resources to each other. We
call this a community of practice. These program completers were selected based on several
factors: feedback from their administrators; evidence of effective practices in place in their
classroom, as observed by the coordinator and one other advisor; their effectiveness as a mentor
teacher; information provided in structured interviews with the university program coordinator;
and/or, other professional practice demonstrations.
79
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
For an online program overview, please see:
http://edweb.csus.edu/eds/special_education/programs_credential/L1_Mod_Sev_Overview.html.
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
a. Primary Candidate Assessments (NOT including any assessments or data that are
used to make an admissions decisions)
This report will focus on 6 key assessments that are used to make critical decisions about
candidate competence prior to being recommended for a credential, including: 1) assessments
and intervention plans for two students in augmentative and alternative communication; 2)
design and implementation of a positive behavioral support plan following assessment and
analysis; 3) a comprehensive (triennial) IEP assessment, report, and final IEP; 4) a “Moving
Forward” project (schedule analysis, school site analysis, program plans); 5) the final student
teaching evaluation; and, 6) the Student Portfolio.
1. Augmentative and alternative communication assessments and intervention
plans. Communication skills (both non-symbolic and symbolic) are the most common IEP goals
for students with significant disabilities. It is nationally recognized that having skills in the
ability to assess and intervene with students with moderate/severe disabilities in the area of
communication is one of the top critically important skills for teachers in this field. This key
signature assignment is carried out in the student teaching setting while taking the EDS 209
course in augmentative and alternative communication. Credential candidates work closely with
two students and their school teams (family members, teachers, speech therapists, other related
service providers) to assess current communication skills and communication needs, design
interventions, develop low-tech materials and recommend high tech devices (if needed), develop
goals and instructional programs, design intervention strategies, and carry them out. At least one
of the two focus children/youth must be someone who is nonverbal. The professor evaluates the
work of the credential candidate at 3 points during the first two months of the semester. By the
third month, the credential candidate and the professor have agreed on intervention plans and the
candidate will carry them out. The candidate collects data, makes changes as necessary and
summarizes the progress at the end of the semester. The professor provides a grade, but the
communication system is in place and the team at the school site will carry it on.
2. Positive behavioral support plan: assessment, analysis, and team
implementation.
For the Positive Behavioral Support Project, each candidate selects an individual with disabilities
who engages in a challenging behavior(s) that need(s) to be decreased. Four components of this project
are conducted over the course of the semester. For the first part, the Target Behavior Operational
Definition, the candidate briefly describes the strengths and needs of the individual whose behavior
he/she is identifying to change; describes the target behavior to be changed (i.e. the behavioral difficulty,
deficit or excess), including examples; estimates how often the behavior occurs; describes how
intense/severe the behavior is; determines what skills may be lacking that could potentially replace the
behavior; operationally defines the target behavior in observable, measurable, and countable terms (i.e.,
topography, event, duration, seriousness, and/or intensity), and briefly describes data that needs to be
generated to get adequate baseline. For the next component, the Functional Assessment of Challenging
80
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Behavior, Analysis of Assessment Data, and Initial Hypothesis Statements, the candidate conducts
assessments (i.e., baseline data, ABC analysis over three to four school settings), interviews with
relevant stakeholders (e.g., parents, other teachers, instructional assistants, related services personnel);
student interview, records review, communication interviews, motivational assessment scale, quality of
live questionnaire, positive environment checklists, learning style preference scale) in order to assist in
obtaining a greater understanding of the target behavior. After the above data is collected, the candidate
writes a summary of the measures used and the findings/outcomes of the functional assessment
conducted, the hypotheses generated regarding the challenging behavior and a description of the
hypothesis testing which has been or will be conducted. Next, the candidate develops and implements a
Multi-Component Positive Behavioral Support Plan, and writes a summary of the process and results.
3. Comprehensive (triennial) IEP assessment, report, and final IEP. In their
Advanced Methods course, which is taken along with the final semester of student teaching,
candidates are required to pull together their knowledge and skills from previous coursework to
complete a comprehensive, integrated assessment. Candidates are required to utilize the
collaborative teaming methods learned previously, taking them to a new level of professional
practice. They collaborate with other school team members to write an integrated assessment
report across all core areas (academic, cognitive, motor, social, sensory, domestic, self-care, selfmanagement, vocational, recreational, community access, etc.). Candidates all develop the IEP
goals and methods of tracking progress, carryout the meetings for the IEP (under supervision of
their mentor teacher and/or supervisor), and follow up as necessary.
4. Moving forward project (schedule analysis, school site analysis, program plans).
The Moving Forward with Integration/Inclusive School Practices Project is completed
during a candidate’s final student teaching phase. The project has three components and its
purpose is twofold: 1) to gain knowledge in program quality indicators and the planning and
intervention processes which can take place to move programs forward toward more inclusive
educational practices; and 2) to practice conducting activities which forward meaningful
integration/inclusion and quality service delivery. First, each candidate conducts a school
inventory; has interviews and reflective discussions with key individuals; utilizes quality
indicator checklists; observes and participates in the school program, examines current system of
service delivery components; analyzes his/her program’s schedule including the quality of the
instructional day and how staff is assigned to maximize instruction, functional and meaningful
activities, and inclusion in general education or the community. The candidate then writes a
summary of his/her analyses indicating strengths and areas to target for program improvement
and develops an action plan to include: a revised schedule that he/she could implement within
the remainder of the semester; top prioritized long-term goals (approx. 3-year goals) set for the
services for students with severe disabilities and activities he/she would recommend to meet
those goals; a more detailed description of objectives and activities for the first year. The
candidate then shares the plan with his/her university supervisor and mentor teacher to obtain
feedback. Revisions are made as necessary. For the second component of this project, the
candidate conducts one activity to forward comprehensive integration/inclusion at the school site
or at a community vocational site through information provision. Finally, the last component
involves the candidate participating in a systems change group/activity that may in some way
further inclusive practices at the school or district.
81
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
5. Final student teaching evaluation. The Student Teaching Evaluation tool for
Student Teaching I and II is the same rubric. By the end of Student Teaching I students are
expected to be at a 3 (developing proficiency) on all categories. By the end of Student Teaching
II, students are expected to be at a level 4 (proficiency) on all categories. There are 11 categories
on the evaluation tool including: 1) collaboration, communication, and professional commitment;
2) teaching collaboratively in the general education curriculum; 3) IEP development; 4)
supporting students with severe disabilities to access the core curriculum; 5) data-based,
systematic instruction; 6) community-based and supported life instruction; 7) facilitation of
social relationships and friendships; 8) augmentative and alternative communication; 9) positive
behavioral support; 10) supporting students with physical, sensory, health, and multiple
disabilities; 11) program management, evaluation, and systems change. Each area has a list of
descriptors (varying in number) with a written rubric across 4 levels for each one.
6. Candidate Portfolio.
Each candidate is required to develop a Professional Teaching Portfolio. Its major purpose is the
development of reflective thinking and inquiry in teacher candidates. The candidate’s ability to reflect
on his/her growth and document what he/she has accomplished as he/she develops the portfolio is
evaluated. The portfolio is organized around the CCTC Core Standards for all Specialists and Service
Credentials, the Preliminary Level I: Specialist Teaching Standards, the Preliminary Level I:
Mild/Moderate/Severe Common Standards, and the Preliminary Level I: Moderate/Severe Standards.
For each standard, the candidate selects artifacts to include demonstrating competency in the particular
area(s). A minimum of two artifacts per standard is required and for each artifact, a written
justification/explanation of how it demonstrates competency must be provided. An artifact is tangible
evidence of knowledge that is gained, skills that are mastered, values that are clarified, or dispositions
and attitudes that are characteristic of the candidate. Examples of artifacts are course assignments,
photographs, student work, journals, lesson plans, audio- or video-tapes. The portfolio is evaluated by
the program faculty, using a rubric, for the quality of its overall organization, visual layout, reflection
and justification of personal artifacts, and specific evidence of standards.
The table below provides additional details about the nature of each key assessment.
Table 28. Overview of Key Assessments
Assessment Tool
Type of
When
Assessment administered
(formative/
summative)
Assessment #1:
Formative
Throughout a
Signature
specific course
assignment: 2
required during
assessments and
Student
intervention plans
Teaching I.
for students who
need augmentative
and/or alternative
communication
systems
Details about
Administration
CCTC Standards,
Performance
Outcomes, etc.
Addressed
Individual faculty
Standards
teaching the class
addressed: 4, 6, 7,
assess candidate work 11, 12, 14,15, 1
based on a standard
rubric designed by
the faculty group
82
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Assessment #2.
Formative
Signature
assignment:
Positive behavioral
support plan
following
assessment and
analysis
Assessment #3:
Formative
Signature
assignment:
Comprehensive
(triennial) IEP
assessment, report,
and final IEP
Assessment #4:
Summative
Signature
Assignment:
Moving forward
project
Assessment #5:
Final student
teaching
evaluation
Summative
Assessment #6:
Student portfolio
Summative
Throughout a
course required
during Student
Teaching I.
Individual faculty
teaching the class
assess candidate work
based on a standard
rubric designed by
the faculty group
Standards
addressed: 1, 4, 5,
6, 7, 11, 12, 13,
15, 16
In course
required during
final student
teaching
experience (II)
Individual faculty
teaching the class
assess candidate work
based on a standard
rubric designed by
the faculty group
Standards
addressed:
4,6,7,11,12, 14,
15, 16
In seminar
taken during
the final
student
teaching
experience (II)
In final
semester at the
midterm and at
the end of the
semester
Individual faculty
teaching the class
assess candidate work
based on a standard
rubric designed by
the faculty group
Implemented by the
supervisor and
mentor teacher at
midterm and at the
end of the semester of
the final student
teaching experience
Standards
addressed:
1,2,4,6,12
In final
semester at the
midterm and at
the end of the
semester
Individual faculty
teaching the student
teaching seminar
assess candidates’
portfolio based on a
rubric designed by
the faculty group
Standards
addressed: all
Standards
addressed: all
83
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
The Table below reflects data on candidates enrolled during the Fall ’08 through Spring ’10
semesters of our 4 semester. In Table 29 below, we summarize the data related to completer
performance as measured by the 6 key assessments detailed in Table 28.
Table 29. Aggregate Data on Completer Performance
Assessment Tools
Fall 2008
N= 5
Spring 2009
N= 15
Fall 2009
N= 2
Spring 2010
N= 13
#1:
Two augmentative
and alternative
communication
assessments and
interventions
#2:
Positive behavioral
support plan and
implementation
#3:
Comprehensive
(triennial) IEP
assessment, report,
and final IEP
#4:
Moving forward
project
Mean % out of 100 =
93%
Mean % out of 100 92%
Mean % out of 100
= 93%
Mean % out of 100 92%
Range: 92% - 95%
Range: 85% - 95%
Range: 92% - 94%
Range: 85% - 98%
Mean score out of 40
= 36.65
Mean score out of 40
- 36.75
Mean score out of
40 = 37.05
Mean score out of
40 - 36.25
Range: 36.5 - 36.8
Range: 33.2 - 38.4
Range: 36.7 - 38.8
Range: 33.2 - 39.6
Mean score out of
100 = 92.5
Mean score out of
100 = 93
Mean score out of
100 = 92
Mean score out of
100 = 93
Range: 91 - 94
Range: 85-100
Range: 90 - 94
Range: 87-100
Mean score out of 44
= 41.75
Mean score out of 44
41.57
Mean score out of
44 = 41.75
Mean score out of
44 42.6
Range: 41 – 42.5
Range and Mean
score out of 4 on 11
content areas:
Areas 1-5: 4-4; 4
Area 6: N.O. – 4; 4
Area 7: 3-5; 4
Area 8: N.O. – 4; 4
Area 9: 4-4; 4
Area 10: 4-4; 3.6
Area 11: 4-4; 3.83
Range: 39.5 = 44
Range and Mean
score out of 4 on 11
content areas:
Area 1: 3-4; 3.94
Area 2: N.O. – 4;
3.78
Area 3: N.O. – 4;
3.83
Area 4: 3-4; 3.68
Area 5: 3-4; 3.81
Area 6: 3-4; 3.68
Area 7: 3-4; 3.69
Area 8: 3-4; 3.39
Area 9: 3-4; 3.81
Area 10: 3-4; 3.78
Area 11: 3-4; 3.7
Mean score out of
40 = 35.5
Range: 41 – 42.5
Range and Mean
score out of 4 on
11 content areas:
Areas 1-5: 4-4; 4
Area 6: N.O. – 4;
4
Area 7: 3-4; 3.8
Area 8: N.O. – 4; 4
Area 9: 4-4; 4
Area 10: 4-4; 3.6
Area 11: 4-4; 3.83
Mean score out of
40 = 36
Range: 39.5 = 44
Range and Mean
score out of 4 on 11
content areas:
Area 1: 3-4; 3.94
Area 2: N.O. – 4;
3.78
Area 3: N.O. – 4;
3.83
Area 4: 3-4; 3.68
Area 5: 3-4; 3.81
Area 6: 3-4; 3.68
Area 7: 3-4; 3.69
Area 8: 3-4; 3.39
Area 9: 3-4; 3.81
Area 10: 3-4; 3.78
Area 11: 3-4; 3.7
Mean score out of
40 = 34.87
Range: 35 - 37
Range: 30 - 40
#5:
Final student
teaching
evaluation
N.O. = no
opportunity in the
current student
teaching setting
#6:
Student Portfolio
Mean score out of
40 = 35
Range: 33 - 37
Range: 31 - 40
84
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
b. Additional information about candidate and program completer performance. In
addition to the 6 key assessments used to evaluate completer performance already reported
above, we use the following (3) assessments to help inform decisions made about our courses
and our program. These additional assessments include: (1) an “end of first year” review (for
candidates in the program with no previous credential; (2) a focus group discussion with
completers of the Level I program who are in their first year of teaching; (3) phone or inperson interviews separately with both program completers and their direct administrators at
the end of the first year of teaching; and, (4) feedback from mentor teachers in the field. The
data collection process and key findings are presented below.
(1) “End of first year review.” This process involves the Program Coordinator meeting
with the candidate to review the coursework completed so far and the evaluation results from the
first supervised semester in fieldwork. Data is used to determine student teaching placements for
the following year and/or experiences needed for interns; ways to support the candidate to
improve in certain areas; and whether or not the candidate will pass on to Student Teaching I.
(2) Focus group interviews. First year candidates are brought together in December and
February of their first year of teaching (often centered at the TASH and CalTASH conferences)
to have focused discussion related to their assessment of their first year of teaching, their
preparation, and any suggestions they might have for the program.
(3) Individual interviews with program completers and their immediate supervisors at the
end of the first year of teaching. Completers are called at the end of their first year or met with
personally, as are their immediate supervisors. They are asked open-ended questions about
performance, preparation, suggestions for courses and fieldwork, etc.
(4) Feedback from mentor teachers in the field. Feedback from our mentors is ongoing
during formal evaluation meetings with candidates, but also through informal conversations 1:1
with the two core advisors and coordinator of the moderate/severe program. These individuals
provide ongoing suggestions and feedback about the preparation of our candidates.
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
In this section, we discuss the data displayed in Table 29 and the additional data that was
summarized in Section II.b. We focus our discussion on the strengths and areas for improvement
revealed by the analysis of these data.
Strengths:
a. Candidate performance: All of our 6 key assessments provide in-depth analysis of
candidates’ direct application of knowledge, skills, and clinical practice with focus
children/youth and their school/family teams. Candidates demonstrated high levels of
performance on the assessments in each key area by the end of the program. We can be
assured that completers have proficient skills in IEP development, systematic and databased instruction, augmentative communication, and positive behavioral support. Our
completers also show strengths in collaborative teaming with both families and
professionals, advocacy, and systems change skills. Completers also demonstrated
85
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
high level of skill in supporting students with severe disabilities in integrated and
natural settings utilizing principles of Universal Design for Learning, partial
participation, and modified outcomes referenced to the general education curriculum
standards.
b. Program effectiveness: Overall, the program has strong ties between mentor teachers
and University faculty and supervisors. This has had a direct and positive effect on
program quality. Student teachers are carefully mentored, their progress is very
carefully tracked and there are numerous opportunities for critical feedback. Student
teachers demonstrated high rates of success in the final evaluation and portfolio. The
program has demonstrated success in the key areas nationally recognized in the field as
core to moderate/severe disabilities: augmentative communication, person/familycentered planning and collaborative IEP development, positive behavioral supports,
supporting students to access the core curriculum, and research-based practice and
systems change.
Areas for improvement:
a. Candidate performance: In reviewing the data from the Student Teaching Final
Evaluation, some candidates struggled in the areas of core curriculum and general
education practice, and social relationships facilitation, primarily due to being interns in
situations in which the system in which they worked prevented enough practice in this
area. In addition, some candidates struggled in the area of systematic, data based
instruction. Data on their student teaching evaluations and their systematic instructional
programs (related to the augmentative communication assignment and the positive
behavioral support project) reveal that for a small number of candidates this proved to
be more difficult. Further investigation revealed that this appeared to be related to the
lack of modeling in their internship position, or to difficulties in finding ways to
monitor within the typical teaching day.
b. Program effectiveness: Overall, the program’s effectiveness for interns has in some
cases been somewhat compromised depending on whether the intern is able to get the
adequate on-site support he or she needs, and whether the intern can get opportunities
for modeling and observation of master teachers (in other words, getting opportunities
to leave their own program and spend time in master teachers’ programs). The
effectiveness of the program in establishing skills for modified outcomes within the
general education curriculum, using adaptations, and understanding how to reference
goals to the general education curriculum even for students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities is an area that needs improvement for the intern teachers as well.
IV. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Based on the data in Section III above, the program will take the following steps.
a. Individual meetings will be scheduled with school site principals and school district
special education administrators who have intern teachers in August prior to the start of the
school year. The core faculty for the program will use these meetings to discuss in more
detail the signature assignments and the evaluation tool for the intern teachers. In this way,
we hope to provide more detail to engage more support from these individuals to help
86
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
interns both get the experiences they need to master the competencies and get proper
mentoring. Mentorship within districts/county programs is quite varied – some is excellent
and some is non-existent. We hope through these meetings to gain a better understanding
of the issues and find creative and collaborative ways to support the interns.
b. The initial fieldwork evaluation and “end of first year” review process will be
implemented at the end of the first semester as well. And, for candidates in the one-year
program (already hold a multiple subject credential), we will implement the process after
the first semester.
c. Faculty in the moderate/severe program have a retreat each summer to review all
coursework and assignments and problem solve new teaching strategies for various
concepts. This summer the focus will be on data-based and systematic instruction,
modifying the curriculum and designing IEP goals referenced to general education
standards, and systems change.
d. The student teaching evaluation tool will be revised again based on the input from
faculty and supervisors. A written description of the process to be used will be added and
better information and training for actual grading will be implemented at the retreat.
e. Our “community of practice” that has just begun will be engaged to address the issues in
Section III above to get ideas from the field for program improvement. Mentorship from
highly qualified program completers will be added to the district-provided mentorship so
that candidates will have more support.
The Student Teaching and Internship Handbook per the above can be found online at
http://edweb.csus.edu/eds/forms/spec_ed.html.
87
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Special Education, Rehabilitation,
School Psychology & Deaf Studies:
EDS Early Childhood (ECSE)
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
88
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Name of Program:
Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, School Psychology,
& Deaf Studies
Credential awarded: Early Childhood Special Education Credential or ECSE Certificate
Is this program offered at more than one site?
No
(However, courses are offered via
Distance and Distributed Education
throughout California)
Program Contact:
Name: Dr. Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: (916) 278-4187
E-mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
1. Dr. Maurine Ballard-Rosa
(916) 278-6512
[email protected]
2. Dr. Bruce Ostertag
(916)-278-5541
[email protected]
89
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A –PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. CONTEXT
Table 30: Total Number of Candidates Enrolled and Completers
ECSE: Level I Credential Candidates Number of candidates enrolled** Number of completers Fall 2008 32 Spring 2009 31 Fall 2009 35 Spring 2010 34 7 13 9 11 **The ECSE program includes both candidates who take courses as a cohort, and candidates
who proceed through the program independently, typically taking fewer courses each semester
than those in a cohort.
Brief Description of Program Characteristics. The Education Specialist Early
Childhood Special Education program includes two options, an ECSE credential (Level I and
Level II), and an ECSE Certificate. The Level I ECSE Credential includes 27 units of
coursework addressing 13 specific ECSE standards as well as other standards met by all
education specialist candidates and two in-depth fieldwork experiences (12 units). One fieldwork
experience concentrates on working with infants and toddlers and their families, and the other
focuses on working in a preschool program that includes children with disabilities. The ECSE
Certificate program is added to a clear level II credential (mild/moderate or moderate/severe
disabilities) and assumes that the basic standards in special education have been attained. The
certificate program includes 15 units of coursework and 12 units of in-depth fieldwork in
infant/toddler and preschool programs. Length of program completion varies according to the
number of courses taken by candidates each semester. The core ECSE courses are only offered
once a year; candidates must successfully complete the fall sequence (EDS 131A/B and EDS
210A/B) in order to advance to the spring sequence (EDS 211A/B and EDS 212A/B).
Candidates admitted in spring take courses required to meet overall special education standards
and begin core ECSE courses in the fall semester. It is possible for candidates to complete the
program in two years.
For an online program overview, please see:
http://edweb.csus.edu/eds/special_education/programs_credential/L1_early_ch_cred.html.
Changes/Innovations in program since last program document approval. Core
ECSE courses are offered via synchronous video-streaming through Distance and Distributed
Education for candidates living at a distance of over 75 miles; local candidates participate by
attending classes on campus. Current candidates include those from as far north as Modoc
County, and as far south as San Luis Obispo/Santa Maria. The addition of the distance option
provides opportunities for a diverse population of often under-represented candidates who would
not otherwise have opportunities to attend a training program (there are currently only 13 ECSE
programs in CA; none between CSUS and the Oregon border). The English Learner
90
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Authorization was added to the credential/certificate in December of 2006. The intern credential
program for level I was approved in 2008.
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
a) Primary Candidate Assessments
Included in the following table is a subset of the key assessments that are used to make critical
decisions about candidate competence prior to being recommended for a credential. This report
will include data on the student teaching evaluation tool used for assuring competence in directed
fieldwork as well as providing a description of signature assignments required for core courses.
Table 31: Overview of Key Assessments
Assessments of Candidate Competence for
ECSE Level I:
EDS 474: Directed Field Experience in
ECSE/Infancy
Assessment Administration
•
CTC Standards Based Competency Checklist
completed by university supervisor
EDS 475: Directed Field Experience in
ECSE/Preschool
•
CTC Standards Based Competency Checklist
completed by university supervisor
As summarized in Table 30, our program had an average of 8 Program Completers each Fall
term and 12 Program Completers in each Spring term. In Table 32 below, we summarize the data
related to candidate performance as measured by the Directed Field Experience in ECSE CTC
Standards Based Competency Checklist for both Infant/Toddler (EDS 474) and Preschool (EDS
475) student teaching listed in Table 31. It is worth noting that as a requirement for passing
student teaching, candidates must attain a rating of “2” on all relevant competencies (some
competencies are listed as NA or not appropriate for the specific student teaching setting
according to the age level served). Thus, there is no variation in the scores reported since, by
definition, those completing had attained the appropriate rating. Candidates demonstrate
competence through a combination of methods: direct observation from a university supervisor,
through interview, and/or through portfolio or other documentation. Candidates who do not
attain competency in all standards areas are required to repeat student teaching. Because of the
requirement for two student teaching experiences students may complete the program at different
times.
91
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Table 32: Aggregate Assessment Data on Candidate Performance
Assessment Tools
#1. Student Teaching Evaluation –
EDS 474
(Average rubric score across 59 items
provided; maximum score = 2)
#2. Student Teaching Evaluation –
EDS 475
(Average rubric score across 54 items
provided; maximum score = 2)
Fall 2008
Overall
N=18
N=4
2.0
Spring 2009
Overall
N=12
N=5
2.0
N=16
2.0
N=8
2.0
Fall 2009
Overall
N=17
N=4
2.0
N=15
2.0
Spring 2010
Overall
N=13
N=5
2.0
N=7
2.0
b. Additional information about candidate and program completer performance
In addition to the field performance assessments identified above, we use a variety of additional
information sources to help inform decisions about our courses and our program. All ECSE core
courses have signature assignments linked to CTC standards that are evaluated by faculty. These
assignments include: (1) Family Collaboration Project Report; (2) Comprehensive Assessment
Project Report; (3) Infancy Comprehensive Final Project Report; and, (4) the Preschool
Comprehensive Final Project Report. The candidate Professional Development Portfolio is a
program requirement that is used as a summative assessment of the candidate’s abilities in each
of the CTC standards areas both in terms of artifacts demonstrating competence and in
reflections about overall experiences throughout the teacher training program.
Finally, we garner additional insights into program effectiveness through: (1) course competency
self assessments and perceptions of distance learning experience; (2) course improvement
evaluations; and (3) an informal exit interview for candidates. We have collected extensive data
on these measures as they provide important indicators about the efficacy, from candidates’
perspective, of our non-traditional program delivery model. Because these measures do not
directly address candidate performance, they are not included in this report, but are available
upon request.
(2) Course Improvement Evaluations: Throughout 2008-2010, instructors in ECSE courses
routinely conducted written anonymous course improvement evaluations which provided
candidates an opportunity to rate all aspects of the learning experience.
(3) Informal Exit Interview: At the end of the final student teaching seminar, the program
coordinator meets with each candidate to review the performance portfolio. During this meeting
the coordinator asks the candidate to informally evaluate the courses and field experiences as
related to his/her professional development.
92
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
In this section, we discuss the information presented in section II, focusing on the strengths and
areas for improvement revealed by the analysis of these data.
Strengths:
a. Candidate performance: Current assessment data support the assertion that activities
designed as part of courses and fieldwork are successful in facilitating candidates
demonstrating mastery of competencies required for the Level I ECSE credential (or
ECSE certificate).
b. Program effectiveness: We believe that the current program, including the distance
offerings, contributes to development of effective beginning ECSE teachers. As
detailed above, all course activities and fieldwork are assessed with rubrics that have
been developed over the past several years. Faculty engage in ongoing analysis of
content placement and course alignment.
Areas for improvement:
a. Candidate performance: As previously described, candidates are required to attain a “2”
(“Competency Met”) in all standards areas in order to receive credit for student
teaching. We do not have data that differentiate specific levels of competency in the
CTC standards areas. We plan to continue to monitor candidate progress and refine
learning opportunities and expected outcomes for individual candidates.
b. Program effectiveness: We are always striving to improve program effectiveness
through ongoing review and revisions. The evaluation data collected since 2000 for the
OSEP grant received by our institution as well as other program evaluation information
have resulted in reformulating and refining course content and delivery.
IV.Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
We will be revising the ECSE program through spring 2011 based on new CTC standards.
Specific program changes are being made after analysis of the new CTC standards. We
will review past candidate and program data, specific candidate data from our courses, and
will seek input from community partners (administrators, current ECSE teachers, parents)
regarding possible improvements in formulation of the new credential/certificate programs.
93
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Special Education, Rehabilitation,
School Psychology & Deaf Studies:
EDS Level II Mild/Moderate,
Moderate/Severe,
Early Childhood Special Education
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
94
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Program documented in this report: Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation,
School Psychology, & Deaf Studies
Name of Program: Level II Clear Education Specialist
Credential awarded: Level II Mild/Moderate, Moderate/Severe and Early Childhood
Special Education
Is this program offered at more than one site?
Yes
If yes, list all sites at which the program is offered:
California State University, Sacramento
California State University Bay Area Program, San Pablo, California
Program Contact:
Name:
Kathy Norman
Phone #
(916) 278-4187
E-mail:
[email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Name:
Dr. Bruce Ostertag
Phone #
(916) 278-5541
E-Mail
[email protected]
95
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A –PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. CONTEXT
The table below shows data on candidates in the requested four semesters, Fall 2008 through
Spring 2010. Candidates may complete the program in two years or take up to five years.
Table 33: Total Number of Candidates Enrolled and Completers
Mild/Moderate Level II On-­‐Campus Credential Candidates Fall 2008 Number of candidates enrolled 42 Number of completers 13 Moderate/Severe: Level II Level II On-­‐Campus Credential Candidates Fall 2008 Number of candidates enrolled 11 Number of completers 6 ECSE: Level II On-­‐campus Credential Candidates Number of candidates enrolled Number of completers Spring 2009 33 41 Fall 2009 38 23 Spring 2009 20 16 Fall 2008 12 4 Spring 2010 18 10 Fall 2009 17 4 Spring 2009 16 6 Spring 2010 31 30 Fall 2009 12 4 Spring 2009 13 5 Mild/Moderate/Severe: Level II Bay Area Credential Candidates Fall 2008 Number of candidates enrolled 23 Number of completers 0 Spring 2010 17 15 Fall 2009 24 14 Spring 2010 15 29 Brief description of program characteristics:
Each holder of the Preliminary Level I Education Specialist Credential, as part the Level
II or Clear Education Specialist Credential program, completes a sequence of 15-18 units of
academic coursework developed by CSUS according to the California Commission of Teacher
Credentialing (CCTC) approved Level II Standards. The length of the program is typically from
two to five years. The content of these courses builds on the knowledge base that was
established in the Preliminary Level I program.
A major component of the program is the development of professional Induction Plan.
As part of the course requirements, mentoring combined with 90hrs of fieldwork over two
semesters is required for Level II special education candidates. The Level II preparation
program may include professional development activities sponsored by non-university
organization. The non-university activities can include up to 25% of the total unit requirements
for Clear Credential program. Each of the courses also requires accompanying field-based (lab)
96
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
components as part of the course of study. The field-based sections are intended to provide
structured, guided experiences that assist inductees to explore, apply, and/or extend what is
presented in the lecture portion of the courses.
The Level II Program is intended to enable new teachers to apply their Preliminary Level I
preparation to the demands of teaching in the field while also fostering and enhancing their skills
and knowledge. The Level II program is designed to move the beginning special educator
beyond the functional aspects of teaching to more advanced knowledge and reflective thinking
about his or her role in providing effective instruction and an environment for student success.
The Level II program is organized to be individualized with focus on advanced skills which are
not duplicative of Level I coursework. Level II preparation provides opportunities to build on
the Level I foundational instruction and develop a specific content or performance emphasis
(specialization area) such as: transition, inclusive education, positive behavior supports, autism,
emotional disturbance; augmentative alternative communication, etc.
Background about any significant changes, deletions or innovations in the program since
the last program document was approved:
The initially CTCC approved Level II program (1998) provided two pathways to meet the clear
credential requirements. The majority of the beginning teachers were enrolled in the Basic
Program Option. This route included the following courses (lecture + field-based activity):
EDS 252 A/B Induction Seminar (2+1 units)
EDS 253 A/B Curriculum, Assessment and Transition (2+1 units)
EDS 254 A/B Positive Behavior Support (2+1 units)
EDS 255 A/B Interdisciplinary Collaboration (2+1)
Elective (3 unit course or non-IHE district based professional development)
The second option was entitled the Alternative Program and it was first offered two years later.
This route included (lecture + field-based activity):
EDS 252 A/B Induction Seminar (2+1)
EDS 267 A/B Special Education Seminar and Lab I (3+3)
EDS 268 A/B Special Education Seminar and Lab II (3+3)
Elective (3 unit course or non-IHE district based professional development)
After careful review of candidate feedback regarding the effectiveness of the Level II program,
the most prevalent response was that there was too much redundancy between the Level I and
Level II delivery of course content. In addition, enrollment patterns demonstrated a greater
candidate interest in the Alternative Program Option. Based on the evaluation of the two
program options, it was decided by the area group faculty to phase out the Basic Program Option
and to only offer the second program pathway, beginning in the fall of 2003.
97
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
For an online program overview, please see
http://edweb.csus.edu/eds/special_education/programs_credential/L2_spec_ed.html.
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
a.
Primary Candidate Assessment
This report will focus on 4 key assessments that are used to make critical decisions about
candidate competence prior to being recommended for a credential, including:
1) Standards-based Induction Plan
2) Consultation, Collaboration and Transition
3) Curriculum, Assessment and Behavior Support
4) Candidate Exit Portfolio
1. Development of a Professional Portfolio
The primary candidate assessment is based on the ongoing development of a professional Level
II portfolio. The portfolio focuses on the content standards and the field components as well as
the final exit evaluation/portfolio review. The following provides an overview of the portfolio
assessment process:
The Organization of the Portfolio:
The portfolio assessment is a collection of documents and other types of artifacts, that is
designed to provide tangible evidence of the knowledge, skills, attitudes and talents that are
evidence based on accomplishments of a beginning special education teacher.
The documents included and the specific format and organization are self-selected to reflect the
individuality and autonomy of the Level II candidates. The portfolio organization is based on the
CCTC Core Standards and the Specialization Standards for the Mild/Moderate, Moderate/Severe
and Early Childhood Special Education Clear Credential areas.
The portfolio is the primary program assessment procedure of the CTCC approved Level II
Standards. The CCTC Standards are reviewed and assessed during and at the end of each course.
A minimum of three artifacts per standard is required and for each standard, a written
justification/explanation of how the artifacts demonstrate competency must be provided. An
artifact is tangible evidence of knowledge that is gained, skills that are mastered, values that are
clarified, or dispositions and attitudes that are characteristics of the beginning special education
teacher.
98
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Assessment Criteria:
The portfolios are evaluated on each of the following categories:
1. Overall Organization
2. Visual Layout
3. Attainment of Standards: Core, Mild/Moderate, Moderate/Severe and Early Childhood
Special Education (as appropriate)
4. Self-Reflection
5. Collaboration with Mentor
The rating assessment criteria are clearly defined for each of the following performance levels:
Unsatisfactory (1)
Satisfactory (2)
Good (3)
Outstanding (4)
The assessment rubric is based on a maximum score of 4.
The table below provides additional details about the nature of each key assessment.
Table 34: Overview of Key Assessments
Assessment Tool
Type of
Assessment
(formative/
summative)
Formative
When administered
Details about
Administration
End of course
required during first
semester
Assessment #2.
Standards-based
portfolio
Formative
End of course
semester of
enrollment
Individual faculty and
mentor assess candidate
work based on a
standard rubric
designed by faculty
group
Individual faculty and
mentor assess candidate
work based on 4 point
rubric
Assesment#3.
Standards-based
portfolio
Formative
End of course
semester of
enrollment
Assessment#4.
Standards-based
portfolio
Summative
In final semester at
the midterm and at
the end of the
semester
Assessment #1.
Standards-based
induction plan
Individual faculty and
mentor assess candidate
work based on 4 point
rubric
Individual faculty and
mentor assess the
candidate bases on exit
interview and the rubric
designed by the faculty
CCTC Standards,
Performance
Outcomes, etc.
Addressed
Level II Standards
All core and
specialization
standards based on
credential holder
Level II Standards
Core: 15, 16
Mild/Mod: 20
Mod/Sev: 18, 19
ECSE: 13, 14
Level II Standards
Core: 13, 14, 15
Mild/Mod: 15, 18
ECSE: 15
Level II Standards
All core and
specialization
standards based on the
credential holder
99
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
As summarized in Table 33, our program had a grand total of 231 Program Completers from Fall
2008 through Spring 2010. In Table 35 below, we summarize the data related to completer
performance as measured by the 4 key assessments detailed in Table 34.
Table 35: Aggregate Data on Completer Performance
Assessment Tools
#1. Standards-based induction plan
(Average rubric score provided, maximum
score = 4)
#2. Standards-based portfolio
(Average rubric score across 5 items
provided; maximum score = 4)
#3. Standards-based portfolio (Average
rubric score provided, maximum score=4)
#4. Standards-based portfolio (Average
rubric score provided, maximum score = 4)
b.
Fall 2008
N=30
Fall 2009
N=39
3.7
Spring
2009
N=82
3.5
3.8
Spring
2010
N=80
3.8
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.3
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.6
Additional information about candidate and program completer performance
In addition to the 4 key assessments used to evaluate completer performance already
reported above, we use the following 3 assessments to help inform decisions made about our
courses and our program. These additional assessments include: (1) Mentor feedback; (2)
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) coordinator’s feedback; and, (3) Program
completer feedback. The type of data collected, the data collection process and key findings are
presented below.
a. Mentor feedback: Feedback from our mentors is ongoing during the year of
induction. Selection of Level II Standards are reviewed as well as the strategies used to
implement the standards in the classroom setting. These individuals provide valuable
ongoing suggestions and feedback during the induction period.
b. BSTA Coordinator feedback: Periodic meetings are held with individual
coordinators as well as groups to discuss our program content and requirements (at least
once-per-semester). Many of the coordinators assist in monitoring and evaluating the
field components of each of our courses. Their feedback and recommendations have
been very beneficial in our ongoing evaluation of the program.
c. Graduate feedback: Individual interviews with program completers have provided
very useful insights and suggestions regarding means to improved opportunities for our
beginning special education teachers. Our program completers have made excellent
recommendations pertaining to their preparation and have offered recommendations for
modifications to courses and fieldwork.
100
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
In this section, we discuss the data displayed in Table 35 and the additional data that was
summarized in Section II.b. We focus our discussion on the strengths and areas for improvement
revealed by the analysis of these data.
Strengths:
a. Candidate performance: All of our assessment tools have items that measure
candidates’ performance in creating a productive learning environment. Candidates
demonstrated strong performance in the functional aspects of teaching as well as in
applying more advanced knowledge and reflective thinking about their role in
providing effective instruction and an environment for student success. Moreover,
our data analysis reveals consistently high assessments for candidates in the areas of
foundational knowledge of instruction and the development of specific content or
performance emphasis (specialization areas) such as transition, inclusive education,
behavioral intervention, and consultation and collaboration skills. We can be assured
that completers are proficient in the areas of advanced professional development by
the skills they demonstrate in working with colleagues, parents and paraprofessionals,
coordinating meetings, sharing information, dealing with conflict and serving as
members of collaborative teams. Our completers also demonstrated strengths in
analyzing student assessment and performance data to determine whether to maintain,
modify or change specific instructional strategies, curricular content or adaptations,
behavioral supports and/or daily schedules to facilitate skill acquisition and successful
participation in the core curriculum for all students.
b. Program effectiveness: Overall, the program is viewed by candidates as relevant,
challenging and individually self directed. The program’s emphasis on team
building, planning, delegation of responsibilities and accountability provide
candidates an opportunity to model expectations of their roles in the schools. The
coordination of the field (lab) requirements of each of the courses with the support of
BTSA mentors has been successful in many of the school districts. Feedback from
the BTSA coordinators has proven to be insightful in improving the articulation of
expectations between the University Level II program and school districts. The
program has been continually modified to be responsive to our candidates and support
providers in the schools.
Areas for improvement:
a. Candidate performance: In reviewing the data from the course evaluations and exit
interviews some candidates expressed concern about the combination of stress in their
work setting, the requirements of the BTSA program, and the additional expectations
of the after school Level II program at the University. Another area identified as
needing improvement relates to non-BTSA mentors for our candidates. As many as
30 to 40% of our candidates each semester are not provided with BTSA mentors who
possess an education specialist credential in the same area of expertise. In addition,
there appear to be inconsistencies in the amount of time and quality of support
provided by mentors. These practices vary from school district to school district.
101
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
b. Program effectiveness: Overall, the program effectiveness has continued to improve
based on data we collect from Level II candidates and BTSA mentors and
coordinators. The Level II faculty have also been meeting with the BTSA
coordinators to continue to discuss means to reduce or eliminate redundancies in
activities and requirements for the candidates. There is a need to facilitate better
communication between the Level II faculty and the school district mentors to
improve the quality of oversight and the monitoring of the beginning teacher’s
induction plan. A plan to provide periodic orientation meetings with the mentors in
the future is currently being considered by the faculty.
IV.Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Based on the data in Section III, the program will take the following steps:
a. At the beginning of each year , an orientation meeting will be conducted with the BTSA
and non-BTSA mentors. The focus of the meetings will be to review the Level II program
including the induction planning process, the required field activities of our program and
processes to improve communication between the faculty and the mentors. These periodic
meetings will also provide opportunities for the mentors to review their expectations,
limitations, district-based requirements and professional development activities.
b. In order to reduce the tremendous stress expressed by many of our beginning special
education teachers, a careful review will be conducted to examine the BTSA expectations
and the Level II requirements. Possible outcomes will be the reduction of redundant
activities.
c. The induction planning process will be reviewed with the BTSA coordinators to improve
and streamline the format and content of the Induction Plan into one comprehensive
document that may be shared by the Level II program and BTSA. Again, this will reduce
or eliminate the repetition of activities and information required in the induction of
beginning special education teachers.
d. Mentors will be identified as highly qualified program completers to better provided
insight and knowledge of the activities of the Level II program at the University. This
again will provide an opportunity to eliminate unnecessary or redundant activities. We
hope this will reduce stress for the candidates. The articulation of content and expectations
will also be enhanced through the continued relationship mentors who are themselves
program completers.
102
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Educational Leadership &
Policy Studies:
Preliminary Administrative,
Intern, Professional
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
103
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Name of Program: Educational Leadership & Policy Studies
Credentials awarded:
Preliminary Administrative Services Credential
Administrative Internship Services Credential
Professional Administrative Services Credential
Is this program offered at more than one site?
Yes
If yes, list all sites at which the program is offered:
1. California State University, Sacramento
2. Elk Grove Unified School District
3. Sac-City Unified School District
Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: 916-278-4187
E-Mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Name: Francisco Reveles
Phone #: (916) 278-4957
E-mail: [email protected]
104
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. CONTEXT
California State University, Sacramento offers programs leading to the following administrative
services credentials: (1) Preliminary Administrative Services Credential, (2) Administrative
Internship Services Credential, and (3) Professional Administrative Services Credential.
Although we do offer the Professional Administrative Services Credential as noted, we have not
had an active program since Spring 2008 due to a lack of student enrollment. Many potential
students have generally opted to enroll in credential programs leading to the Professional
Administrative Services Credential offered by the Sacramento County of Office of Education.
Recently, we have had a growing interest by area students in entering our Professional
Administrative Service Program, but to due to low applicant numbers and budget constraints, we
have not been able to restart and staff the program.
Preliminary Administrative Services Credential candidates may choose to apply and matriculate
through either our on-campus program or through a cohort developed in collaboration with an
area school district. While in the past we have offered numerous cohorts, due to severe budget
constraints, recently imposed enrollment caps, and seniority issues concerning part-time
instructors, we have been forced to limit our cohort offerings to one primary program offered
through the Elk Grove Unified School District. This cohort holds class meetings both on and off
campus and, like our on-campus credentialing program, is designed so that the program is
completed over three semesters.
In January, 2006 the CSUS Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department submitted a
revised program proposal to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing that was
aligned to the current program standards for preparing school administrators. The ten courses
required to earn the Preliminary Administrative Services Credential are common to all cohorts.
Listed below are the ten courses that now comprise the CTC approved Preliminary
Administrative Services Credential Program:
1. EDLP 200B – Diversity and Equity in Educational Leadership
2. EDLP 201B – Foundations of Educational Leadership
3. EDLP 202 – Legal Bases of Education
4. EDLP 203 – Financial Resources Planning and Allocation
5. EDLP 204B – Special Education and Categorical Programs
6. EDLP 205B – Curriculum and Instructional Leadership in K-12 Schools
7. EDLP 209B – Human Resources and Supervision
8. EDLP 250 – Educational Research
9. EDLP 255 – Field Study Seminar
10. EDLP 495 – Fieldwork
The Administrative Internship Services Credential Program is available to candidates who have
been appointed to a certificated management position by their school board. Evidence that (1) an
official board appointment has been made and (2) the candidate has successfully passed the
California Basic Education Skills Test are required in order to be accepted into the program. All
105
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
courses listed above are required for Administrative Interns with the exception of EDLP 495. In
lieu of the EDLP 495 course, Administrative Interns attend special seminars and are enrolled in
fieldwork (EDLP 401, 402, 403, 404) utilizing their actual work duties. They can remain an
intern up to a maximum of four semesters.
As noted earlier, the department has faced a challenge to sustain the professional program since
the state granted authority and funding to county offices of education to offer a similar program.
Many candidates have opted to satisfy the professional credential requirements via the county
since the training occurs during the work day and there is no fee to the student. We have not
admitted Professional Administrative Services candidates since Spring 2008.
II.
Program Enrollment and Completion
The Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department brings together all aspects of
leadership and management for educational enterprises. Student interests encompass public and
private schools, educational agencies, and institutions of higher learning.
A significant dimension of all the programs in Educational Leadership is an interest in and
commitment to the full development of student potential and capability. Course work, advising,
and field experiences are carefully orchestrated to insure a full range of faculty support for
student achievement. The student, as a responsible autonomous agent, is expected to assume the
role of equal partner in this effort.
Tables 36-40 depict the number of students enrolled in each cohort and the corresponding
semester in the program. Each of the Preliminary Administrative Credential cohorts (with the
exception of the Urban Cohort) completes the program over the course of three semesters. The
Urban Cohort candidates complete the program in one year through an accelerated course of
study.
Table 36: Total Number of Preliminary Administrative Credential Candidates Enrolled and
Completers for Spring 2009
Cohort
Elk Grove F08
On-Campus Sp09
On-Campus F08
On-Campus Sp08
On-Going
Placer Sp09
Sac-City Sp09
Urban F08
TOTAL
Semester in
Program
2nd
1st
2nd
3rd
3rd
1st
1st
2nd
Number
Enrolled
27
17
15
14
1
10
16
23
167
Number of
Completers
0
0
0
14
1
0
0
23
38
106
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Table 37: Total Number of Preliminary Administrative Credential Candidates Enrolled and
Completers for Fall 2009
Cohort
Elk Grove F08
On-Campus F09
On-Campus Sp09
On-Campus F08
On-Going
Placer Sp09
Sac-City Sp09
Urban F09
TOTAL
Semester in
Program
3rd
1st
2nd
3rd
2nd
2nd
2nd
1st
Number Enrolled
26
28
16
16
1
8
16
23
134
Number of
Completers
26
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
42
Table 38: Total Number of Preliminary Administrative Credential Candidates Enrolled and
Completers for Spring 2010
Cohort
On-Campus F09
On-Campus Sp09
On-Going
Placer Sp09
Sac-City Sp09
Urban F09
TOTAL
Semester in
Program
2nd
3rd
Varies
3rd
3rd
3rd
Number Enrolled
26
17
3
10
13
23
92
Number of
Completers
0
17
1
10
13
23
64
Table 39: Total Number of Administrative Internship Credential Candidates Enrolled and
Completers Spring 2009 – Spring 2010
Program
Administrative Internship
Services Credential
Administrative Internship
Services Credential
Administrative Internship
Services Credential
Term
Number Enrolled
Number of
Completers
Spring 2009
3
1
Fall 2009
7
5
Spring 2010
3
3
107
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Table 40: Total Number of Professional Administrative Services Credential Candidates Enrolled
and Completers Spring 2009 – Spring 2010
III.
Program
Term
Professional Administrative
Services Credential
Not offered
Number
Enrolled
Not offered
Number of
Completers
Not offered
Significant Program Changes
During academic year 2008-2009, the EDLP faculty undertook a reenergized and focused
approach to how we conceptual and operationalize our programs in these tight budget times as
well how we, individually and as a department, could enhance our teaching practices. This
approach was further catalyzed by the appointment of a new department chair and hiring of the
entire office staff. This was a significant change and challenge.
This collaborative effort represents our attempt in developing a strategic blueprint that reflects
our department’s graduate academic expectations, revised assessment practices and our
collective aspirations. It emphasizes program content, student learning outcomes and pedagogy.
This new approach to has resulted in:
II. Greater peer collaboration as evidenced by more productive and structured faculty
meetings
III. Greater awareness of and ownership for the development and compilation of
college, university, and state mandated reporting documents
IV. Improved strategic planning for the department, especially in the areas of course
design and delivery relative to current school practices and research, student
recruitment and school district collaboration,
The following key elements were highlighted during our ongoing faculty meetings this past
academic year:
•
Course Syllabi Review
The faculty (core and part-time) is engaged in a review of all syllabi for all program
offerings in order to develop common course assessments across courses. Model course
syllabi have been identified and are being used as templates by faculty for their
respective courses. In addition, the faculty is identifying specific avenues for
immediate, course specific, data collection for Spring 2009.
•
Departmental Response to Program Standards
The Department is engaged in an ongoing process of revising and updating our courses.
We have developed an updated course matrix that serves as a guide for aligning the
curriculum with the CTC Standards.
108
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Key Course Assessments
The Department decided to initially focus on two specific courses (EDLP 201:
Foundations of Educational Administration and EDLP 200: Administrator’s Role in
Multicultural Education) in developing specific key course assessments. These specific
assessments are part of a broader plan to develop a more comprehensive portfolio
assessment process for each candidate. Additionally, given the resignation of the then
department chair in mid-term during the summer of 2008 and the complete turnover of
office staff, the current chair has focused on increased faculty input, ownership, and
decision-making.
•
This past year the department made a concerted effort to focus on Program Standards
and develop a time line for identifying and implementing Key Course Assessments for
all our credential/MA course offerings. We have currently developed Key Course
Assessments for EDLP 200 (Administrator’s Role in Multicultural Education) and
EDLP 201 (Foundations of Educational Administration) with the development of
additional course assessments for the remaining courses to be completed by Fall of
2010.
Clearly, there is the need to continue gathering student assessment data and the faculty
recognizes and supports this effort. As noted earlier, we have already implemented two
key course assessments (EDLP 200, EDLP 201) which will generate assessment data
for the current semester. In addition, we are in the process of developing additional
common key assessments for the other courses as per our department timeline.
•
Mid-Semester Student Feedback
The Department has developed and implemented an online student survey to assess
program effectiveness and gather specific student recommendations for improving the
program. The results are discussed in our department meetings and have helped shape
our approach to teaching and student feedback.
Preliminary Administrative Services Credential
As a department, we have made progress in developing a Candidate Portfolio system
beginning in the 2008-2009 academic year. Admittedly, we are still working on further
focusing our efforts with regard to this candidate portfolio. A candidate portfolio is
maintained from the beginning and throughout the program until it is reviewed and the
candidate is recommended for the preliminary credential. As noted in the Candidate
Portfolio schematic, we have begun implementing the following key elements that will
become part of a student portfolio:
•
•
•
•
•
Pre-Program Assessment of Candidate Competencies
Key Course Assessments (beginning with EDLP 201 and EDLP 200 for 2008-09)
Candidate Reflection for each course
Successful completion of course objectives for EDLP 495 Field Study in Educational
Administration (see discussion below)
Post-Program Assessment of Candidate Competencies
109
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
The student's course of study is reviewed on a periodic basis, at least once a semester, by
the academic advisor. Similarly, portfolios are reviewed and assessed with the academic
advisor each semester. Student progress is also monitored via grades and ongoing faculty
advising.
The capstone course, EDLP 255: Field Study Seminar requires students to demonstrate
the knowledge and skills developed through the first five courses. This is the second
point of assessment. Students are required to conduct appropriate assessments,
development action plans and establish work teams in “real-world” school environments
where their knowledge and skills in educational leadership can be implemented and
continue to develop.
Finally, candidates enrolled in EDLP 495: Field Study or EDEA 401, 402, and 403:
Internship On-the-Job Experience, are assessed by the University field supervisor and
agency/site supervisor for competence of the domains under Category III. Student logs
and assessment reports are submitted, once completed, to the student's academic advisor.
The academic advisor reviews the student's portfolio, grades, assessment reports from
University and site supervisors, and general requirements, e.g., three years full-time
teaching in public schools, completion of personnel assignment requirement, etc. The
academic advisor, if all requirements are met, signs the candidate's advising sheet
indicating the program has been completed.
PROPOSED PROGRAM CHANGES FOR THE 2010-2011 ACADEMIC YEAR
Although the EDLP department has made significant progress in addressing program and
candidate assessment issues and challenges that existed prior to the 2008-2009 academic
year, the evolving state and university budget crises will further exacerbate and have a
major impact on new student recruitment and program delivery (both credential and
Masters) for 2011. Especially significant has been the limitations placed on new student
enrollments imposed by university directive greatly hampering our ability to maintain
consistent and predictable class sizes for the Spring 2011 and beyond. Indeed, this
student enrollment dynamic along with the ongoing budget crises may prove to be the
greatest challenge facing the EDLP department to date.
Specifically, budget constraints have impacted our program offerings as follows:
•
•
Reduced our district-based cohort offerings from as many as five a few years ago
to only one for the current academic year.
Forced the department to suspend the exemplary Urban Leadership Program for
the current year due to a lack of funding for part-time faculty.
In meeting these challenges, the department is emphasizing a strategic approach in
helping ensure that we will not only survive, but succeed as a viable department for 2010
110
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
and beyond. Specifically, we have been actively involved exploring the following
avenues associated with Distance Learning and eLearning:
•
Student Recruitment and Technical Support for School Districts
In developing school district support for our recruitment efforts across Northern
California, we are currently producing a series of video seminars for educators
showcasing our faculty’s expertise and, at the same time, providing technical
assistance at no cost to school districts on pressing issues such as school/gang
violence, English Language Learning, and Organizational Leadership and
Communication. We feel these seminars will not only provide school districts
with access to best practices, but also greatly aid our student recruitment efforts
by showcasing the department’s expertise.
•
e-Learning / Distance Learning
This is an area where we are also moving ahead in making our department more
attractive to prospective students. We have currently identified two (2) core
course (EDLP 201 - Foundations of Educational Administration, ELDP 200 Educational Research) and interested faculty to pilot our effort in delivering
course content over the internet scheduled to begin in fall 2010. We are working
closely with the university’s Director of Academic Technology and Creative
Services.
CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT/PERFORMANCE AND PROGRAM
EFFECTIVENESS INFORMATION
This report focuses on four key assessments that are used to make critical decisions about
candidate competence prior to being recommended for a credential, including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
EDLP495 Fieldwork evaluation
EDLP 401-402-403-404 Fieldwork evaluation
EDLP 498 Fieldwork evaluation
EDLP 293 Induction Plan
As indicated earlier, the administrative services credential program at CSUS has been revised
and work is currently being completed to design and institute an assessment system that
corresponds to the designated CTC standards for administrator preparation. This new
assessment system is scheduled to be operational commencing in Spring of 2009.
The table on the following page provides details about the nature of each key assessment
currently in use.
111
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Table 41: Overview of Key Assessments, 2009-2010
Assessment Tool
Assessment #1.
EDLP 495
Fieldwork
evaluation
Type of
Assessment
(formative/
summative)
Summative
When
administered
End of final
semester of
program
Assessment #2.
EDLP 401-402403-404 Fieldwork
evaluation
Summative
End of final
semester of
internship
Assessment #3.
EDLP 498
Fieldwork
evaluation
Summative
End of final
semester of
professional
program
Assessment #4.
EDLP 293
Induction Plan
Formative
First semester of
professional
program
Details about
Administration
Individual faculty
assessed
candidate’s work
that addressed 5 of
the 6 CTC
standards.
Beginning in
Spring 2011
assessments will
differentiate
candidate
performance across
a four-point scale.
Individual faculty
assessed
candidate’s work
that addressed 5 of
the 6 CTC
standards.
Corroborating
assessment
provided by an onsite supervisor.
Individual faculty
assessed
candidate’s work
that addresses 5 of
the 6 CTC
standards.
Corroborating
assessment
provided by an onsite supervisor.
Each student
developed an
independent
induction plan that
was reviewed and
approved by the
course instructor.
CCTC Standards,
Performance
Outcomes, etc.
Addressed
CTC Administrator
Standards 1-6
CTC Administrator
Standards 1-6
CTC Administrator
Standards 1-6
CTC Administrator
Standards 1-6
112
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
In Table 42 below, we summarize the data related to completer performance as measured by the
four key assessments detailed in Table 41.
Table 42: Aggregated Data on Completer Performance
Assessment Tools
#1. EDLP 495 Fieldwork
evaluation (% meeting standards)
#2. EDLP 401-402-403-404
Fieldwork evaluation (% meeting
standards)
#3. EDLP 498 Fieldwork
evaluation (% meeting standards)
#4. EDLP 293 Induction Plan
with 3 point scale
Fall 2007
Spring 2008
13/14
(92.5%)
3/3
(100%)
80/82
(97.5%)
10/10
(100%)
19/19
(100%)
19/19 (100%)
Average Score = 3.0
No program offered
No program offered
II.b. Additional information about candidate and program completer performance
Each candidate in the Preliminary Administrative Services Credential program must design and
develop a project in EDLP 255 (Field Study seminar) that will be implemented in the EDLP 495
Fieldwork course. This project must address five of the six major learning outcome standards
specified by the CTC and must be developed in collaboration with the site administrator who,
with an assigned university supervisor, will co-supervise the candidate. The goal of the
fieldwork is to provide as many opportunities as possible for the candidates to apply their
administrative skills in authentic situations. The university supervisors work in conjunction
with the site supervisors to mentor, coach, and evaluate the performance of each candidate.
University supervisors meet with each candidate during scheduled on-campus seminars and at
their work sites over the course of the semester to observe/review each candidate’s progress in
meeting each objective.
Candidates in the Administrative Internship Credential program are also evaluated on their
administrative abilities in authentic situations. Contrary to the Preliminary Credential
candidates, these candidates utilize their actual work responsibilities as practicing administrators.
Their fieldwork plans and objectives are specifically tailored to their regular work duties. As
with Preliminary Credential candidates, the university supervisors work in conjunction with the
site supervisors to mentor, coach, and evaluate the performance of each candidate. University
supervisors meet with each candidate 4-5 times over the course of the semester to observe/review
each candidate’s progress in meeting each objective.
III.
Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
In reviewing the number of ‘completers’ for all program options outlined above and analyzing
available data, we can now focus on the strengths and areas for improvement. Additionally, the
113
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
reader is referred back to the Significant Program Changes section for other positive steps that
are currently being undertaken by the department to better serve its students.
Strengths:
a. Candidate performance: The fieldwork experiences provide opportunities for candidates
to apply administrative skills in authentic situations. Candidates have freedom to
develop project objectives that are meaningful to their particular place of work. An
overwhelming majority of the candidates demonstrate that they meet the program’s
expectations and criteria to be nominated for the appropriate administrative credential.
b. Program effectiveness: The programs leading to the Administrative Services Credential
at CSUS have successfully prepared the majority of candidates for assuming
administrative responsibilities within PK-12 educational settings. The primary sources
for evaluating candidate competency are derived from the fieldwork experience and
successful coursework completion.
Areas for improvement:
a. Candidate performance: The former system of evaluating fieldwork performance was
based on a holistic assessment of the candidate’s work. To strengthen the assessment
system, the EDLP faculty realizes the need to develop processes and instruments that
reflect the current CTC administrator preparation standards. Toward that end, the
faculty is working to finalize a series of key course assignments and associated
assessment tools (e.g., rubrics) which will help guide their evaluation of each candidate.
This should be valuable in helping to generate formative and summative data needed to
discern the specific strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. As noted above, these
assessments are scheduled to be implemented in Spring 2011.
b. Program effectiveness: The implementation of a candidate portfolio with faculty review
each semester will improve the program’s effectiveness by providing formative data on
a regular basis. The establishment of key assessments across common courses will
establish the efficacy of the program to deliver the administrator preparation learning
outcomes specified by the CTC. The EDLP faculty has been working to correlate
which of the CTC administrator preparation standards were to be addressed by each
course. The specific standards for each course will guide the development and
implementation of the key course assessment. We expect this new system to be
operational by Spring 2011.
IV.Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Based on the data analysis in Section III above, the EDLP department will complete
development in Spring of 2011 of a series of key course assessments and corresponding scoring
rubrics. These key assessments will help determine the extent to which the program is delivering
the six major administrator learning outcome standards specified by the CTC.
Specifically, each of the 200 level courses will identify a key assessment matched to one of the
six major CTC standards. Using a four-point rubric developed by the program faculty, each
candidate’s performance will be assessed by the course instructor. A total of nine (9) key course
114
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
assessments will be maintained in a portfolio by the candidate and reviewed each term by the
faculty advisor. Performance data gleaned from a review of the portfolio will be used to suggest
additional learning activities in areas where the candidate has not met the standards. When
aggregated across candidates, this information will also be useful to determine how the program
might be strengthened.
In addition to the 9 key course assessments, candidates will each be evaluated by their university
supervisor on their fieldwork experience (EDLP 495). Candidates will be required to develop
project objectives specifically in response to CTC Standards 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15. University
supervisors will also utilize a four-point rubric to determine how well each candidate has met the
standards.
Because EDLP 200B focuses on Equity and Diversity for educational leaders, the primary
evidence for attainment of Standard 13 will be measured by the work completed in this course.
Major CTC Administrator Standards
• Standard 10
Vision of Learning
• Standard 11
Student Learning and Professional Growth
• Standard 12
Organizational Management for Student Learning
• Standard 13
Working with Diverse Families and Communities
• Standard 14
Personal Ethics and Leadership Capacity
• Standard 15
Political, Social, Economic, Legal, and Cultural Understanding
Two other sources of data will be included in each candidate’s portfolio: (1) pre- and postprogram assessment of candidate competencies and (2) candidate reflections for each course.
This information will supplement the data generated by performance data to help promote both
candidate and program improvement.
115
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Preliminary Credential Program Standards
Category 1 - Program Design, Coordination and Curriculum
Standard 6: Opportunities to Learn Instructional Leadership
The program provides an opportunity for the candidate to learn to facilitate the development,
articulation, implementation and stewardship of a vision of teaching and learning that is shared
and supported by the school community.
•
(Specific course syllabi objectives and program activities)
6a
6b
6c
6d
6e
6f
14
15
Preliminary Credential Program Standards
Category III - Standards of Candidate Competence
• Standard Specific Objectives
• Only select 2 for March Report
• Develop Timeline for others
10
11
13
12
Key Course Assessments Corresponding to each Standard
• Signature Assignment Corresponding to each Course
• Four Point Learning Outcome Scoring Rubric
• Each 200 Level Course to have a Key Course Assessment (9).
Some Courses may refer to more than one Standard.
• Sub-standards (10a-10b & 13a-13g) not covered by signature
assignment will still be addressed as per syllabi.
EDLP 201
EDLP 200
Key Course
Assessment
Key Course
Assessment
116
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Key Course Assessment - EDLP 201
What the students will produce and activates they would be involved in specific to
the key course assessment while in EDLP 201:
1. Vision-Building
• Developing a Vision
• How to include Stakeholders
• Other Guidance/Instruction from the Instructor
2. Class Presentation with written feedback unitizing a pubic-speaking
evaluation matrix
3. Written Reflection on Vision-Building Process
*Instructor will grade the key Course assessment using a 3 point Rubric
at cores end. Other Standards will still be coved by instructor as
evidenced by syllabus goals and objectives.
117
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Key Course Assessment - EDLP 200
What the students will produce and activates they would be involved in specific to
the key course assessment while in EDLP 200:
4. Issues of Diversity in Schools
* Communities
•
•
•
•
Open ended interview protocol
Data collection
Analysis based on theoretical frames
Case studies
5. Class Presentation with written feedback unitizing a pubic-speaking
evaluation matrix
6. Written Reflection on Issues Process
*Instructor will grade the key Course assessment using a 3 point Rubric at
cores end. Other Standards will still be coved by instructor as evidenced by
syllabus goals and objectives.
118
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Pre-Program Assessments
of Candidate Competencies
Key Course Assessments
(Formative)
Candidate Reflection
for each Course
Post-Program Assessments
of Candidate Competencies
CANDIDATE PORTFOLIO
* Evolving Portfolio to be
reviewed each term by faculty
advisor.
* Performance data used to
suggest additional learning
activities in areas where
candidate has not met
standards
*Cumulative assessment in
EDLP 255
(Summative)
EDLP 495:
• Candidates will be required to develop project objectives
specifically in response to CTC Standards 10, 11, 12, 14, 15.
• A four point rubric will be utilized.
• EDLP 200B will provide the primary evidence for standard 13.
119
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Counselor Education:
PPS School Counseling/Intern
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
120
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Year 2009-10
Name of Program: School Counseling
Credential awarded _Pupil Personnel Services Credential Program (PPS); Pupil Personnel
Services Internship Credential Program
Is this program offered at more than one site?
No
Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: 916-278-4187
E-Mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Name: Dr. Elisabeth Liles
Phone #: (916) 278-6173
E-Mail: [email protected]
121
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. Contextual Information
School Specialization Program Specific Candidate Information
Table 43
Candidate Information
Fall 2008
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
Candidates Enrolled
107
111
103
95
Completers
11
17
8
19
The mission of the Department of Counselor Education at California State University,
Sacramento is to prepare highly qualified counseling professionals. The Department is
committed to creating and facilitating the ongoing design and implementation of an exemplary
teaching/learning community. The counseling program prepares individuals to function as
professional counselors in a variety of settings including schools, colleges, business and industry,
community agencies, and mental health settings. Currently, the Department offers three areas of
specialization: School Counseling, Marriage and Family Counseling, and Career Counseling.
This 60-unit graduate program is a full time cohort course of study in which evening and
daytime classes are available. The duration of completion ranges from six semesters for full time
study to a part time option of seven years completion as allowed by University policy. One of the
major hallmarks of the program is the hands on experience provided. As early as the third
semester of our program, students receive hands on training in designated service sites. These
sites range from public school based, a University based Counseling Center, to serving clients in
mental health facilities. A 600-hour field study experience provides real world counseling
experience prior to completion of the program. Strengthened by the framework of national
standards into the curriculum and training of our students, our program has most recently
incorporated the use of the Comprehensive Professional Counselor Examination as an exit exam
for our graduates.
The Department’s School Counseling Specialization has been accredited by CCTC since
1956. The Department continues to maintain partnerships with the Elk Grove Unified School
District, Natomas Unified School District, San Juan Unified School District, and Sacramento
City Unified School District. The schools and communities involved in these partnerships serve
as designated field study sites, designated centers, where a university-community scholarship
strategy is implemented. This strategy seeks to combine education, community service and
research. Most students completing the requirements for the Pupil Personnel Services Credential
perform all of their field hours at one or more of these designated centers. Additionally, the
CSUS program maintains its ongoing commitment to assisting local and regional school districts
via recommendation of the Pupil Personnel Services Internship Credential. Students who have
completed practicum may enroll in the internship program. Individuals who obtain the Internship
Credential through the program at CSUS are permitted to work under the credential for a
maximum of two years.
The school counseling specialization has made the following changes since the
commission’s approval:
a) Inclusion of School Counseling Standard 24 in EDC 274, Spring 2010.
b) Counselor Education Cohort Group, Fall 2010.
c) Deletion of EDC 282 and incorporation of group facilitation in practicum and field study
experience, Fall 2010.
122
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
d) Adopting the Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS) Licensed Professional Clinical
Counselor curriculum (LPCC) that will allow students completing a Master’s in
Counseling to be eligible for the LPCC, Spring 2011.
e) Deletion of EDS 100A/B as a School Counseling requirement and incorporation of
counseling children with special needs in EDC 242, 270, 272, 274, 475, and 480, Spring
2011.
123
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
a) What are the primary candidate assessment(s) the program uses up to and through
recommending the candidate for a credential?
The CSUS Department of Counselor Education utilizes two key assessments to make
critical decisions about candidate competence prior to being recommended for program
completion, including: Basic Skills Evaluation and the Comprehensive Professional Counselor
Examination (CPCE), which addresses the field related categories of Human Growth and
Development (C1), Social & Cultural Foundations (C2), Helping Relationships (C3), Group
Work (C4), Career & Lifestyle Development (C5), Appraisal (C6), Research & Program
Evaluation (C7), and Professional Orientation and Ethics (C8).
As faculty, we selected assessment instruments that would provide a wide measure of
candidates’ performance in a number of counseling domains. Our ultimate goal is to ensure that
our candidates develop the necessary counseling skill sets, as well as create a productive learning
environment for our candidates. Both of the assessment instruments have items that adequately
measure candidates’ performance as related to 1) Skill Assessment and 2) Field Related
Knowledge Base.
The basic counseling skills checklist allows faculty to evaluate candidates twice during
the semester, which informs us how well candidates develop and practice the fundamental
counseling skills. This provides an opportunity for candidates to receive constructive feedback
throughout the semester and program, thus, giving them opportunities to practice and improve in
their deficit areas. An additional evaluation, the field site supervisor feedback, which takes place
halfway through the semester and at semester end, provides direct feedback related to the
candidates’ performance in the field, and their capacity to demonstrate satisfactory application of
knowledge related to the counseling domains in real world settings.
The CPCE provides us the opportunity to determine how effective our curriculum and
instruction meets the standards in the field of counseling. Given that the CPCE is an instrument
used nationally in the counseling field, we use our candidates’ results as a way to both measure
and inform our curriculum changes. We discuss the test results as a faculty and assist the
Curriculum Review Committee in developing a plan of action to address any program deficit
areas.
Below, Table 44 provides additional details about the nature of each key assessment.
Evaluative Instruments
Table 44
Evaluation
Instrument
Basic Skills
Evaluation
CPCE
Variable
Measured
Data Capture Point
Evaluators
Process of
Data Capture
Basic Counseling
Skills
EDC 280: Midterm
& Final
EDC 475: Midterm &
Final
Instructors
Hard Copies &
University URL
Comprehensive:
Theory/Knowledge,
Skill & Professional
Judgment
EDC 290
Faculty
Committees
Hard Copies
124
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
As summarized in Table 43, our program had 11 Program Completers in Fall 2008, 17
Program Completers in Spring 2009, 8 Program Completers in Fall 2009, and 19 Program
Completers in Spring 2010. Below, Tables 45-49 summarize the data related to completer
performance as measured by the two key assessments detailed in Table 44.
EDC 280
Midterm
Final
Basic Skills Evaluation – Fall 2008
Table 45
Mean
EDC 475
2.5
Midterm
3.3
Final
Mean
2.5
4.0
EDC 280
Midterm
Final
Basic Skills Evaluation – Spring 2009
Table 46
Mean
EDC 475
3.1
Midterm
3.9
Final
Mean
3.4
4.3
EDC 280
Midterm
Final
Basic Skills Evaluation – Fall 2009
Table 47
Mean
EDC 475
3.6
Midterm
3.6
Final
Mean
3.6
4.5
EDC 280
Midterm
Final
Basic Skills Evaluation – Spring 2010
Table 48
Mean
EDC 475
2.6
Midterm
3.1
Final
Mean
3.3
4.1
Comprehensive Professional Counselor Examination (CPCE) Mean Scores
Table 49
Semester
Mean
Fall 2008
75.4
Spring 2009
86.2
Fall 2009
99.8
Spring 2010
97.9
b) What additional information about candidate and program completer performance or program
effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision making?
In addition to the two key assessments used to evaluate student and completer
performance reported above, the CSUS Department of Counselor Education uses the following
three assessments to help inform decisions about our courses and our program: (1) a field
supervisor evaluation survey, (2) a student exit survey, and (3) a written case study. The type of
data collected, the data collection process, and key findings are presented below.
125
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Evaluation/Instrument
Field Supervisor
Evaluation of Student
Student Exit Survey
Case Study
Secondary Evaluation Instruments
Table 50
Variable
Data Capture
Evaluators
Measured
Point
Counseling &
EDC 480
Field
Professional
Supervisors
Skills
Counseling
EDC 480
Program
Program
Completers
Counseling &
EDC 480
Program
Professional
Completers
Skills
Process of
Data Capture
Hard Copies &
Electronic
Survey
University
URL
Hard Copies
Field Supervisor Evaluation of Student:
Every fall semester, field study supervisors come together with school counseling faculty
either through a webinar or in-person meeting. During this meeting, field study supervisors
receive training in evaluating students to ensure consistency. At the end of this training session,
supervisors are asked to evaluate the students’ level of preparation within a number of
counseling domains. These evaluations are anonymous and use a rating scale consistent with the
rating scale used by other evaluators (i.e., graduating students, alumni, employers). The
evaluation consists of 26 counseling domains (e.g., individual counseling, group counseling,
supervision, research design, counseling diverse populations). The rating scales range from 1 =
“Very Inadequate” to 7 = “Excellent.” Data for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 years was not
collected. This is being remedied by a scheduled webinar for the Fall 2010 semester.
Student Exit Survey:
All graduating students are asked to complete a Student Exit Survey online to rate their
overall training. This overall programmatic appraisal is conducted at the end of each semester
concluding students’ culminating experience. There are 16 questions on the survey. Items solicit
information related to current employment status, professional affiliation, financial support, and
evaluation of the program. An 8-point Likert scale is used for graduating students to provide
evaluative feedback on their perceived training in the program with 1 representing Very
Inadequate training, 7 representing Excellent training, and 8 representing Not Applicable.
Overall, students reported their training to be more than adequate in most areas, such as
individual counseling and cultural diversity training and knowledge.
Four out of 11 School Counseling graduating students responded to the survey during
Fall 2008, 5 out of 17 School Counseling graduating students responded during Spring 2009, and
15 out of 19 School Counseling graduating students responded during Spring 2010. No data was
gathered for the fall 2009 graduating class, which consisted of 8 School Counseling students.
In Fall 2008, graduating students were asked to select the three training areas that were
the most valuable to them. These areas were addressed categorically under the Likert scale. The
top rated three areas included “Ethical/Legal Issues,” “Counseling Diverse Populations,” and
“Career Counseling.” The major training areas in which these graduating students would have
wanted more training include “Marriage Counseling,” “Psychopathology,” and “Integration of
Theory, Research, and Practice.” In Spring 2009, the three top training areas that were of highest
126
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
value were “Ethical/Legal Issues,” “Group Counseling,” and “Counseling Diverse Populations.”
The areas that students wished that they would have received more training included “Integration
of Theory, Research and Practice,” “Family Therapy,” and “Assessment.”
Short answer questions are analyzed for themes; they too reveal that students/candidates
are relatively satisfied with their experience in our program. Graduating student comments for
Fall 2008 included accolades for faculty, strength of the curriculum, and overall quality of the
program. Changes recommended included career counseling theory review and research-based
approaches, and more preparation for the CPCE exam. Specific feedback pertaining to field
study site supervision pointed to “counselors…were very helpful and learned a lot from the onsite supervision they gave.” This attests to the strength of learning while applying the practice of
counseling. Comments for Spring 2009 were generally favorable with many positive references
made about strength of curriculum and relationships with faculty. Areas of improvement
included desire for more class availability, financial aid, class size reduction and availing a
chemical dependency class for students in the School Specialization.
The following is a synopsis of responses and ratings to key questions from the Spring
2010 Student Exit Survey. Note: Data is included from all three counseling specializations (i.e.,
Career Counseling, Marriage and Family Counseling, and School Counseling), which included
responses from 38 of 62 graduates.
Question 3: Job Status
15.79% (6) of reporting students are employed full time, 52.63% (20) employed part time and
15.79% (6) reported being unemployed.
Question 4: Job Title/Description
There was a wide range of positions that our students hold at this time, including:
Counseling Intern, Behavior Specialist, High School Counselor, Human Service Specialist,
Clinician, Program Manager, Program Director, and Sex Educator. This is an indication that a
number of our graduates are already working in the counseling field.
Question 5: Current/Primary Employment
Of the 34 students who responded to this question the general areas in which people are
employed were broken down into the following categories:
Community Counseling Agency: 15.79% (6)
Elementary or Secondary School: 21.05% (8)
College/University Counseling Center: 2.63% (1)
College/University Faculty: 2.63% (1)
Community/Junior College: 2.63% (1)
General Hospital: 2.63% (1)
Inpatient Facility: 2.63% (1)
Outpatient Clinic: 5.26% (2)
Other: 34.21% (13)
Question 6: Employment, Related to Degree: if you have obtained employment in a job
related to your degree, please indicate how you heard about this position.
10.53% (4) of students indicated that they had obtained employment from a Personal
Contact, 10.53% (4) indicated that employment was secured through their practicum and 2.63%
(1) was through an announcement forwarded by the department. An additional 6 students
127
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
reported having secured employment related to degree through Edjoin, field study, online or
through self initiated contact.
Question 7: Present Employment, Not Degree-Related:
Twenty-three students responded with many indicating that they were waiting to
complete their program before applying for positions or were already searching for full time
employment in the field.
Question 8: Estimated number of hours per week spent in the following activities:
Table 51
Select if
applicable
Skipped
Select if
Response
Comment
Count
Not
Count
Count
applicable
92.11%
2.63%
94.74%
5.26%
(35)
(1)
(36)
(2)
50%
23.68%
73.68%
26.32%
(19)
(9)
(28)
(10)
73.68%
7.89%
81.58%
18.42%
(28)
(3)
(31)
(7)
28.95%
44.74%
73.68%
26.32%
(11)
(17)
(28)
(10)
71.05%
13.16%
84.21%
15.79%
(27)
(5)
(32)
(6)
44.74%
31.58%
76.32%
23.68%
(17)
(12)
(29)
(9)
50%
26.32%
76.32%
23.68%
(19)
(10)
(29)
(9)
18.42%
52.63%
71.05%
28.95%
(7)
(20)
(27)
(11)
34.21%
39.47%
73.68%
26.32%
14
60.53%
18.42%
78.95%
21.05%
24
42.11%
31.58%
73.68%
26.32%
16
Other (please specify; 28.95%
(11)
include # of hours
26.32%
55.26%
44.74%
(10)
(21)
(17)
11
R022
Individual Counseling
R024
Group Counseling
R026
Supervision
R028
Couples/family
counseling
R030
Consultation
R032
Diagnosis/Assessment
R034
Research/scholarly
writing
R036
Teaching
R038
Administration
R040
Report Writing
R042
School-based
Meetings
R044
(13)
(23)
(16)
(15)
(7)
(12)
(28)
(30)
(28)
(10)
(8)
(10)
37
20
30
13
29
19
19
7
128
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Question 9: Memberships
Of the students who participated in the survey, there were 18 who indicated they were
members in a professional organization. These consist of: 5 in American Counseling
Association, 2 in the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, 4 in the American
School Counselor Association, 6 in the California Career Development Association, and 6 in the
California Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.
Question 11: Achievements, Leadership, Honors, and Service
Ten students indicated that they are members of our student honor society, Chi Sigma
Iota, and other students have received scholarships or hold office related to professional
organizations mentioned under Question #9.
Question 12: Scholarly Work
There were only a handful of students who indicated involvement in conference
presentations or publishing. One student had presented at a national conference, 2 at other
conferences, 1 had contributed to a refereed publication, 1 to a non-refereed publication, and 1 to
another publication.
Question 13: Financial Support
Thirty-one students reported receiving some range of financial aid from loans to grants.
50% (19) of the students who responded to the extent to which they felt financially supported by
the department indicated that they felt “Completely Unsupported.” 21% (8) indicated that they
felt “Somewhat Unsupported.” Another 21% (8) expressed that they felt “Somewhat Supported”
while only 2 students (5.13%) felt “Strongly or Very Strongly Supported” in relation to how
financially supported they felt by the department.
Question 14: Training
Students were asked to provide a rating on a scale of 1 to 7 with 7 being “Excellent
Training” and 1 being “Very Inadequate Training” in relation to 18 areas of training. The Student
Exit Survey table is provided below and followed by discussion about student ratings.
Highlighted are the ranged scores that reflect the concentration of student ratings:
129
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
N/A
Response
Count
R089
1. Individual counseling
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
2.63%
(1)
5.26%
(2)
23.68%
(9)
31.58%
(12)
36.84%
(14)
0%
(0)
100%
(38)
R090
2. Group counseling
0%
(0)
2.63%
(1)
0%
(0)
7.89%
(3)
23.68%
(9)
47.37%
(18)
18.42%
(7)
0%
(0)
100%
(38)
R091
3. Marriage counseling
5.26%
(2)
7.89%
(3)
10.53%
(4)
23.68%
(9)
15.79%
(6)
10.53%
(4)
5.26%
(2)
21.05%
(8)
100%
(38)
R092
4. Family Therapy
5.26%
(2)
7.89%
(3)
2.63%
(1)
10.53%
(4)
28.95%
(11)
18.42%
(7)
7.89%
(3)
18.42%
(7)
100%
(38)
R093
5. Career counseling
2.63%
(1)
5.26%
(2)
10.53%
(4)
13.16%
(5)
21.05%
(8)
15.79%
(6)
23.68%
(9)
7.89%
(3)
100%
(38)
R094
6. Psychopathology
10.53%
(4)
7.89%
(3)
10.53%
(4)
13.16%
(5)
23.68%
(9)
13.16%
(5)
2.63%
(1)
18.42%
(7)
100%
(38)
R095
7. Statistics and
research design
15.79%
(6)
13.16%
(5)
15.79%
(6)
21.05%
(8)
18.42%
(7)
7.89%
(3)
2.63%
(1)
2.63%
(1)
97.37%
(37)
R096
8. Counseling diverse
populations
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
2.63%
(1)
5.26%
(2)
7.89%
(3)
34.21%
(13)
50%
(19)
0%
(0)
100%
(38)
R097
9. Ethical/legal issues
0%
(0)
5.26%
(2)
0%
(0)
15.79%
(6)
15.79%
(6)
39.47%
(15)
23.68%
(9)
0%
(0)
100%
(38)
R098
10. Assessment
0%
(0)
18.42%
(7)
2.63%
(1)
7.89%
(3)
34.21%
(13)
26.32%
(10)
10.53%
(4)
0%
(0)
100%
(38)
R099
11. Broad theoretical
knowledge
0%
(0)
7.89%
(3)
5.26%
(2)
13.16%
(5)
28.95%
(11)
26.32%
(10)
18.42%
(7)
0%
(0)
100%
(38)
R100
12. Integration of
theory, research &
practice
2.63%
(1)
13.16%
(5)
5.26%
(2)
18.42%
(7)
26.32%
(10)
23.68%
(9)
10.53%
(4)
0%
(0)
100%
(38)
R101
13. Professional identity
2.63%
(1)
5.26%
(2)
7.89%
(3)
7.89%
(3)
26.32%
(10)
34.21%
(13)
15.79%
(6)
0%
(0)
100%
(38)
R102
7.89%
14. Professional research
(3)
and writing
7.89%
(3)
13.16%
(5)
23.68%
(9)
23.68%
(9)
21.05%
(8)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
97.37%
(37)
R103
15. Program evaluation
7.89%
(3)
7.89%
(3)
13.16%
(5)
18.42%
(7)
13.16%
(5)
26.32%
(10)
5.26%
(2)
5.26%
(2)
97.37%
(37)
R104
16. Consultation skills
10.53%
(4)
0%
(0)
13.16%
(5)
13.16%
(5)
21.05%
(8)
31.58%
(12)
10.53%
(4)
0%
(0)
100%
(38)
R105
17. Human development
2.63%
(1)
5.26%
(2)
13.16%
(5)
10.53%
(4)
28.95%
(11)
15.79%
(6)
21.05%
(8)
0%
(0)
97.37%
(37)
R106
18. Knowledge of
current health care
market
18.42%
(7)
21.05%
(8)
13.16%
(5)
21.05%
(8)
7.89%
(3)
10.53%
(4)
0%
(0)
7.89%
(3)
100%
(38)
Student Exit Survey
Table 52
130
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Other Areas
Also addressed under the category of “Training,” students were asked to respond to other
categories not directly related to skill development of counselors but nonetheless are areas
related to the field. In the category of “Participation in service to the profession,” 26 out of 38
students rated their training in our department at mid-point to Excellent. In the category of
Community Outreach and Education, 24 out of 38 rated their training at mid-point to Excellent.
In the category of Supervision, our department’s training was rated by 33 out of 36 students in
the mid-point to Excellent range. The lowest rating related to the category of Learning to teach
which was rated by 24 out of 38 students from mid-point to the lowest rating of Inadequate.
Students were also asked to select the three training areas that were of most value to
them. The categories receiving the highest responses follow:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Individual counseling: 34 Responses @ 89.47%
Counseling Diverse Populations: 19 Responses @ 50%
Group Counseling: 14 Responses @ 36.84%
Family Therapy: 13 Responses @ 34.21%
Career Counseling: 9 Responses @ 23.68%
Ethical/legal issues: 9 Responses @ 23.68%
Also asked of the students were the three training areas in which they wish they had received
more training. The categories receiving the highest responses follow:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Marriage counseling: 13 Responses @ 34.21%
Consultation Skills: 13 Responses @ 34.21%
Integration of theory, research & practice: 12 Responses @ 31.58%
Family Therapy: 11 Responses @ 28.95%
Assessment: 9 Responses @ 23.68%
Psychopathology: 9 Responses @ 23.68%
Knowledge of Current Health Care Market: 9 Responses @ 23.68%
Question 15: Student-Faculty Relations
What follows is the table that reflects the rating scores of students in this particular
category & followed by discussion about the ratings:
131
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Student-Faculty Relations
Table 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Respons
e Count
Skipped
Count
18.42%
(7)
7.89
%
(3)
21.05%
(8)
5.26%
(2)
18.42
%
(7)
13.16%
(5)
15.79%
(6)
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
7.89%
(3)
5.26%
(2)
18.42
%
(7)
21.05%
(8)
44.74% 97.37%
(17)
(37)
2.63%
(1)
R151
Modeling the value of
0%
diversity as an important (0)
professional goal
0%
(0)
2.63%
(1)
10.53
%
(4)
15.79
%
(6)
26.32%
(10)
44.74% 100%
(17)
(38)
0%
(0)
R152
Encouraging the
integration of
multicultural
perspectives and skills
into professional roles
0%
(0)
0%
(0)
2.63%
(1)
5.26%
(2)
5.26%
(2)
36.84%
(14)
50%
(19)
100%
(38)
0%
(0)
R153
Respect for
personal/professional
boundaries
2.63%
(1)
2.63
%
(1)
7.89%
(3)
7.89%
(3)
23.68
%
(9)
31.58%
(12)
23.68%
(9)
100%
(38)
0%
(0)
R154
Assistance in
practicum/job placement
15.79%
(6)
18.42
%
(7)
7.89%
(3)
21.05
%
(8)
10.53
%
(4)
15.79%
(6)
10.53%
(4)
100%
(38)
0%
(0)
R155
Availability to students
13.16%
(5)
5.26
%
(2)
15.79%
(6)
23.68
%
(9)
15.79
%
(6)
13.16%
(5)
13.16%
(5)
100%
(38)
0%
(0)
R156
Invested in my
academic/personal
success
5.26%
(2)
15.79
%
(6)
7.89%
(3)
28.95
%
(11)
21.05
%
(8)
5.26%
(2)
15.79%
(6)
100%
(38)
0%
(0)
Advising
R149
R150
Respect for diversity
100%
(38)
0%
(0)
Question 16: Suggestions: What were the best things about your classes/degree program?
There were 33 respondents, and themes that emerged included the quality of experiential
classes that provided the opportunity to apply what they are learning in classes (i.e., practicum
and field study.) Also noted was the personal development that is fostered in courses where
student self-awareness is emphasized. There was also a theme that few, but not all, professors go
over and beyond to serve as mentors and advisors.
Case Study:
Students/candidates typically produce an 8-10 page paper for this assignment, which they
submit at the end of the final semester in their field study seminar. The quality of the paper is
reviewed by their field study seminar instructor, the Culminating Experience Instructor and the
Chair of the Department. Quality of the case study is based on the following criteria: (a) clarity
of writing and responsiveness to the prompts; (b) integration of theory to practice; (c)
132
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
demonstration of willingness to consider alternative perspectives, as well as those that differ
significantly from their own. An oral presentation of this paper is presented by the student as part
of this summative assessment. Candidates are allowed to re-write and re-submit this paper
should criteria not meet approval of two of the three evaluators. In Fall 2008, 100% of
students/completers in the School Specialization received the passing grade or above. In Spring
2009, 94% of students/completers in the School Specialization achieved or surpassed the target
grade. In Fall 2009, 100% of school counseling candidates received the passing grade or above.
In Spring, 2010, 100% of school counseling candidates achieved the target grade. Candidates
demonstrated overall improvement in the following areas: integration of theory to practice and
their willingness to consider diverse perspectives.
Students within the school counseling specialization reported serving child and
adolescent clients at various elementary, middle, and high school settings, such as: Howe
Elementary, Oak Ridge Elementary, Jackman Middle School, El Camino High School, and
Valley High School. They further reported that the theories most applied were drawn from
Person Centered Theory (i.e., Gestalt, Existential), Adlerian Theory, Brief Solution Focused,
Cognitive Behavioral, Rational-Emotive, and Behavior Theory. Additional theories, assessments,
and techniques were drawn from play and art therapies and Choice Theory.
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
Strengths
a) Candidate Competence
The basic counseling skills checklist allows faculty to evaluate candidates twice during
the semester, which informs us how well candidates’ develop and practice the fundamental
counseling skills. This provides an opportunity for candidates to receive constructive feedback
throughout the semester and program, thus, giving them opportunities to practice and improve in
their deficit areas. Additionally, the overall results from the evaluations suggest that candidates
are performing at or above supervisors’ expectations in most of the counseling domains. Data
demonstrates that students experience growth and development in their counseling skills from
midpoint in 280 to their final evaluation in 475. Data from the CPCE results reveal that our
candidates’ performance is within the national average. In addition, we had a 100% student
passing rate on the CPCE for both the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 semesters. Our students also
surpassed the national average in many areas. Data from the student case studies also
demonstrate that students are well-prepared in counseling and professional skills, as they are
successfully able to apply theory to practice, as well as reflect on this process.
b) Program Effectiveness
The CSUS Department of Counseling uses both the CPCE and the Student Exit Survey to
evaluate our program effectiveness. We use the CPCE to determine how effective our curriculum
and instruction meets the standards in the field of counseling. Given that the CPCE is an
instrument used nationally in the counseling field, we use our candidates’ results as a way to
both measure and inform our curriculum changes. We discuss the test results as a faculty and
assist the Curriculum Review Committee in developing a plan of action to address any program
deficit areas.
Data from the Student Exit Survey reveals numerous program strengths. Responses
133
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
included in Table 51 indicate strong use of skill base in the contexts of Individual Counseling,
Supervision, Consultation, and Report Writing. Other areas in which skill base is in use includes
Group Counseling, Research/Scholarly Writing, Diagnosis/ Assessment, and School-based
Meetings. Table 52 also reveals program strengths in the ratings. For example, Counseling
diverse populations was rated by 37 out of 38 students in the mid-point (4) to Excellent training
provided (7) range. Nineteen (50%) of the students rated this category as Excellent. Other areas
receiving strong ratings include Individual counseling, which was rated from mid-point (4) to
Excellent (7) by 37 out of 38 students with 14 (36.84%) rating training as Excellent. Training in
Career Counseling also enjoyed strong ratings with 28 students rating at mid point to Excellent
and 9 rating as Excellent. These areas of training were followed by other clusters of perceived
strengths such as Group Counseling, Ethical/legal issues, Assessment, Broad theoretical
knowledge, Integration of theory, research & practice, Professional Identity, Consultation Skills,
and Human Development.
In evaluating faculty-student relations, areas of strength appeared to be in “Respect for
Diversity,” “Modeling the value of diversity as an important professional goal,” “Encouraging
the integration of multicultural perspectives and skills into professional roles,” and “Respect for
personal/professional boundaries.”
It is important to note that 33 of the 38 students rated their “Overall evaluation of the
training received at Sacramento State” from mid-point to Excellent with the greatest
concentration of students rating their training (14 out of 38) at a 2, followed by 11 students rating
their experience at a 3, and 5 students rating their experience at a 7. Given the tremendous
economic crisis under which our department has attempted to provide optimal program delivery,
these final ratings account for an overall positive experience despite the many challenges.
Areas for Improvement
a) Candidate Competence
The midterm and final skills evaluation continue to be a useful measure in providing
feedback to candidates and faculty regarding candidates’ strengths and weaknesses as well as
programmatic strengths and areas of improvement. Some of the challenges faculty face in using
the instrument is differing ideas about what constitutes a “1” or a “5.” We have yet to clearly
define what constitutes a “1,” etc., thus, it is difficult to obtain consistent feedback for the
purposes of programmatic improvement as well as consistency on how faculty utilizes the
instrument to instruct/improve student performance.
Data from the CPCE and the Student Exit Survey reveals that candidates are challenged in
the research and program development domain. Candidates take a semester long research course
that is general in nature and not specific to work in school settings. Additionally, they are
required to take a semester long course in guidance/curriculum development that focuses on
developing school programs. A possibility is that the test items in this domain are general rather
than specific to school work settings. It may be that we need to do a better job in assisting the
candidates to better integrate and apply the information they obtain from both courses.
b) Program Effectiveness
It was not surprising that the current budget crisis has impacted students’ perceptions of
program effectiveness. Question 13 on the Student Exit Survey indicated students’ overall
dissatisfaction with department financial support. In light of rising costs of tuition, minimal
scholarship availability for graduate students, and increased costs for books and parking,
134
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
juxtaposed with a shrinking job market, there is a larger context impacting student capability to
keep up with the cost of earning a graduate degree.
Areas of training that students rated toward the lower range of the scale included
Statistics and Research Design with 25 out of 37 students rating their training from mid-point (4)
to Very Inadequate (1). Also in the lower range was Knowledge of current health care market,
which was rated by 28 out of 38 students in the mid to lowest range. This data demonstrates a
need for redesigning our curriculum and training procedures in these areas.
While there were apparent areas of strength in faculty-student relations, there was one
particular area that stood out as needing improvement due to the mixed ratings by students across
the range. This area was in Advising. While about half of the respondents rated their experience
with Advising at mid-point or above, it should also be noted that the other half rated their
experience at mid-point or below.
Other areas that were more in the mid-range of ratings pertained to “Assistance in
practicum/job placement,” “Availability to Students,” and “Invested in my academic/personal
success.” While furloughs had an impact on availability and there are less tenured faculty
available for advising, the mixed experience of so many respondents indicates a need to provide
consistent information through multiple avenues and availability and accessibility so that all
students receive advising. The perception by some students as faculty not being invested in their
academic/personal success also needs to be addressed. One way in which our department has
begun to address students’ advising concerns is by the increased use of SacSend, which allows us
to provide all students with consistent information and updates. Through the use of SacSend,
students are kept informed about department, college, and university changes that affect them.
In response to the changes that respondents suggested, there were a few main themes that
emerged from the 34 students and then very specific recommendations related to curriculum
within the three specializations. With the program changes that were made to meet accreditation
requirements, there was disruption to the course of study that students were given when they first
entered. The departments’ capacity to communicate the changes and implement them while
students were in the pipeline created angst. The recommendations from students to develop a
cohort system, uniform curriculum, and unit caps have all being implemented in the Fall of 2010.
Other suggestions related to smaller class sizes and the hiring of more faculty so that there can be
more advising and greater communication between professors and students. These are areas that
the faculty would also like to see improved and are dependent on funding.
As a department we continue to struggle with ways to improve our collection of data
regarding candidate performance and the effectiveness of our program. We are a three
specialization area department, the current data collection process integrates information for all
three specialty areas. Our challenge continues to be finding ways to obtain both aggregated and
disaggregated data for the school specialization on an ongoing basis. Additionally, given the
state’s ongoing budget problems we continued to face challenges in obtaining sufficient
resources (i.e., technology, faculty, staff) to conduct ongoing assessment within our department.
We continue to work with the University and the College of Education to find creative ways to
assist/support the data collection efforts within our department.
135
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
IV. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
The CSUS Department of Counselor Education has recently prepared to implement a
number of key changes to our program as a result of ongoing program evaluation, whereby we
continuously incorporate feedback from students, faculty, field supervisors, and community
partners. While some of these changes will occur in the Spring 2011 semester, several changes
have already taken place.
Qualitative feedback from the School Specialization revealed a strong need and desire for
these students to have proficiency in psychopathology, psychopharmacology, substance abuse,
and crisis and trauma counseling. Therefore, the Curriculum Review Committee incorporated
these results into the proposed program changes, which have been approved by the university for
implementation in the Spring 2011 semester. Beginning in Spring 2011, all students in the
counseling program will be offered curriculum in alignment with the Board of Behavioral
Sciences (BBS) Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor (LPCC) requirements. As such, all
students will be required to take Diagnosis and Treatment Planning (EDC 231) and Substance
Abuse and Addiction (EDC 233) as part of the counseling core. Psychopharmacology (EDC 254)
and Crisis and Trauma Counseling (EDC 296L) will also be open to all students, including as an
elective to those in the School Specialization. Students also indicated that EDS 100A/B provided
them with redundant material. By eliminating EDS 100A/B as a requirement and infusing this
curriculum into the other School Specialization courses, students are now able to take either
EDC 254 or EDC 296L as an elective, providing them with LPCC eligibility upon graduation.
Program changes that are already in effect include administration of the Comprehensive
Professional Counselor Examination (CPCE), which is an objective exam taken in the last
semester of the program. The data from the CPCE results is used to provide further information
about program areas that need to be strengthened. For example, in the Fall 2008 semester, EDC
216 (Counseling Theories) became a 3-unit course to strengthen students’ theoretical knowledge.
Assessment results of the CPCE have been systematically used to improve program
effectiveness, and the test scores indicate this has been very effective in improving student
performance. The CPCE was first administered in Fall 2007, and has been administered every
semester thereafter. Average scores have steadily risen from the overall mean score in Spring
2007 of 87.22 to the Spring 2010 mean score of 98.05. Sub-test scores have been carefully
analyzed, and courses enriched when necessary. Spring 2010 results indicated that in the overall
scores our students scored ten points, almost one standard deviation, above the national mean.
The use of the CPCE as an exit evaluation has proved very useful both in assessing candidate
performance and in enabling faculty to determine which components of the program need
strengthening.
As a result of our ongoing data gathering and review we are adopting a Counselor
Education Cohort Group format in Fall 2010. It is our belief that this format will improve
candidates’ performance through providing candidates with a small group experience that allows
them to take certain classes together, socialize, and participate in other extracurricular
programming designed specifically for emergent counselors. Additionally, a cohort model allows
us to anticipate class sizes and provide a smoother matriculation for students. We believe it will
enhance our program in the face of limited resources and budgetary challenges.
136
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Special Education, Rehabilitation,
School Psychology & Deaf Studies:
PPS School Psychology/Intern
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
137
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
CSU Sacramento
Biennial Reports for CTC-regulated School Personnel Credential Programs
2008-2010
Name of Program: School Psychology
Credential awarded: PPS: School Psychology
Is this program offered at more than one site?
No
Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: 916-278-4187
E-Mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Name: Stephen E. Brock
Phone # (916) 278-5919
E-mail: [email protected]
138
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A –PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. Context
Table 54: Total Number of Candidates Enrolled and Completers
Fall 2009
55
Number of candidates
enrolled
Number of completers
Spring 2010
55
15
Brief description of program characteristics:
The School Psychology program at CSU Sacramento is a cohorted program with candidates
admitted only in fall of each academic year. Most candidates are in the program for three years.
Some candidates will opt to attend part time and thus take longer to complete the program.
Others may be delayed due to the need to reinforce skills critical to their professional role.
However all candidates must complete the internship within 2 years.
The first two years of the program focus on class work, practica and supervised early fieldwork.
The primary activity during the third year is a 1200 hour internship. Candidates have both
university and field based supervisors for early fieldwork and internship. The training is broadbased with a focus on developing reflective practitioners who have the skills, knowledge and
dispositions to engage in effective problem solving within schools and communities. Candidates
are placed in diverse settings for early fieldwork and internships with guidelines that assure they
are working across preschool through grade 12 settings and with culturally and
socioeconomically diverse populations.
Background about significant changes, deletions or innovations in the program since the
last program document was approved:
There have been no significant changes to this PPS program since submission and approval of
our most recent program document.
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
c. Primary Candidate Assessments
This report will focus on 5 key assessments that are used to make critical decisions about
candidate competence prior to being recommended for a credential, including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Early fieldwork evaluations
Practica evaluations
Praxis exam
Case study exam
Intern evaluations
139
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
The table below provides additional details about the nature of each key assessment.
Table 55: Overview of Key Assessments
Assessment Tool
Assessment #1.
Early fieldwork
evaluations
When
administered
End of fall and
spring semester,
year 2.
Assessment #2.
6 times during
Practica evaluations spring and fall
semester, year 2
Assessment #3
Praxis exam in
School Psychology
At end of year 2
Assessment #4
Case Study exam
At end of year 2
Assessment #5
Intern Evaluations
Fall and spring
semesters year 3
Details about
Administration
CCTC Standards,
Performance
Outcomes, etc.
Addressed
75 items with a 5 point
Generic Standards
rating scale. Completed by 2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11, 13
field based supervisor and
reviewed by university
Specialization
supervisor. Rating scale
Standards:
linked to NASP domains
17,18,19,20,21,22,23,
of practice
25, 27
51 items with points
Generic Standards:
varied per item.
3, 4, 6, 7,, 10, 11, 13,
Completed for each
15,
evaluation in assessment
practica. Measure skills in Specialization
test administration, report Standards:
writing, parent
17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25,
conference.
27
Standardized multiple
Generic Standards:
choice test administered
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11,
by ETS. Assesses
knowledge of school
Specialization
psychology within 5
Standards:
domains
17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23,
24 27
Written exam that is
Generic Standards:
required for awarding of
3, 4, 5, 11,
M.A. and assesses ability
to apply knowledge to
Specialization
practice based problems.
Standards:
17, 18, 21, 22, 24 27
87 items with 5 point
Generic Standards:
rating scale. Completed
2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11, 13,
by field based supervisor
16
and reviewed by
university supervisor.
Specialization
Rating scale linked to
Standards:
NASP domains of practice 17,18,19,20,21,22,23,
26, 27
140
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
As summarized in Table 56, our program had 15 Program Completers in Spring 2010. In Table
56 below, we summarize the data related to completer performance as measured by the 5 key
assessments detailed in Table 55. This summary of the data reflects evaluation of the final
administration for those assessments used more than once. For example, the Practica Evaluation
is given 5 times during the spring semester of the first year, 6 times during the fall semester of
the second year and 4 times during the spring semester of the second year. Earlier
administrations are used for formative evaluation purposes (e.g., for grades and candidate
feedback) and to help us in assessing individual candidate progress and adjusting their learning
experiences accordingly. The Early Fieldwork and Internship Evaluations are given both fall and
spring semesters of the respective years. Program evaluation is done primarily on the basis of
final administration of assessments.
Table 56: Aggregate Data on Completer Performance
Assessment Tool
Assessment #1.
Early fieldwork evaluations
Assessment #2.
Practica evaluations
Spring 2010
N= 15
Personal Characteristics (16 items). Average rating across
items of 4+ out of 5. Indicates above standard performance
Professional Responsibilities (24 items). Average rating
across items of 4+ out of 5. Indicates above standard
performance
Collaboration and Consultation Skills (6 items). Average
rating across items of 4+ out of 5. Indicates above standard
performance.
Team Skills (7 items). Average rating across items of 4+ out
of 5. Indicates above standard performance
Counseling Skills (13 items). Average rating across items of
4+ out of 5. Indicates above standard performance.
Legal and Ethical Issues (2 items). Average rating across
items of 4.2 out of 5. Indicates above standard performance
TEST ADMINISTRATION
Test Administration. Average of 8+ out of 9 total points.
Rapport With Client. Average of 8+ out of 9 total points
REPORT
Fundamentals Average of 11+ out of 12 total points
Background Information. Average of 16+ out of 18
total points
Behavioral Observations. Average of 17+ out of 18 total
points
Reporting Test Results. Average of 22+ out of 24 total
points
Interpretation – Conclusions. Average of 30+ out of 33 total
points
Recommendations. Average of 23+ out of 24 total points
141
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Assessment Tool
Assessment #3
Praxis exam in School
Psychology
Assessment #4
Case Study exam
Spring 2010
N= 15
General Overall Impressions. Average of 23+ out of 28 total
points
PARENT CONFERENCE
Rapport with Parents. Average of 8+ out of 9 total points
Ability to Provide Feedback in an Understandable Manner.
Average of 13+ out of 15 total points
Effective Response to Questions. Average of 10+ out of 12
total points
Completer Total
Average
Average
Possible Range
TOTAL
Diagnosis and
23
26
21-26
Fact Finding
Prevention and
24
30
19-24
Intervention
Applied Psych
18
24
16-20
Foundations
Applied Educ
10
14
8-11
Foundations
Ethical and Legal 17
22
15-19
Issues
The average rating overall on the case study exam was 8.5
out of a possible 10 points. However, there was a wide
range in the scores. Candidates ranked as follows on spring
2009 administration:
• 0 Merit Passes
• 7 High Passes
• 3 Passing
• 5 Marginal Passing
• 4 Below Passing
The four candidates who did not pass the exam in fall 2007
retook the exam in spring 2008. All either retook the exam
and passed or completed a Masters Project and passes
142
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Assessment Tool
Assessment #5
Intern Evaluations
Spring 2010
N= 15
Personal Characteristics (14 items). Average rating of 4+ on
5 point scale.
Professional Responsibilities (9 items). Average rating of
4+ on 5 point scale.
Use of Data in Decision Making (5 items). Average rating
of 4+ on 5 point scale.
Psycho-Educational Evaluation Skills (9 items). Average
rating of 4+ on 5 point scale.
Collaboration and Consultation Skills (13 items). Average
rating of 4+ on 5 point scale.
SST/IEP Team Skills (9 items). Average rating of 4+ on 5
point scale.
Counseling Skills (14 items). Average rating of 4+ on 5
point scale.
Legal and Ethical Practice (6 items). Average rating of 4+
on 5 point scale.
b. Additional information about candidate and program completer performance
In addition to the 5 key assessments used to evaluate completer performance already reported
above, we use the following 4 assessments to help inform decisions made about our courses
and our program. These additional assessments include: (1) a portfolio, and (2) a focus
program group discussion. In the past we have also used an employer survey but data for this
cohort is not available.
Portfolio: Candidates maintain a portfolio throughout their time in the program. The
portfolio is required to contain the following items:
• Résumé (which will be updated each semester)
• Developmental History Questionnaire (from EDS 248)
• Hotsheet (from EDS 245)
• Abstract of group curriculum (from EDS 231)
• Summary of Resources for legal and ethical issues including websites and annotations
• GATE evaluation (from EDS 242)
• CHC handout (from EDS 242)
• Solution focused counseling dialogue (from EDS 241)
• Diagnostic report (or from EDS 243 second semester)
• FAA and BIP (from EDS 240)
• Academic Intervention Case Study (from EDS 246b)
• Disability information pamphlet
• Diagnostic report (or from EDS 243 first semester)
• Preventive Psychological Interventions Resource list (from EDS 246b)
• Internship: Selected materials outlined in syllabus, as determined by
supervisor and intern
143
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
In addition candidates may include any other items that they deem useful to them in
documenting their progress and developing skills. Candidates use the portfolio not only for
internal evaluation but are also encouraged to take it with them to interviews in order to
provide examples of their work and their unique skills. The portfolio is reviewed each
semester by a designated faculty member and feedback is provided. The portfolio serves both
a formative and summative purpose. Regular semester reviews of the portfolios as well as
the final evaluation indicate that candidates are able to produce high level work for inclusion
in portfolios. Particularly noteworthy items include handouts that candidates produce on
various subjects, which can be used with school staff and/or parents.
Focus group: At the end of their internship year candidates are engaged in a focus group
discussion that is guided by a part time faculty member who has served as a supervisor for
the internship. The group interview is semi-structured and uses the same categories as in the
Internship Evaluation Form along with additional topics. Results indicate the following:
•
•
•
•
•
Almost all candidates feel they were very well prepared for their internship in all
categories.
Almost all candidates feel they have good knowledge of the use of data in decision
making, professional responsibilities, psycho-educational evaluations and collaboration.
Approximately 25% of candidates feel they would like to improve their skills in IEP/SST
meetings.
Almost all candidates feel they understand the limits of ethical practice but feel they will
continue learning about legal issues.
Approximately 40% of candidates would like to do more counseling but all feel
comfortable with their skills.
In terms of feedback regarding the overall program, candidates listed the following as
strengths: extremely well prepared, excellent instruction and mentoring from both full and
part time faculty, accessibility of faculty, focus on current state of the field and preparedness
to address critical present day issues and topics. Suggestions for program improvement
included: coordinate across classes for exams and large assignments, consider moving legal
aspects to later in the program, and consolidate field placements to make for better
communication between university and early fieldwork sites. Another area of concern that
arose during this discussion and during site visits for both Fieldwork and Internship is
varying expectations for candidates in these settings. For example, during their internships
some candidates have been put into placements in which they function as the only
psychologist.
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
In this section, we discuss the data displayed in Table 56 and the additional data that was
summarized in Section II.b. We focus our discussion on the strengths and areas for improvement
revealed by the analysis of these data.
144
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Strengths:
a. Candidate performance: Across our assessments we find that candidates are performing
at an above standard range in applied settings. These include assessments during their
practica and early fieldwork and during their final internship year. Aggregated ratings on
all sub areas of the Early Fieldwork Evaluation above 4 on a 5 point Likert scale.
Aggregated ratings on the Internship Evaluations are also above on a 5 point Likert scale.
These rankings are all above standard and considered “decidedly above average.” It is
important to note that program faculty stress to field-based supervisors the importance of
honest and critical ratings of candidates. The input from field-based supervisors is
critical to faculty ability to judge candidate fitness and therefore we encourage
supervisors to not “give” candidates higher ratings than are accurate. Therefore, we have
confidence that these ratings are accurate reflections of how well the candidates are
performing in the field. Practica evaluations (which are given by faculty) also have
resulted in strong rankings for these candidates.
Our candidates tend to demonstrate the personal characteristics that are important to their
practice as school psychologists and engage with school faculty and staff and with
parents in a manner that is both professional and abides by legal and ethical principles.
They are reported to interact with others in a responsible, respectful, and collaborative
manner. In addition, they demonstrate awareness of professional responsibilities,
awareness of system issues, good time management, and the development of productive
relationships with others. The candidates also demonstrate good team skills and the
ability to engage in productive collaboration and consultation. Candidates use data
correctly and understand how to both interpret data and disseminate that data to others in
a way that is useful and understandable. In the use of data for decision making,
candidates use the data to clarify student concerns and provide useful information to
others. They understand psychometrics and the correct interpretation of data and know
how to use data in the development of recommendations. In addition, they have strong
counseling skills, are able to develop rapport with both students and parents, and are
sensitive to parent, teacher and team issues.
Candidates have command of the knowledge base of school psychology as evidenced by
their scores on the Praxis Exam. On each of the five domains assessed by the Praxis
Exam, completers scored within the average range. It is particularly noteworthy that this
administration of the exam occurs at the end of the second year in the program, prior to
the Internship year. Most persons who complete the Praxis (the comparison group for
our candidates) take this assessment at the completion of their program or after they have
been practicing. It is likely that candidates would score higher after completion of their
internship year. In order to begin their internship candidates are required to achieve a
score of 143. A score of 165 is the minimum required by the National Association of
School Psychologists to become a Nationally Certified School Psychologist. All but
three of our candidates met this score on the first administration of the Praxis exam.
b. Program effectiveness: Results of our assessments indicate that the program is
particularly useful in helping candidates transfer what they learn in didactic settings to
the practice of school psychology. We have designed the school psychology program
145
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
such that practice experiences are closely aligned with classroom learning. Candidates
seem to be benefitting from this approach. In addition, we focus on how to use
evaluation data to help develop strategies for addressing student concerns. In our
program we believe that the goal of our work with students in schools is to improve their
functioning both academically and emotionally. To that end we stress that whatever we
do with students as clients should be with the goal of developing strategies or
recommendations. Candidates clearly seem to be developing that same orientation. In
addition, we stress a solution-focused approach to counseling and the positive ratings our
candidates receive on the counseling skills indicate that this approach is effective for
them when working in the schools. We also strive to be accessible to our candidates and
provide a high level of mentoring to them as developing professionals. Their responses
to the Focus Group indicate that they are benefitting from the mentoring provided.
Areas for improvement:
a. Candidate performance: Overall our candidates are doing extremely well. As noted
above, performance data indicate strong skills in the application of what they are learning
in the classroom. However, despite high ratings in their practica and in their fieldwork
and internship settings in the area of using data knowledgably and to make decisions
about students, (as has typically been the case) some candidates struggled with this in
their case study exam. It is possible that candidates do better with data when it appears in
an authentic context and when working with others to understand the data than they do
when confronted with written case information about students that may seem abstract or
de-contextualized. Two other areas of relative weakness that are evident in both Early
Fieldwork and Internship Evaluations is candidate knowledge of outside supports for
students and how to make referrals to these resources and the area of program evaluation.
Scores on the Praxis do not indicate any significant concerns.
b.
Program effectiveness: Program areas that need improvement include: ensuring that
candidates’ knowledge of legal issues is continually updated, increased focus on when
and how to access outside supports, strategies for understanding of data that may come to
the psychologist in the form of reports from other evaluators, and coordination among
faculty regarding work load. An ongoing issue is placement of candidates for both Early
Fieldwork and Internship. Since the quality of experience candidates have in these
placements is critical to their training and the integration of classroom based learning into
these experiences is central to student development, it is important that the potential
learning in these placements be maximized. As information from focus groups and site
supervision visits has indicated, the primary concerns are consistent expectations for
Interns and the provision of appropriate supports. We have addressed these issues when
they arise but it would be advisable to find ways to be more pro-active in these situations.
All districts sign Letters of Expectation that clearly outline their responsibilities in regard
to work loads, supports, supervision, etc. for both Early Fieldwork and Internship;
however, it may be that they do this as a formality and do not fully consider how to
operationalize the terms of the letter. As noted above, changes made in response to scores
on the Legal and Ethical Foundations score on the Praxis resulted in improved scores.
146
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
IV.Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Table 57 lists program changes that we are implementing this year.
Table 57: Program Changes in Response to Assessment Results
PROGRAM CHANGE
Review of syllabi to assure
that legal and ethical issues
are clearly addressed in all
courses as relevant.
Limiting the number of
Early Fieldwork sites in
order to have more control
over candidate experiences
and candidate supervisors.
This will allow us to create
clear agreements with these
districts in regards to
expectations for the
experiences that candidates
need to have in these
settings.
More thorough discussion of
expectations for Internship
placement during the
Internship and Early
Fieldwork Supervisor
meeting held at the
beginning of the school year
Increased efforts to obtain
previous reports and
background information for
referrals that are evaluated
in the Center for Counseling
and Diagnostic Services.
Case studies in EDS 244
will contain more practice in
using data from previous
assessments.
DATA TO SUPPORT
Candidate Focus Group
Praxis Exam
Reports from candidates in
focus groups and reflections
of university supervisors on
site visits.
CCTC STANDARD
ADDRESSED
Generic Standards:
6
Specialization Standards:
19, 23, 24
Generic Standard:
1, 16
Specialization Standard:
25, 26,
Reports from candidates in
focus groups and reflections
of university supervisors on
site visits.
Generic Standard:
1, 16
Relative weakness on M.A.
exam which appears to
reflect difficulty with
consolidating and
interpreting information
contained in assessment and
background information
reports.
Relative weakness on M.A.
exam which appears to
reflect difficulty with
consolidating and
interpreting information
contained in assessment and
background information
reports.
Generic Standards:
2, 4, 13
Specialization Standard:
25, 26,
Specialization Standards:
17, 22
Generic Standards:
2, 4, 13
Specialization Standards:
17, 22
147
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
PROGRAM CHANGE
DATA TO SUPPORT
Students in Internship and
Early Fieldwork will be
required to explore and
create a resource list for
outside supports available to
students and families at their
placements.
Relative weakness on both
Early Fieldwork and
Internship evaluations
regarding knowledge of
outside supports and how to
access them.
CCTC STANDARD
ADDRESSED
Generic Standard:
7, 13
Specialization Standard:
20, 23
148
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Division of Social Work:
PPS School Social Work
College of Health and Human Services
California State University, Sacramento
149
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Name of Program: Division of Social Work
Credential awarded: Pupil Personnel Services Credential in Social Work
Is this program offered at more than one site?
No
Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: 916-278-4187
E-Mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Name: Robin Carter
Phone #: (916) 278-6943
E-mail: [email protected]
150
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. Context
TABLE 58. – NUMBER OF ENROLLEES AND COMPLETERS
Number of candidates
enrolled
Number of completers
Number of students
concurrently enrolled in
MSW program
Number Post Masters
students
2009-2010
13
11*
6
7
*One student has completed her coursework but is finishing her field hours at this time. Another
student did not complete all of the coursework for the M.S.W. and did not complete 238B.
Program Characteristics:
The Pupil Personnel Services Credential (PPSC) program with a School Social Work
Specialization (SSWS) is designed to be completed within the Masters of Social Work (MSW)
degree program in the Division of Social Work at California State University, Sacramento
(CSUS). Individuals interested in earning the credential must enroll in and successfully complete
the degree requirements for the MSW and the PPSC credential concurrently. (Exceptions to this
requirement are those persons who have successfully earned an MSW from a Council on Social
Work Education (CSWE) accredited school of social work prior to applying to the SSW/PPSC
program and meet the requirements as a post-masters applicant).
The Division of Social Work certifies as eligible those candidates who successfully complete the
School Social Work Program of the Division of Social Work. The SSWS is a program within,
but supplemental to, the MSW program. The Program consists of several required courses
candidates complete in place of or in addition to their MSW electives and a two-semester school
social work field experience. The program is limited to 15-20 candidates each year. First year
candidates must apply for admission prior to the start of their second semester. Post Master’s
candidates can apply at any time.
Significant changes, deletions or innovations in the program since the last program
document was approved:
Changes to PPS Administrative Structure
As of fall 2010 the PPSC program is managed within the division by the division director. Since
fall 2010, courses for the PPSC program courses (238A & 238B) have been delivered through
the College of Continuing Education. Matriculating students have the option of taking the two
151
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
courses through CCE and using them as their electives in the M.S.W. program. The coordination
of the PPSC program is now a joint venture between the Division of Social Work and the
College of Continuing Education (CCE). CCE has designated a full time staff person, Candice
Palaspas, M.S.W., Senior Program Coordinator to work with the division to administer the
program. All matriculating students apply for consideration to the PPSC program through the
Division of Social Work. Post Master’s candidates apply through CCE. The responsibilities are
divided below:
Responsibilities of Division Director and faculty of the Division of Social Work:
• Convene and chair the certificate program advisory committee-(director)
• Assign a common academic advisor for all students enrolled in the PPSC in SSW
Program (director)
• Prepare reports on the program for submission to CCTC (California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing).(director)
• Identify appropriate field sites for matriculating program participants (Field director)
• Establish and maintain a good work relationship with schools serving as internship sites
to the students and the program.
• Act as liaison to all field sites to monitor progress of program participants, including site
visits; (field faculty)
• Provide mandatory field instructor training to all field instructors
• Final certification of program participants before they are recommended to the
Credentialing Office (director)
Responsibilities of CCE Program Coordinator:
• Update and keep current the admissions materials for students interested in the program.
• Provide brief orientation to the program to all incoming PPSC students.
• Establish and maintain a good work relationship with schools serving as internship sites
to the students and the program.
• Work collaboratively with other social work program coordinators.
• Prepare documents for final certification review
Joint Activities of Division Director and CCE Program Coordinator:
• Screen applicants for admission to the PPSC program.
• Screen and hire faculty for courses
• Review and update course content as needed
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
Primary Candidate Assessments
The Division of Social Work uses specific direct measures to assess candidate and program
completer performance for the Pupil Personnel Services Credential Program. These data
inform us about the candidates’ ability to meet both CTC Program Standards and Master of
Social Work Program Objectives. We used four assessment measures for the 2009-2010
academic year: 1) Performance evaluations from field instructors for fall 2009; 2)
Performance evaluations from field instructors for spring 2010; 3) One course embedded
152
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
assignment for SWRK 238A –Social Work Practice and Issues in Schools; and 4) One course
embedded assignment for SWRK 238B-Social Work Practice and Issues in School. Table
59 illustrates the assessments used to measure each MSW program objective and the
correlating CTC Standards.
TABLE 59: CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM COMPLETER ASSESSMENTS FOR
MSW PROGRAM OBJECTIVES, CTC STANDARDS AND
FIELD LEARNING OBJECTIVES
P.O.
#
MSW Program Objectives
1
Critical Thinking
2
Values & Ethics
3
Diversity
4
Field Learning
Objectives
CTC
Standards
1,2, 6,10, 15, 1,6, 20,
21
1, 2, 3, 14, 17
4
3
Oppression & Social Justice
3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 19, 20
2, 3, 4, 15, 20
5
Social work profession
6, 10
17
6
Generalist Practice
15, 16, 17, 18, 19
14, 17
7
Human
development/behavior
Social welfare policies &
services
Research
3, 11, 14, 15, 16
14, 11 ,2,5
20
13
21
15
2, 12, 13, 14
8, 14
11
Relationship/communication
skills
Supervision
2, 9
16, 10, 12
12
Organizational competence
5, 19
10
13
Advanced generalist
23
14
Social change leadership
24
16, 12, 19,
4, 10
12
17
Advanced theory
19
8, 4, 11
8
9
10
6
3
Assessments
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignments A & B*
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignment B
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignments A & B
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignments A & B
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignment A
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignments A & B
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignments A & B
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignment A
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignments A & B
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignment B
Field Evaluation
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignments A & B
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignments A & B
Field Evaluation
Course Embedded Assignments A & B
Field Evaluation
*Assignment A – 238A Assignment; Assignment B – 238B Assignment
Field Evaluations
Field evaluations assess the candidate’s performance in 24 standardized field learning objectives.
The field objectives are closely aligned with the overall program objectives and CTC Standards.
Candidates are expected to achieve at least a score of 3.0 out of a possible 4.0 for each objective
by the end of their second semester in the field. Our benchmark is that 90% of the field students
153
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
receive a rating of 3 or above by the end of the spring semester. We believe the field objectives
provide an effective measure of candidate competency. Candidate ratings are displayed in Table
60 below.
TABLE 60 - FIELD INSTRUCTOR RATINGS
Field Learning Objectives
Mean
(Fall 2009)
% Scored
3 or
above
Range
Mean
(Spr. 2010)
% Scored
3 or
above
Range
2-4
3.56
94%
2.5-4
3.59
96.7%
2-4
3.58
96.7%
2-4
96.7%
2-4
3.45
97.4%
2-4
3.22
89.2%
2-4
1. Ethics
3.09
82.6%
2. Self-Awareness
3.05
81.5%
3. Cultural Competences
3.02
76%
4. Social Work Values:
Social Justice and
Oppression
2.83
62%
5. Knowledgeable of
Agency
2.92
73.3%
6. Knowledge of Social
Work Trends
2.62
47.3%
7. Agency Expectations
3.36
88.6%
1.5-4
3.58
96%
2-4
8. Time Management
3.24
85.2%
2-4
3.57
95.4%
2-4
9. Effective Use of
Supervision
3.22
84%
1-4
3.61
96.7%
1.5-4
10. Seeks Additional
Learning Opportunities
3.05
79.7%
1-4
3.45
95.4%
2-4
11. Effective Professional
Relationships
3.21
90%
1-4
3.59
95.4%
2-4
12. Verbal Communication
Skills
3.07
82.7%
1-4
3.47
94.7%
2-4
13. Written
Communication Skills
2.96
77%
1.5-4
2-4
2-4
2-4
1-4
1-4
3.47
3.43
95.3%
154
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
2-4
14. Effective Working
Relationships
3.08
78.3%
2-4
3.61
98%
15. Assessment Skills
2.69
53.3%
1-4
3.27
91.9%
2-4
16. Organization and
Community
Assessment
2.54
38.5%
1-4
3.13
84.6%
2-4
17. Intervention Skills
2.73
53.9%
1-4
3.33
92.2%
2-4
18. Group Knowledge and
Skills
2.69
52.7%
1.5-4
3.31
89.2%
2-4
19. Organization and
Community
Intervention
2.64
40%
1-4
83.1%
2-4
20. Understands Policy
Development
2.48
35.4%
1-4
3.02
72%
2-4
2.52
34.2%
1.5-4
3.13
83.6%
2-4
21. Practice Evaluation
Skills
3.18
Course Embedded Assignments
All candidates seeking the PPSC are required to take two specialized courses, SWRK 238A –
Social Work Issues and Practice in Schools (fall) and SWRK 238B-Social Work Issues and
Practice in Schools (spring). The courses are designed to meet the CTC standards as illustrated
in Table 59. We have embedded a signature assignment into each course for the purpose of
collecting data on candidate performance.
Social Work 238A
The final course paper requires that candidates develop a policy change proposal that
positively affects California public education. The quality of this assignment reflects the
candidates’ competence for:
•
•
•
•
understanding and analyzing the policy and legal framework within which California
public education operates;
envisioning ecological change – a cornerstone of the social work approach – and the
implications that change may have for key stakeholders;
developing a cogent change proposal that incorporates a rationale for the change, a stepby-step process for achieving the change, and a clear role for social workers in the
change process from initiation to implementation; and,
the ability to connect with and interview stakeholders as well as to evaluate stakeholder
perspectives.
155
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
2-4
This assignment measures the candidate’s analytical skills and understanding of the policy
context, and it calls on the candidate to engage in a process that is similar to a grant writing
experience – articulating and documenting a need, proposing a change, outlining a change
process, and accounting for the potential impacts for constituents and system
administrators and personnel. This 12 -15 page assignment– worth 30% of the course grade
– generated the following performance data:
TABLE 61 - GRADES FOR 238A SIGNATUREASSIGNMENT
Percentage Grade Assigned
(Range)
96-100
90-95
Number of Students
6
5
Social Work 238B
The second course in the School Social Work sequence focuses upon school social work
interventions. Group work is an important modality for school social workers. Because of
the particular needs of schools, the wish of administrators to have group work encompass
pro-social skills rather than counseling-oriented efforts, and the need to legitimize group
work efforts with evidence-based curriculums, the signature assignment for 238B involves
candidates researching either psycho-educational or anti-bullying curriculums. The
assignment requires that candidates provide an overview of curriculums and make an
argument for the value of one particular program. Part of the presentation involves the
candidates’ discussion of the curriculum’s empirical evidence, as well as its potential
strengths, pitfalls, and areas for modification.
In order to gain a deeper appreciation for group dynamics, candidates are organized into
groups to complete this assignment. Each research group presents their findings to the
larger class and creates small group exercises so that the class may gain an experiential
appreciation for the psycho-educational or bully prevention program. The group
assignment – worth 30% of the grade for 238B – generated the following performance
data:
TABLE 62 – 238B SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT
Percentage Grade Assigned
(Range)
96-100
90-95
Number of Students
7
3
156
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
Course Embedded Assessments
The data affirms the current high level of achievement in 15 of the 21 of the field learning
objectives. Our data also indicates there were six (6) objectives that did not meet the benchmark
of 90% of students being rated 3 or better. The objectives in which students did not meet the
benchmark are indicated below:
6. Demonstrates knowledge of significant social work trends and issues as they relate to the
placement setting.
16. Able to do effective organization and community assessment (e.g., resource-mapping, needs
assessments, analysis of power sources and dynamics, locating barriers to service, constituency
identification, etc.) using a variety of information-gathering approaches and analytical models.
18. Demonstrates understanding of group dynamics and can apply this understanding in working
with groups. Groups may be task-oriented, therapeutic, or psycho-educational.
19. Develops and implements appropriate organization and community development
interventions; including task group development, event organizing, developing communication
linkages, developing new resources, etc.
20. Recognizes impact of social and organizational policy on client populations. Familiarizes
self with organizational, legislative, and other policy-making processes in order to participate in
the betterment of the lives of client/client systems. In policy-oriented placements demonstrates
policy analysis skills. In all placements, can identify agency policies and structures that may
adversely affect clients (both individually and as populations or communities) and can suggest
possible changes and ways of bringing about change. Acts on this knowledge in an effective and
professional manner.
21. Identifies strategy for evaluating own practice within agency; demonstrates familiarity with
evidence base for agency practice.
6. Demonstrates knowledge of significant social work trends and issues as they relate to the
placement setting.
IV.Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Our assessment activities reveal that our candidates are meeting or exceeding the standards
set by the MSW program as well as the CTC Standards. These data affirm our current
program’s ability to achieve these important objectives. Based on these assessments all
but one of the candidates admitted to the PPSC program last year completed the course and
field work successfully and received a positive recommendation for the credential
An analysis of the field evaluation data indicates our students’ rate very highly in the areas
related to the development of the professional self with the exception of objective # 6. Students
also rated high in the objectives related to micro practice skills—objectives 14, 15 and 17, but
did not meet the benchmark in objectives related to meso (group and organizational level) and
macro (community/society) related practice.
157
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
The outcomes indicate the areas where students did not meet the benchmarks were also
the objectives that received the lowest emphasis in the field site as indicated on the field rating
form. Although we do not expect every field experience to cover the objectives to the same
degree, we do want students to have enough exposure to meet the rating of 3 by their second
semester. Some of the ideas to enhance performance in these objectives include: additional
assignments that link the classroom to the field experience; development of activities outside of
the agency that can provide more macro and meso hands on experiences; increase exposure to
meso and macro field learning opportunities during our mandatory field instructor trainings.
Recommendations:
We have not yet developed a quantitative assessment tool for evaluating post masters PPSC
program completers in the field that is comparable to the field assessment depicted in Table 59.
Although their numbers are relatively small, 4 to 5 students a year, we need a tool that more
accurately ties their performance in the field with CTC Standards. We will work with the CCE
staff to develop such a tool before the courses are offered again.
We have added questions to our alumni survey that will provide us with post graduate feedback
from alumni of the program. This survey will be distributed soon and we expect to use this data
in the next report.
158
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Speech Pathology:
Speech and Language
Pathology and Special Day Class
College of Health and Human Services
California State University, Sacramento
159
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Name of Program: Speech Pathology and Audiology
Credential awarded: Speech Language Pathology Services Credential and Special Day Class
Authorization
Is this program offered at more than one site?
No
Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: 916-278-4187
E-Mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Name: Laureen O’Hanlon
Phone #: (916) 278-6695
E-mail: [email protected]
160
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A –PROGRAM-SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. Context
Table 63: Total Number of Candidates Enrolled and Completers
Number of
candidates
enrolled**
Number of
completers
•
•
•
Fall 2008
14
Cohort completing in semester specified
Spring 2009
Fall 2009
Spring 2010
13
15
15
14
12
15
14
The CSU Sacramento Speech Pathology graduate program is 4-5 semesters long
depending upon internship choices. Candidates begin the program as a cohort group and
usually complete the program together. Clinical practicum experiences begin on campus
in the Maryjane Rees Speech and Hearing Clinic for the first three semesters. In the
fourth and/or fifth semester candidates complete a 10-week itinerant internship in the
schools and/or a 10week internship in the Special Day classroom in order to qualify for
the credential(s) being sought.
The cohort groups who completed in Fall 2008 and Fall 2009 were 100% successful and
on track. The cohort groups completing in Spring 2009 and Spring 2010 included one
candidate each who did not pass 2 of his/her clinical experiences and did not complete
the program.
The most significant change that has occurred since our 2007-2008 biennial report to
CTC is our adoption of the new standards for the Speech Language Pathology Services
Credential. Because our program has a strong focus on training students to work in the
schools, with a graduate curriculum course and a graduate methods course in school
internships, we did not make significant changes in our graduate curriculum to
accommodate the new standards. We did add an Autism Spectrum Disorders course to
our undergraduate prerequisite courses to better prepare our students to meet the
continuously growing demand for services for this population.
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
d. Primary Candidate Assessments
This report will focus on 5 key assessments that are used to make critical decisions about
candidate competence prior to being recommended for a credential, including:
4. Clinical Practicum Assessment, Articulation, and Accent Clinic
5. Clinical Practicum, Assessment, Language, Speech, and Voice Clinic
6. Clinical Practicum, Assessment, Advanced Language, and Complex Speech
Disorders Clinic
7. Clinical Internship, Assessment, Special Day Class
8. Praxis Exam
161
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
The table below provides additional details about the nature of each key assessment.
Table 64: Overview of Key Assessments
Assessment Tool
Assessment #1.
Clinical Practicum
Assessment
Articulation and
Accent Clinic
Type of
Assessment
(Formative/
Summative)
Formative
When
Administered
End of clinical
practicum
Required during
first semester
Assessment #2.
Clinical Practicum
Assessment
Language, Speech
and Voice Clinic
Formative
End of clinical
practicum
Required during
second semester
Assessment #3.
Clinical Practicum
Assessment
Advance Language
and Complex
Speech Disorders
Clinic
Assessment #4
Clinical Internship
Assessment
Itinerant Internship
Formative
End of clinical
practicum
Required during
second semester
Formative
Assessment #5.
Praxis Exam
Summative
End of Internship
Required during
4th semester for
students
completing
Itinerant SLP
Internship
End of Program
Details about
Administration
Individual faculty
assess candidate
work based on a
standard rubric
designed by faculty
group
Individual faculty
assess candidate
work based on a
standard rubric
designed by faculty
group
Individual faculty
assess candidate
work based on a
standard rubric
designed by faculty
group
CCTC Standards,
Performance
Outcomes, etc.
Addressed
CCTC SLPSC
Standard 8
CCTC SLPSC
Standard 8
CCTC SLPSC
Standard 8
Individual faculty
assess candidate
work based on a
standard rubric
designed by faculty
group
CCTC SLPSC
Standard 8
National Exam
CCTC SLPSC
Standard 8
As summarized in Table 63, our program had 15 Program Completers in Fall 2007 and 10
Program Completers in Spring 2008. In Table 64, we summarize the data related to completer
performance as measured by the 5 key assessments detailed in Table 64.
162
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Table 64: Aggregate Data on Completer Performance
Assessment Tools
#1. Clinical Practicum,
Assessment Articulation, and
Accent Clinic (Reported as %
passed)
#2. Clinical Practicum,
Assessment, Language, Speech,
and Voice Clinic (Reported as %
passed)
#3. Clinical Practicum,
Assessment, Advanced Language,
and Complex Speech Disorders
Clinic (Reported as % passed)
#4. Clinical Internship,
Assessment, Itinerant Internship
#5. Praxis Exam
Fall 2008
N=14
100%
Spring
2009
N=12
100%
Fall
2009
N=15
100%
Spring
2010
N=14
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
b. Additional information about candidate and program completer performance
In addition to the 4 key assessments used to evaluate completer performance already reported
above, we have used the following 4 assessments to help inform decisions made about the
effectiveness our curriculum and our program. These additional assessments include: (1) An
employer survey; (2) An alumni survey: (3) A student survey; and (4) A student learning
assessment. The type of data collected, the data collection process and key findings are presented
below.
163
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Alumni survey: In 2009-2010, we distributed an online alumni survey to 1221 alumni and
employers. Eighty-five alumni responded to the alumni directed questions. There were three
sets of evaluative questions on the survey. The first set asked respondents to answer questions
on a 5-point Likert scale from Very Dissatisfied (1) to Very Satisfied (5). The second set asked
respondents to answer questions on a 5-point Likert scale regarding quality of preparation from
Very Poorly Prepared (1) to Adequately Prepared (3) to Exceptionally Well-prepared (5).
Finally, the third set asked respondents to answer questions on a 5-point Likert scale from
Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). All of the questions targeted evaluation of the
quality of our program. Average responses across all items and indexes ranged between 3
(Neutral) and 5 (Strongly Agree/Satisfied/Exceptional). Short-answer questions were analyzed
for themes; they too reveal that program completers were very satisfied with their experience in
our program and recommended more focus in curriculum on assessment, autism, AAC and
medical speech pathology. Table 65 provides means for the responses to this survey.
Table 65: Average Responses from Alumni Survey
Average
Alumni Survey Questions
Set 1: How satisfied were you with
The level of preparation provided by coursework in various graduate therapy clinics
4.61
The responsiveness of major professors to student questions and concerns
4.53
Supportiveness of graduate clinic supervisors
4.33
Preparation for report writing and therapy applications provided by the undergraduate
Introduction to Clinic course
4.16
4.24
Advising
4.31
Peer or faculty mentors
4.12
Laboratory facilities
4.39
Fieldwork or internships
Set 2: How well did the curriculum in your program provide you with
A broad knowledge of theories and principles in the discipline?
4.23
The needed technical skills?
4.08
The communication skills required in the discipline?
4.33
The research skills required by the discipline?
3.91
164
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
The problem solving skills in a broad range of situations?
4.24
An understanding of the methods and practices of the profession?
4.31
Set 3: Agreement
If I were starting school again, I would apply for admission to Sacramento State’s
program.
4.16
Considering all aspects, I was completely satisfied with the program.
4.33
I had sufficient opportunity to present problems, complaints, or suggestions to the
instructional staff.
3.90
I believe that my clinical practicum supervisors spent sufficient time observing and
guiding my clinical practicum.
4.14
I believe that my clinical practicum supervisors spent sufficient time observing and
guiding my clinical practicum.
4.29
I believe the advising/counseling that the program provided was adequate.
3.98
Generally, I believe that most of what I learned was relevant to clinical work.
4.37
165
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Employer survey: In 2009-2010, we distributed an electronic survey to 1221 employers and
alumni. Only 15 employers responded to the employer-focused questions and only 6 of those
completed most of the survey. Evaluative questions on the survey asked respondents to answer
questions on a 5-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). Responses
are difficult to evaluate given the limited number of responses to date. As it stands the data
indicate that employers believe our candidate’s strengths include writing, establishing goals,
responding to supervision and maintaining positive relationships with clients and staff.
Questions also included ranking how well-prepared students were in specific curricular areas.
Curricular strengths included articulation and phonology assessment and treatment, child
language assessment and treatment and ethical practice. Curricular weaknesses included
cognitive assessment and therapy.
Table 66: Results from Employer Survey
Average
Survey Question
4.17
A graduate of the Sacramento State program can complete speech,
language, or hearing screening procedures appropriately.
4
The program graduate is able to establish an appropriate caseload.
The program graduate demonstrates adequate knowledge of diagnostic
techniques and instrumentation.
4
The program graduate applies current research findings to therapy
regimens.
4
The program graduate can establish appropriate long and short range
goals for each client in the caseload.
4.29
The reports that the graduate writes are complete.
4.17
The graduate responds well to supervision.
4.67
The graduate maintains positive relationships with clients and
instructional staff.
4.67
The graduate works well better in a one to one treatment situations
3.83
The graduate works well in group situations.
3.83
166
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Student survey: In 2009-2010, we distributed an electronic survey to 60 classified graduate
students. Fifty-one students responded. Evaluative questions on the survey asked respondents to
answer questions on a 5-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5).
Overall responses were overwhelmingly (90% or above) either Agree or Strongly Agree.
Table 67: Results from Student Survey
Average
Survey Question
In general, the objectives of the program and of the courses in the
curricular sequence are clear.
4.36
There has been considerable agreement between the announced
objectives of the courses and what was actually taught.
4.45
4.33
The reading assignments have been relevant to cl ass objectives.
The lectures given by the program's faculty/instructional staff are well
organized and designed to facilitate the understanding of the subject.
4.39
In general the program's faculty/instructional staff challenge me.
4.61
My interest in the professions has increased as a result of your
interaction with the program's faculty/instructional staff.
The program's faculty/instructional staff attempt to relate course
content to the total discipline.
4.74
4.60
The program's faculty/instructional staff provide sufficient opportunity
for me to apply concepts and to demonstrate understanding of the
subject.
4.37
The program's faculty/instructional staff genuinely care about my
progress and attempt to be actively helpful.
4.49
The program's faculty/instructional staff readily available to me for
consultation
4.57
167
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Student Learning Assessment: In 2009-2010, we distributed a 10-item student learning
assessment across all student levels of our program. The items included a focused set of
questions targeting basic to higher-level distinctions between speech and language along with
other questions covering general areas of the curriculum. Students overall demonstrated
excellent performance (90%+) on basic distinctions requiring identifying systems of language
versus speech as a group. More difficulties became apparent when students were asked to
differentiate speech from language in applied questions, as indicated below where green
indicates the correct answer. Across cohorts, the patterns of errors were very consistent across
all three of the higher-level questions, except that the 4th-semester students’ performance on
questions 2 and 3 were more accurate than any of the other cohort groups.
1. Learning which speech sound changes are meaningful and which speech sound
changes are not meaningful in your language is the developmental task of which
system?
Answer Options
Response Percent
a. Morphology
b. Articulation
c. Phonation
d. Phonology
e. Syntax
37.6%
5.4%
5.9%
44.8%
6.3%
2. Which system would be primarily impaired if a child had a cleft palate?
Answer Options
Response Percent
a. Phonology
b. Semantics
c. Syntax
d. Resonance
e. Fluency/stuttering
f. Both a and d
2.2%
1.3%
0.0%
32.3%
0.9%
63.2%
3. The essential difference between speech and language is
Answer Options
Response Percent
a. Speech is communication, language is ideas
b. Speech is physical/motor, language is symbolic
representation
c. Language is communication, speech is sound
d. Language is learned, speech is innate.
3.2%
63.1%
29.3%
4.5%
168
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
In this section, we discuss the data displayed in Table 65 and the additional data that was
summarized in Section II b. We focus our discussion on the strengths and areas for improvement
revealed by the analysis of these data.
Strengths:
a. Candidate performance: The results indicate that our candidates are successfully meeting
the criteria for demonstrating clinical competencies for each clinical experience
(Assessments #1-4) before progressing to the next clinical practicum. Candidates are
also performing very well on the summative Praxis exam (Assessment #5) demonstrating
very strong performance in their overall preparation for knowledge and skills acquired
cumulatively in our program.
b. Program effectiveness: Alumni surveys indicate that our program strengths encompass
faculty responsiveness to candidates and the extent to which coursework prepares
candidates for clinical practicum experiences. Employer surveys indicated our specific
strengths were in articulation and phonology assessment and treatment, child language
assessment and treatment and ethical practice. Student surveys indicated program
strengths in challenging students, increasing interest in the field and applying content to
the total discipline. The student assessment survey indicated strengths across all cohort
groups for basic distinctions between speech and language as well as a significant
strength in the final semester students’ ability to apply and analyze the more complex
distinctions of speech and language.
Areas for improvement:
c. Candidate performance: Our current assessment tools for clinical practicum experiences
demonstrate that all completers are meeting clinical competencies before advancing to
the subsequent clinic. This assessment at the end of the semester evaluates readiness for
the next clinical level and some non-completers were identified by failure to meet
criteria. Although remediation was completed, these candidates were never able to meet
criteria for advancement and exited the program.
b. Program effectiveness: Alumni surveys indicate that program completers felt satisfied or
very satisfied about all domains on the survey. One area of improvement indicated by an
almost neutral average response was how well the curriculum provided research skills
needed for clinical practice. Employer surveys indicated assessment and research are
areas for improvement. From our student learning assessment, it was apparent that
improvement is needed in developing a more critical sense of the distinctions between
speech and language earlier in our program.
IV.Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
Our newly developed clinical competencies assessment tools have also been used to track
clinical skills across the clinical training process. Students are required to go over their clinical
competencies from previous semesters with each new clinical supervisor. This process of
reviewing the clinical skill development has provided more opportunities for students and
169
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
supervisors to set goals for improvement. Additional data from the Praxis indicated that our
candidates’ performance was equal to or above state and national averages on all areas tested.
We have also implemented curriculum discussions in every faculty meeting focusing on
particular areas in our curriculum. Through these discussions our faculty determines ways we
can cover important concepts like distinctions between speech and language, and use and
interpretation of normative testing data across the curriculum more effectively. Subsequent
curricular and content changes have been made to target these areas. Further student learning
assessment will be implemented across cohorts to assess impacts of these changes. We also hope
to see improvements in our future alumni and employer survey data which reflect these changes.
170
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Nursing Division
School Nurse
College of Health and Human Services
California State University, Sacramento
171
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Commission on Teacher Credentialing
Biennial Report
Academic Years 2008-10
Name of Program: School Nurse Services Credential
Credential awarded: School Nurse Services; Specialized Teaching in Health Credential
Is this program offered at more than one site?
Yes
No
Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean
Phone #: 916-278-4187
E-Mail: [email protected]
If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact
information for that person below:
Name: Dian Baker
Phone # 916-278-7243/ cell 530-400-2866
E-Mail : [email protected]
172
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION A –PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION
I. CONTEXT
The school nurse credential program (SNCP) was established at California State University,
Sacramento, Division of Nursing, in 1958. Since this time revisions to the school nurse program
have reflected changes in the clinical practice of school nursing, the changing school
environment, and required legislative revisions. This program was last evaluated in April 1999.
The last biennial report was submitted in fall 2008.
The school nurse program curriculum is integrated with the masters in nursing and is designed to
be self-paced. Candidates may take up to 7 years to complete the masters in nursing and up to 5
years to complete the core school nurse credential classes. The SNCP had 57 candidates enrolled
through the fall 2008 to spring 2010 school terms, with 38 completers during this time period.
Twenty-nine percent of our SNCP completers entered the program with a masters degree.
School nurse credential candidates have the option of taking two additional courses in teaching
methods and a practicum (i.e. field experience) to obtain a supplemental credential for
specialized teaching in health (STAH). Candidates may complete the course work at their own
pace, and candidates may also return to school after completion of the school nurse services
credential to complete the STAH. There were two completers of the STAH during the fall 2008
through spring 2010 school term.
Significant changes since last commission review in 1999
Changes in the program coordinator position. Dr. Susan Proctor, program coordinator for the
school nurse program since 1974, retired in 2002 and was replace by Dr. Ann Stoltz. Dr. Ann
Stoltz took the chair position for the Division of Nursing in spring 2006. She was replaced by
Dian Baker as the program coordinator in spring 2006. Dr. Ann Stoltz remains on the school
nurse faculty as both a mentor and educator.
Required course changes. The counseling course requirement was deleted. A health assessment
course was added to the program requirements. Total unit requirements for the credential
remains the same at 25 post graduate units.
Student feedback indicated inconsistency in counseling courses’ content due to the variety of
counseling courses students were taking in other departments. They also noted a lack of
relevancy to school nursing practice. The communication skills and learning goals content for the
counseling were integrated into the core N213C and D school nurse courses and the counseling
course requirement was dropped.
Students indicated a strong need for more health assessment content due to the changing
complexity of health conditions school nurses are managing. The N232A: Nursing assessment of
infant, child, and adolescent (3 semester units) course was added to the course requirements.
173
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Both these changes were approved by the Division of Nursing graduate program, the CSUS
Council on the Preparation of School Personnel committee, and Academic Affairs.
Core course curriculum. The N213C and N231D, School Nurse Practice I and II, are the core
content courses for the school nurse program. The core curriculum remains intact, however, each
semester the school nurse faculty meets to revise, update, and ensure that school nurse credential
candidates have the most current, accurate information related to health in schools and
contemporary school nurse practice.
STAH curriculum. The STAH core curriculum remains the same since its approval, N214B & C:
Educational Program in Nursing I and II; and currently with the second of these courses
candidates enroll in N294C: Practicum in Education (i.e. field experience). As with the entire
school program, the faculty meets each semester to review and evaluate the courses.
Fall 2009. The SNCP was revised to meet the November 8 2007 adoption of the new School
Nurse Credential Program Standards. The school nurse faculty coordinator, Dian Baker, served
on the CTC program standards committee to redesign the school nurse program standards in
2007. After the completion of this process and adoption of the new standards by the commission,
the school nurse faculty began planning for the CSUS school nurse program revisions to meet
the new standards. All course syllabi, course evaluations, and program evaluations were
reviewed. A plan was designed to revise the core school nurse courses N213C & D: Seminar in
Specialized Nursing Process: School Nurse I & II and N293D: School nurse practicum/ field
work, as well as proposing an updated course of study. The proposed course of study is designed
to provide extensive opportunities for school nurse candidates to meet requirements of all the
Program Standards and the three keys areas of school nurse competencies. The following table
outlines the approved changes to the SNCP. All required University committees and the faculty
senate have approved the SNCP changes (see Table 68 and 69 below).
We started the new SNCP program in spring 2009. The cohort was small in size with
only 7 students due to budget challenges in the CSUS system and a new graduate admission
policy of accepting application only through November 30th of 2008. This limitation made it
challenging for potential SNCP candidates to apply as many did not know the status of their
employment for the following school year by the November deadline. Due to a budgetary
limitation in the absolute number of graduate students now allowed to enter the Masters of
Nursing program, we are moving the courses for the SNCP to the College of Continuing
Education (CCE) in spring 2011. This move will allow for more flexibility in the admission
process and course delivery mechanism (e.g. summer courses can be offered at CCE, summer
courses were not allowed through the regular program due to budget issues). In addition, CCE
provides additional clerical support and student advising support for students. We sent an email
inquiry to CTC regarding moving the course work; CTC response from Phyllis Jacobson (9-172009) indicated that CCE is regarded as any other college, therefore no additional approvals are
required.
174
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Table 68: Recommended changes to the course of study for the
School Nurse Services Credential
Course
N213C: Seminar in
Specialized Nursing
Process: School Nurse I
Units
3 to 4
units
N213D: Seminar in
Specialized Nursing
Process: School Nurse II
N293D: School nurse
practicum/ field work
N214B: Education
Program Development in
Nursing
N232A: Advanced
Pediatric Assessment
3 to 4
units
Changes
Keep - but add one unit for additional special education
curriculum
Candidates stated in exit interviews that the special
education courses were not accessible, difficult to
locate, and many were not that relevant to school nurse
practice, focusing mainly on curriculum and teaching
methodology of students in special education. New
partnership with the UCD Center for Excellence in
Developmental Disabilities allows for more direct
instructions from experts in services for students in
special education for the SNCP candidates
Keep - but add one unit for additional special education
curriculum (see above)
3 to 4
units
3 units
Keep but add one unit for additional special education
curriculum (see above)
Same
3 units
Same
N211: Ethics
3 units delete
N215: Community
Health Services and
Policy
3 units –
add
Add this course content to N213C and N213D, and
N293D to make it more specific to school nursing/
already had most this content in the N213C & D,
N293D curriculum
Note: due to modification within the Division of
Nursing graduate program, a stand alone course on
ethics is longer offered.
This course has been changed within the Division of
Nursing graduate program combining community health
with health policy. This course is relevant to school
nursing practice and the new focus on public health
policy as the theoretical underpinning of school nursing
practice
(see CTC school nurse competencies)
N216: Vision and
Scoliosis Screening
1 unit
Same
175
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Course
An approved California
Certification in
Audiology for Public
Schools
Units
3 units
Total Units
25
Changes
Same
Candidates may take this course at CSUS, or any other
approved course
Majority of candidates select CSU, San Bernardino,
University of the Pacific, or extension campus at CSU,
Chico
Total number of academic units remains the same
Table 69: School Nurse Services Credential Course of Study
N213C: Seminar in Specialized Nursing Process: School Nurse I
4 units
N213D: Seminar in Specialized Nursing Process: School Nurse II
4 units
N293D: Practicum in School Nursing
4 units
N216: Vision and Scoliosis Screening
1 unit
N214B: Educational Program Development in Nursing
3 units
N232A: Advanced Physical Assessment: Infant, Child, Adolescent
3 units
N215: Community Health Services and Policy
3 units
Audiology course (California certification approved course)
3 units
Total
25 units
Table 70: Total Number of Candidates Enrolled and Completers
Number of
enrolled*
total
Fall 2008 – Spring 2010
candidates
42 active students with
18 admitted in 2008-2009
and 7 admitted in 2009-2010
Total number of candidates in the
school nurse course sequence
Number of completers
STAH completers
42
38
2
*Note that candidates complete the school nurse courses, N213C & D and N293D as a cohort;
otherwise they work on the required courses at an independent pace. This results in varied
completion dates for the credential.
176
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information
Primary Candidate Assessments
There are four key assessments used to make critical decisions about candidate competence prior
to being recommended for a credential, including:
1. Comprehensive health assessment of a school-aged child
Description: Candidates complete a total health assessment including all
components of the nursing assessment process and detailed assessment of risk
factors for potential school failure. The assessment includes a detailed school
nurse recommendation section for follow-up of identified issues. Candidates must
score an 80% to pass this requirement.
2. Signature assignment from N213C &D on role development as a school nurse
Description: Candidates explore the unique of nursing services as they apply to
the school setting. Candidates consider theory, policy, legal requirements and
apply the nursing process as they develop a framework for their own school
nursing practice. In addition, candidates explore development of a research
agenda for school nursing. Candidates must score an 80% to pass this
requirement.
2. Public policy presentation for a school board meeting
Description: Candidates complete a literature review and analysis of their own
school district to determine a contemporary issue related to school health in their
district. After delineating the issue and relating it to academic and/or safety
outcomes in the school setting, candidates present a mock school board
presentation that includes: overview of the issue, related policies and budget
considerations, health and academic relevancy, and proposed solutions.
Candidates must score an 80% to pass this requirement.
3. Evaluation of clinical field experience
Description: Each candidate completes a detailed mid-semester and final
evaluation of their clinical practicum (field) experience in school nursing. The
candidate’s preceptor, the candidate, and the faculty confer to rate the candidate
on a 5 point Likert scale on 40 outcomes for school nursing practice. Candidates
must score a: 1.Consistently: always meets this objective or 2.Often: meets this
objective most of the time, to pass this requirement.
(note: the clinical field experience and evaluation were modified to reflect new
SNCP for Fall 2010 cohort, this report reflects the older clinical evaluation
standards)
4. STAH: There are two key assessments for the STAH supplemental credential.
177
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
The table below provides additional details about the nature of each key assessment.
Table 71: Overview of Key Assessments
(this reports relies on the older version of the standards because we have not yet graduated any
students with the new program standard curriculum)
Assessment Tool
Type of
Assessment
(formative/
summative)
Formative
When
administered
Details about
Administration
N232A
Assessment #2.
Signature
assignment role
development
Summative
School nurse
sequence
courses: N213C
&D
Assessment#3.
Public policy
presentation for a
school board
meeting
Formative
School nurse
sequence
course: N213D
Assessment #4.
Evaluation of
clinical field
experience
Summative
School nurse
sequence
course: N293D
Assessment #5a:
STAH only
Teach
Summative
N214B & C
Assessment #5b:
Evaluation of field
experience in
teaching
Summative
N294C
Individual faculty
assess candidate’s
health assessment
based on a standard
rubric designed by
faculty group
Individual faculty
assess candidate’s
role understanding
based on a standard
rubric designed by
faculty group
Individual faculty
assess candidate’s
presentation based on
a standard rubric
designed by faculty
group
Individual faculty
assess candidate’s
clinical field
performance on a
standard rubric
designed by faculty
group
Individual faculty
assess candidate’s
presentation based on
a standard rubric
designed by faculty
group
Individual faculty
assess candidate’s
clinical field
performance on a
standard rubric
Assessment #1.
Comprehensive
health assessment
CCTC Standards,
Performance
Outcomes, etc.
Addressed
School Nurse CTC
standards 20,21,
22,29
School Nurse CTC
standards
20,21,27 and general
understanding of
CTC standards in the
school nurse role
School Nurse CTC
standards
21,23,24,27,28, & 29
School Nurse CTC
standards
21,22,23,24,25,26,27,
28, & 29
STAH standard 30,
32
STAH standard 31
178
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
As summarized in Table 68, our program had 38 Program Completers from fall 2008 through
spring 2010, and 2 completers for the STAH.
In Table 71, we summarize the data related to completer performance as measured by the 5 key
assessments detailed in Table 70.
Table 72: Aggregate Data on Completer Performance
Assessment Tools
Fall 2008 – Spring 2010
38 completers SNCP
100% passed first time
Grade range:
87 to 100 out of 100
96% passed first time
100% by second time
Grade range:
81 to 100 out of 100
100% passed first time
Grade range:
83 to 100 out of 100
Assessment #1. Comprehensive
health assessment
Assessment #2. Signature
assignment role development – 2
part assignment over 2 semesters
Assessment#3. Public policy
presentation for a school board
meeting
Assessment #4.
Evaluation of clinical field
experience
100% each section of clinical
evaluation/ field study
Assessment #5: STAH ONLY
Teach and Practicum
2- completers
100% passed
Additional information about candidate and program completer performance.
In addition to the five key assessments (4 SNCP and 1 STAH) used to evaluate completer
performance reported above, we use a comprehensive exit interview and program evaluation of
the school nurse sequence courses to help inform decisions about the courses and program. The
type of data collected, the data collection process and key findings are presented below.
Exit survey: The exit survey is required for program completers in the school nurse and
STAH credential programs. There are 90 items embedded in nine standards for school nursing
practice on the school nurse survey. There are 15 items in three standards for the STAH
supplemental credential. Each completer is required to delineate that each practice standard has
been met and to indentify the course(s) where the standard was mastered. In addition, completers
are asked to identify strengths and areas for improvement of the program. Exit surveys indicate
that completers assess themselves as having successfully met all standards for both school
nursing practice and STAH, and, moreover, that they have a high degree of satisfaction with the
program. The majority rate the overall program as a 9 or 10 on a 10-point Likert scale.
179
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Clinical evaluation: The clinical evaluation is required for all program completers.
There are 40 items on the survey. The evaluation is based on 5 point Likert scales. Items are
grouped by standards of school nursing practice (e.g. application of the nursing process and roles
and functions of the school nurse) Students have a mid-term and final evaluation. Students must
receive a 4 or 5 rating in each area to advance for the credential. The majority of our students
obtain a rating of 5 by the end of the semester indicating a high level of clinical competency in
the role of school nursing.
Program Evaluation: Every 2 years the school nurse faculty holds a community
advisory council with program graduates, school district health services directors, and the CDE
statewide school nurse consultant to discuss and review the program and make recommendations
for changes. Our last meeting was November 2008. The focus of the meeting was to obtain
community feedback regarding program changes required to meet the November 2008 CTC new
SNCP program standards. The curriculum along with each course and course syllabus was
reviewed. Participants made comments and these were incorporated into the program changes. A
new table with the revised curriculum was presented and approved by the community advisory
board. In addition, members completed a program evaluation survey. Responses indicated
excellent support of the program and employer satisfaction with program completers when they
enter school nurse practice. Comments were made such as “This program is very comprehensive
and thoughtful. I appreciate very much the quality of the graduates of this program” and “I see
the most significant strength of the CSUS school nurse program is its willingness to continue to
evolve to meet the needs of the students and the community we serve.” Suggestions were made
to increase mental health and legal aspects of school nurse practice content; we have added more
mental health content and invited expert guest speakers to present more analysis concerning the
legal aspects.
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data
In this section, a review of candidate and program strengths is discussed and recommendations
for future program changes are made.
Strengths:
a. Candidate performance: Review of our five key assessments indicates that candidates can
effectively implement and manage a school health program at the individual, family, and
school levels. Clinical evaluations indicated that candidates can adapt the nursing process
including assessment, diagnosis, outcome identification, planning, intervention, and
evaluation to the school setting.
b. Program effectiveness: Candidate evaluation of courses and the community advisory
council both indicate strong support of program goals and candidate performance in
school health settings (see Table 71 and program evaluation above).
180
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Areas for improvement:
a. Candidate performance: Candidates indicated a need for more health assessment
practice, relevant and specific special education training, and more mental health
content. We did add more content in these areas throughout 2008 -2010 and in our
program revisions to meet the new CTC SNCP standards. We have invited specialists
in mental health, addition, legal aspects, and special education to add more content in
these areas. In addition, we added simulation to the health assessment course.
b. Program effectiveness: Our program is in a transition period. The school nurse
program faculty has been reviewing candidate feedback about individual courses and
the school nurse program and aligning this feedback with the 2007 CTC school nurse
program standard. We implemented the new program starting with the spring 2009
cohort; they are completing their SNCP course in spring 2010. At that time, we will
evaluate the outcomes of the new program and evaluate the need for changes within
our continuous quality improve plan.
IV. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance
We plan to review the entire program during the spring and fall of 2011 to evaluate the
newly implemented program that reflects the CTC SNCP standards released in November
2007. We are currently not planning on making any programmatic changes For the STAH
credential program. Due to budget challenges and reduction in the Division’s graduate
program to limit absolute numbers of admission, we will move the SNCP course to College
of Continuing Education starting in spring 2011. Our current program is highly rated by
our candidates and community consumers (see program evaluation above). We will
continue to build on our 30 year history of producing highly qualified school nurses while
addressing the revised program standards. Our realignment plan will include analysis of
school nurse coursework, student course evaluation, and community feedback. For
example, a common request from our students is to be highly accessible to candidates
throughout Northern and Central California; moving the course offering to CCE will assist
with accessibility and flexibility in program management.
181
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Section B
Institutional Summary
And Plan of Action
College of Education
California State University, Sacramento
182
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
SECTION B
INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY AND PLAN OF ACTION
California State University, Sacramento offers 22 preliminary (level 1) and professional (level II)
credential programs, which are housed in the Colleges of Education (CoE) and Health and
Human Services (HHS). For each program, a department chairperson or program faculty member
identified a set of 4-6 key assessments that were based on the CCTC standards and program
and/or course objectives. Each program provided aggregated data on candidates who entered
and/or completed their respective programs during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic years.
This section of the report focuses on program strengths and weaknesses, areas for improvement,
and next steps.
Program Strengths
Upon review of the data presented in these reports, it is clear that while there are distinct
differences between the 22 programs, there are similarities among many of the credential
programs’ goals, objectives and activities. Each program identified in this report has
demonstrated a commitment to maintaining rigorous professional standards and preparing
candidates with strong pedagogical and/or clinical skills. Each program strives to bridge the gap
between theory and practice. Candidates are provided with the philosophical and theoretical
knowledge, along with pedagogical and/or clinical skills that enable or have enabled them to
enter into their professional roles as teachers, administrators, counselors, librarians, nurses,
school psychologists, social workers, speech pathologists, audiologists and special educators
(early childhood, mild/moderate, and moderate/severe).
Moreover, each program provides candidates with a wide range of opportunities to apply their
professional knowledge with an understanding of the interrelationship between theory, history,
social, economic, political and institutional constructs and contexts. A clear theme from these
reports is that, while theoretical knowledge is essential, this knowledge must be applied by the
candidate in a way that is sensitive and cognizant of the classroom, the school, the agency, the
hospital or the clinic in which he or she will operate.
Programs routinely and systematically assess the candidate’s attainment of the basic knowledge,
skills, and habits (e.g., of reflection, inquiry, etc.) needed to enter or advance in a chosen
profession. Throughout each of the reports, the program coordinators highlighted how
candidates are assessed and how the context impacted how and what type of education, program
or services they should provide to their constituents. In addition to being assessed about the
context, each candidate was evaluated on their use of methods and strategies needed to ensure
that children and families of all ethnic, language, gender, racial and special needs receive
appropriate services, education or programs.
To varying degrees, programs evaluated the development of dispositions and habits essential to a
candidate’s given profession. Across all programs, faculty members assessed candidates’ ability
to inquire and reflect on their practice, accept and analyze constructive critique, pursue
knowledge and new ideas, value diversity, function as a contributing team member, and maintain
183
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
high ethical standards. Direct and indirect measures were used to evaluate candidate and
program performance.
Program Weaknesses
Program weaknesses were identified as a result of candidate and program assessments. Some
areas for program improvement were specific to the discipline (e.g., improving candidates’
knowledge of academic language), and program faculty indicated in their reports specific steps
they will take to address these areas. There were areas of concern that were shared by several
program areas. Data collected indicated that some candidates struggle to apply theoretical
knowledge appropriately and with meaning to practical situations and problems. These findings
have prompted promising innovations in programs - from more engaging pedagogy at the
university coursework level to efforts to improve articulation between faculty members and their
field partners. In some instances, assessment data revealed professional knowledge domains that
merited additional critical reflection and action within a course. These insights resulted in
revisions to courses and/or field experiences. It is the administration’s belief that this has led to
or will lead to more thoughtful and appropriate programmatic responses in the future.
Areas for Improvement and Next Steps
There are several issues related to assessment common to all program areas. These are identified
below; planned next steps to address each issue are also included.
1. Assessment and Data Management System: The 22 programs adhere to their respective set of
CCTC state/program standards. However, the overall assessment system and processes need
refinement. Departments use various methods and software to manage data, and data is often
difficult to analyze and obtain. As seen from some of the biennial reports, data collection,
analysis and summary is somewhat inconsistent and sketchy. As the unit responsible for
assisting all P-K through 12 credential programs, the administration recognizes that there is
an increasing need to establish an assessment and data management system to assist
programs in gathering and analyzing data needed for program evaluation and reporting. This
is an issue that has received concentrated efforts. We are now working closely with CSUS
Information Resources & Technology to determine a common electronic data management
system. We have had several meetings focusing on this, and have a “next steps” meeting
planned for January that includes members of the College of Education Assessment &
Accreditation Committee and CSUS Information Resources & Technology.
2. Data Evaluation/Analysis Events: We also recognize the need for, and plan to organize data
evaluation and analysis events that involve department chairs and program faculty with
clearly outlined curriculum improvement and process improvement goals as the final
product.
3. Program Goals: Each program has identified specific program goals as outlined in the
program specific biennial reports. These goals will be reviewed systematically as we improve
the overall college-wide assessment system.
4. Use of a Mastery Model and Content/Predictive Validity of Assessments: Currently program
faculty use a developmental framework to assess the candidate’s mastery of course or
program objectives. As a result and particularly for the summative data, the instruments
appeared in some instances to be non-discriminating, since the vast majority of candidates
achieve passing scores. What the passing scores do not yet indicate is the impact our
programs have on increments of development demonstrated by our candidates. In addition,
184
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
candidates are assessed at key transition points throughout their program, but research needs
to be conducted to understand the relationships among these multiple measures. Although
assessment measures are aligned to the appropriate program standards, their predictive
validity has not yet been ascertained. The creation and implementation of a centralized
assessment system, referenced above, should assist program areas to move towards a more
responsive model. Review of assessment tools and systems currently in use should yield
preliminary findings about how the assessment tools and protocols can be refined to address
our use of a mastery model and to improve alignment between the assessment tools.
Assessor Reliability: Significant effort has been put into creating assessment protocols
(typically rubrics) so that all assessors are using the same criteria to evaluate candidate
performance. Very few of the programs provide systematic support in terms of training for or
calibration of assessors to insure that there is inter-rater reliability beyond that achieved with
a standard evaluation protocol. Training and calibration procedures are currently in use in
teacher preparation programs using PACT. We will explore the possibility of utilizing similar
processes in School Counseling, Special Education, School Psychology, and our other CTC
programs within the College of Education (excluding Health and Human Services programs).
PACT: We continue to have positive results with PACT. We plan to refine data evaluation
and work with lab and remediation instructors to learn about common challenges that will
lead to curriculum refinement within the teacher education programs within the College of
Education (excluding Health and Human Services programs).
Statements of Concern and Performance Contracts: During the spring of 2010 we instituted
the use of Statements of Concern (SOCs) and Performance Contracts (PCs) in College of
Education coursework and field experiences (excluding Health and Human Services
programs). The SOCs and PCs are viable measures of student progress within the program,
and provide means for the identification of common areas for student challenges and
performance improvements. We are now using the SOCs and PCs in several credential
programs. We will engage in faculty development so that all faculty within the College of
Education are able to assess student performance and write Statements of Concern and the
accompanying Performance Contracts that provide clear goals and expected outcomes. We
will refine data analysis of the SOCs and PCs as we work to meet our other goals.
Community and Institutional Collaboration: Although several programs gather and use exit
data to inform them about their candidates, it is clear that an assessment tool that can be used
across programs affected by CTC accreditation is needed. A standard tool for evaluating
candidates’ performance during their first years in their respective professions is also needed.
Both tools would establish a process for programs to warehouse and report out on
longitudinal candidate and program outcomes more effectively and systematically. The
Associate Dean will continue to work with the College Assessment and Accreditation
Committee, the Council for the Preparation of School Personnel, and the administration of
the College of Health and Human Services and the College of Education on these elements of
our data management system.
Involvement of Public School/Professional Community: While all programs have utilized the
professional community in their program offerings, we recognize that continued involvement
will benefit all programs.
185
CSUS Biennial Report
December 2010
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement