1d.1. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that candidates in initial teacher preparation programs can assess and analyze student learning, make appropriate adjustments to instruction, monitor student learning, and develop and implement meaningful learning experiences to help all students learn? [Data for initial teacher preparation programs that have been nationally reviewed or reviewed through a similar state review do not have to be reported here. Summarize data here only for programs not already reviewed. A table summarizing these data could be attached at Prompt 1d.4 below.]

All undergraduate initial teacher programs are nationally reviewed, except the following: Art Education, Family and Consumer Science Education, Speech Education. Over the past three years, only one candidate in these programs (Family and Consumer Science Education) has been admitted into the teacher education program. Candidates in Family and Consumer Science program are required analyze student learning through a teacher worksample (in CURR 304 and in student teaching) and the final assessment. The candidate scored a “2” or higher on all three signature assessments. (Exhibit 1d1.1 Assessment to student learning).

The MAT program specifically assesses the initial candidate’s ability to adjust instruction based on assessment results from a classroom in courses including: EDFN 401 (test creation – unit in course also includes: analysis of school performance (state report cards) and analysis of student progress on standardized testing (LEAP and ILEAP), READ 502 (teacher worksample – analyze student and classroom data from a given classroom test), CURR 545 (special needs student referral – to gain resources, strategies, and teaching methods to help the student learn), Internship-teacher worksample and final assessment (analyze student and classroom data from a given classroom test, and use findings to create a plan of action to develop a meaningful learning experience to build on the students’ development levels and prior knowledge of the subject). Detailed rubrics indicate the depth and breadth of the candidate’s ability to write appropriate learning outcomes, correlate the outcomes with content standards, develop assessments which are based on learning outcomes and content standards, and interpret test scores. The assessment section in the final assessment specifically addresses the candidate’s ability to assess and analyze student learning, make appropriate adjustments to instruction, monitor student learning, and develop and implement meaningful learning experiences to help all students learn. Candidates utilize local school and community resources to support their student’s learning.  Candidates have access to a variety of resources through local media centers, with technology checkouts, professional development resources, bulletin board activity idea centers, and student resources, to enhance the classroom experience. Candidates also use resources from school libraries and resources centers such as videos, learning games, and various classroom activity books.

Three year aggregated data shows candidates in the MAT in Elementary Education program averaged a score of 2.46 or higher on signature assessments related to student learning. Candidates in the MAT in Secondary Education and Multiple Level averaged a score of 2.00 or higher. And candidates in the MAT in Special Education had an aggregated average score of 2.70 or higher. (Exhibit 1d1.1 Assessment to student learning).

1d.2. (Programs Not Nationally Reviewed) What data from key assessments indicate that advanced teacher candidates demonstrate a thorough understanding of the major concepts and theories related to assessing student learning; regularly apply them in their practice; analyze student, classroom, and school performance data; make data-driven decisions about strategies for teaching and learning; and are aware of and utilize school and community resources that support student learning? [Data for advanced teacher preparation programs that have been nationally reviewed or reviewed through a similar state review do not have to be reported here. Summarize data here only for programs not already reviewed. A table summarizing these data could be attached at Prompt 1d.4 below.]

The design of the M.Ed in Curriculum and Instruction allows candidates to demonstrate the ability to reflect on their teaching, knowledge of current research and policies related to school and best practices, and collaborate with the professional community.  Candidates in the M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction regardless of the concentration are required to take 18 hours of core courses.  Three of these courses, CURR 523, 573 and EDLE 500, especially measure the candidates’ ability to assess student learning and school improvements.

The signature assessment for CURR 523 is a worksample that contains motivation, procedures, materials for cooperative learning, accommodations, and technology within the candidate’s content area. The sample is collected on students enrolled in local schools or organized sites. The teacher work sample is a collection of student data from an actual given classroom test.  Candidates analyze data and use findings to make decisions for changes in teaching techniques and to create a plan of action to develop a meaningful learning experience to build on the students’ development levels and prior knowledge of the subject. The signature piece for CURR 573 is a teacher worksample portfolio. In this portfolio, candidates create a teacher worksample, assessment plan and quiz, performance and product assessment, and summative evaluation of student performance.  For the signature assesssment in EDLE 500, candidates develop a brochure utilizing the knowledge and ability to promote the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members.  Candidates consider the diverse community needs and interests as well as demonstrate skills to mobilize community resources.  The brochure should encompass various components including: a mission statement, school goals, educational objectives, parental involvement information, community resources, school achievement levels, partnerships, pupil personnel services, school activities and events, and other information persons would need to know for referencing school performance.

Three year aggregated data of candidates in the M.Ed C&I with a concentration in Elementary Education and Reading program had an average score of 2.79 or higher on all three signature assessments. (Exhibit 1b2.1 M.Ed. Signature Assessment Description, Rubrics and Data).

1d.3. What do follow-up studies of graduates and employers indicate about graduates' ability to help all students learn? If survey data have not already been reported, what was the response rate? [If these survey data are included in a previously attached table, refer the reader to that attachment; otherwise, a table summarizing the results of follow-up studies related to the ability to help all students learn could be attached at Prompt 1d.4 below.]

Data from the graduate follow up survey (2009-2010) shows that 93% of the graduates rated ULM good or better in terms of preparing them for accommodation of all learners.  90% of the graduates rated ULM good or better in terms of preparing them in the area of assessment and evaluation. (Exhibit 1a4.1 Administrator & Graduate Follow Up Survey)

Employer’s surveys are administered every two years.  In 2005, 32 responses were received from the 145 that were sent out to principals.  As the data shows, all 32 principals rated the graduated teacher candidates, from ULM, with an average or above score in their ability to help all students learn.  In 2007, 43 responses were received out of the 145 sent out. As the data shows, all 43 responses had a rating of average or above average in terms of their ability to help all students learn. In 2009, the scales on the survey changed, 25 out of the 27 principals rated ULM teacher graduates as good or better in terms of making accommodations for all learners and also in assessment and evaluation. (Exhibit 1a4.1 Administrator & Graduate Follow Up Survey)

1d.4. (Optional Upload for Online IR) Tables, figures, and a list of links to key exhibits related to student learning may be attached here. [Because BOE members should be able to access many exhibits electronically, a limited number of attachments (0-5) should be uploaded.]