Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report. California State University, Fullerton REPORT OVERVIEW

Transcription

1 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Overview - 1 Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report California State University, Fullerton REPORT OVERVIEW Programs Included in the Report The Education Unit at California State University Fullerton is NCATE accredited. As such, this report is organized in accordance with our Unit Assessment System which was approved as a part of Standard 2 in our NCATE/CTC joint accreditation fall 2007 review. The College of Education, established in 2004, is the nexus of the Education Unit. The Education Unit includes the following departments and programs, housed in five different colleges: California State University, Fullerton Education Unit The College of Education Other Colleges Educational Leadership Department College of Communications (EDAD) Human Communication Studies Communicative Disorders Program (HCOM) -ASHA accredited Elementary and Bilingual Education Department (EDEL) Reading Department (READ) Secondary Education Department (EDSC) Special Education Department (SPED) College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics Science Education Department Master of Arts in Teaching Science Program (MATS) - Reviewed by NCATE only College of Humanities and Social Science Modern Languages & Literature Department Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Program (TESOL) - Reviewed by NCATE only College of Health and Human Development School Nurse Program (Nursing Department) - Reviewed by CTC only As per the CTC, only those unit programs that include coursework leading to a credential are required to be included in this biennial report. From the complete list above, the unit departments and programs included this report are defined as follows: Initial Programs those leading to an initial teaching credential: Multiple Subjects Credential Program Elementary & Bilingual Education Department (EDEL) Preliminary Multiple Subjects Credential Single Subject Credential Program Secondary Education Department (EDSC) Preliminary Single Subject Credential Education Specialist Preliminary Credential Program Special Education Department (SPED) Level I Education Specialist Credential (Mild/Moderate; Moderate/Severe; Early Childhood)

2 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Overview - 2 Advanced Programs those leading to an advanced credential/certificate/authorization for teachers or other school personnel: Education Specialist Clear Credential Program Special Education Department (SPED) Level II Education Specialist Credential (Mild/Moderate; Moderate/Severe; Early Childhood) Resource Specialist Certificate Early Childhood Certificate Administrative Credential Program Educational Leadership Department (EDAD) Preliminary Administration Credential (Tier I) Professional Administrative Credential (Tier II) Reading Graduate Program Reading Department (READ) California Reading/Language Arts Special Credential California Reading Certificate Communicative Disorders Program Human Communication Studies Department (HCOM) Speech-Language Pathology Services Credential School Nurse Program Nursing Department (NURS) School Nurse Services Credential Special Teaching Authorization in Health Unit Programs not Included in the Report Although a part of the Education Unit included in the joint NCATE/CTC accreditation review cycle, the following two programs do not lead to a credential and as such are not included in this report: Master of Arts in Teaching Science Program (MATS) Science Education Department Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Program (TESOL) Modern Languages & Literature Department Explanation of Program Responses The Assessment Coordinator, in collaboration with program chairs and appropriate program faculty, completed the reports of programs assessed through the Unit Assessment System. These reports include the presentation of data that are collected and analyzed at the unit level as well as some data collected and housed at the program level. These reports include all programs housed in the College of Education and include data from all years since the last joint accreditation review ( ; ; ). The Communicative Disorders Program is accredited by the American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA). The ASHA accreditation documents are accepted as evidence for meeting the standards required in the joint NCATE/CTC review process, and as such this program is not evaluated using the Unit Assessment System. The School Nurse Program, under NCATE requirements, is not included as part of the Education Unit, and is also not evaluated using the Unit Assessment System. Therefore, these programs biennial reports were completed individually by appropriate program personnel within their respective departments. These reports include two years of data ( ; ). All program reports and the administrative response (Section B) have been compiled into one PDF document for review.

3 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Overview - 3 BIENNIAL REPORT CONTENT ORGANIZATION All program reports are presented within this document in the order listed here. Clicking on a program title in the list below will take you directly to that program s report. 1. Multiple Subjects Credential Program Elementary & Bilingual Education Department (EDEL) 2. Single Subject Credential Program Secondary Education Department (EDSC) 3. Education Specialist Credential Programs Special Education Department (SPED) 4. Administrative Credential Programs Educational Leadership Department (EDAD) 5. Reading Graduate Program Reading Department (READ) 6. Communicative Disorders Program Human Communication Studies Department (HCOM) 7. School Nurse Program Nursing Department (NURS) 8. Section B Institutional Summary and Plan of Action

4 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 1 Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report Academic Years 07-08, 08-09, and Institution: College of Education, California State University, Fullerton Date report is submitted: October 15, 2010 Date of last Site Visit: November 2007 Program documented in this report: Name of Program - Multiple Subject Credential Program, Department of Elementary and Bilingual Education Credential(s) awarded - Preliminary Multiple Subject; BCLAD Is this program offered at more than one site? No Program Contact: Lisa Kirtman Phone #: [email protected] If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact information for that person below: Name: Teresa Crawford Phone #: [email protected]

5 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 2 SECTION A MULTIPLE SUBJECT CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION I. CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION The Multiple Subject Credential Program at California State University, Fullerton prepares teacher candidates for careers as elementary school teachers through four distinct pathways. Three pathways are designed for candidates who have already earned the baccalaureate degree. One pathway serves undergraduates and provides a streamlined approach to receiving a baccalaureate degree and preliminary teaching credential. The organization of coursework and experiences in each of the pathways is designed to meet the varying needs of our credential candidates. Further, these four pathways reflect principles consistent with our Unit s Conceptual Framework and are aligned with the Unit s Program Outcomes (Appendix A, p. 28). Multiple Subject Program Pathways Two-Semester 38 units In the two-semester program, the first semester provides an opportunity for the candidate to gain essential knowledge about the nature of children, elementary school instructional materials, and effective teaching strategies presented in the university classroom and connected to the supervised fieldwork and student teaching experience. The second semester builds upon earlier competency development and offers additional experience in student teaching. Two Teaching Performance Assessments (TPAs) are completed each semester. Three-Semester 38 units In the three-semester program, the first semester provides an opportunity for the candidate to gain essential knowledge about the nature of children, elementary school instructional materials, and effective teaching strategies presented in the university classroom and connected to the supervised fieldwork experience. The second and third semesters build upon earlier competency development and offer experiences in student teaching. Two Teaching Performance Assessments (TPAs) are completed in the first semester, one in the second semester, and one in the third semester. Bilingual Cross-cultural Language and Academic Development (BCLAD) 41 units In the BCLAD program, candidates follow the course and field experience design of the threesemester program. However, BCLAD candidates are required to take one additional course, Methods and Inquiry for Spanish BCLAD Candidates (3 units). This course prepares Multiple Subject candidates for teaching Spanish-speaking elementary students. Emphasis includes reading instruction methods, materials and assessment, equity issues, and elements and considerations of culture that promote effective instruction for Spanish-speaking elementary students. In addition, one student teaching experience must be completed in a bilingual classroom with a BCLAD credentialed teacher. Streamlined Teacher Education Program (STEP) 34 units In the STEP program, candidates follow the course and field experience design of either the twosemester or three-semester program as part of Phase III of an integrated teacher education program that allows candidates to simultaneously earn a bachelor s degree and the preliminary teaching credential. Some credential program units are satisfied within Phase I and II of the STEP program and are waived for STEP candidates (Visual and Performing Arts-1unit; P.E. and

6 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 3 Health seminar-1 unit; and, 2 units of student teaching). STEP candidates may choose to enroll in the BCLAD pathway. STEP BCLAD candidates follow a three-semester program configuration and must meet the additional BCLAD program requirements. Multiple Subject Program Enrollments and Completers Table 1 provides data on the number of candidates who were enrolled in the Multiple Subject Program and the number of candidates who subsequently completed all program requirements. The numbers are reported by semester rather than academic year because the program is run in cohorts and candidates may enroll in a fall start cohort or a spring start cohort. The table has been organized to report numbers by pathway. Table 1: Program Enrollment and Completion Numbers by Pathway Pathway/Semester 2-Semester 3-Semester BCLAD STEP Enrolled Completed Enrolled Completed Enrolled Completed Enrolled Completed Fall Spring Fall Spring *76 12 *11 16 *16 16 *16 Fall * * *11 Spring * * *14 2 Enrolled - Candidates admitted to the credential program this term. Completed - Number of candidates that enrolled this term who later successfully completed. * Candidates are on-track to complete, but unless otherwise stated, all have not yet completed. (Spring 09, 2-semester: 1 not yet complete; Spring 09, STEP: 2 not yet complete). 1. Fall 2008: Two candidates considered both BCLAD and STEP; counted in both columns. 2. Spring 2010: One candidate considered both BCLAD and STEP; counted in both columns. Program Changes Since Last Accreditation Visit Fall 2007 Table 2 indicates changes made within the Multiple Subject Program since Following the fall 2007 accreditation visit, several changes have been made to particular courses within the program, as well as in overall program design. In addition, changes have been made to implement the four Teacher Performance Assessments (TPAs) for candidates in all pathways. Table 2: Program Changes Since Fall 2007 Year of Implementation Program Modification Piloted Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) Tasks SSP, DI and AL Increased EDEL 435 Mathematics Methods from 2 units to three units to include TPA support for TPA Task DI Piloted technology-focused cohort. Included provision of laptops to candidates and integration of latest educational technologies in all courses Full implementation of TPA Tasks SSP, DI and AL; Piloted TPA Task CTE in one cohort Full implementation of technology-focused cohort (TECH Block) Piloted two arts-focused cohorts (ARTS Blocks) all methods instructors attended professional development institute on integration of arts in curriculum focused courses.

7 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 4 Year of Program Modification Implementation Due to budget cuts, increased supervisor/student teacher ratios from 2:1 to 3:1 and required observations from 15 to 10 for 2-semester candidates and from 17 to 12 for 3-semester candidates Full implementation of integrated arts instruction in arts-focused cohorts Reduced EDEL 435 Mathematics Methods from 3 units to 2 units. TPA support unit to be reallocated to EDEL Changed EDEL 453 Portfolio Development and Assessment to Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA) Support. One unit of EDEL 453 offered in each of two semesters for a total of 2 units Full implementation of TPA Task CTE in all cohort blocks Revised interview process from group interview to individual interview changed questions to align with program outcomes Piloted the inclusion of 2-semester course configuration option for BCLAD pathway candidates Implemented the inclusion of a Technology Bootcamp to introduce and practice use of educational technologies (i.e., promethean boards, document camera, response clickers, etc.). All newly enrolled candidates must attend Piloted the submission of student teaching video for one required university supervisor observation of student teachers Approval of program changes in response to newly approved BCLAD standards. Implementation of new Bilingual Authorization program to begin spring Approval of a combined Credential/Masters Program to be implemented in fall II. CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT/PERFORMANCE AND PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS INFORMATION The Multiple Subject Program is assessed through the College of Education Unit Assessment System designed for the continuous collection of multiple data sources, both internal and external, to monitor candidate performance and to manage and improve program effectiveness. Data analyzed to determine if candidates have met the requirements necessary to matriculate through specified program levels are collected at four (4) transition points: Admission to Program Admission to Initial Student Teaching Admission to Final Student Teaching Exit from Program Post Program Candidate data collected at the first transition point (Admission) establishes that candidates entering the program have the knowledge and dispositions necessary to be successful in pursuit of their educational objective. Data collected at the second and third transition points (Key Continuation Points) provide information on candidates ability to demonstrate deeper understanding of acquired knowledge, growth in implementation of skills, and continued development and display of dispositions outlined in institutional and professional standards. The fourth transition point (Exit from Program) provides data for determining whether candidates have acquired the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to be successful as professionals in the field of education. While not a program transition point, additional data are collected from graduates and their employers once candidates become practicing professionals (Post Program). These data assist in determining program effectiveness for educating professionals that positively

8 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 5 impact P-12 student learning. As per CTC direction, admission data (Transition Point 1) will not be provided or described for the purposes of this report. The full complement of data gathered at each transition point to monitor candidate performance within the program is extensive. The measures are both quantitative and qualitative and reflect the depth of the program. While all requirements at each transition point (Appendix B, p. 29) must be met for candidates to progress through the program successfully, a core set of key assessments have been identified to be collected and analyzed for the purpose of noting trends in candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions, and for predictive analysis of candidate success. The key assessments collected at specific transition points are identified in the following chart. This chart includes only those key assessments collected after candidates have been admitted to the program. Key assessments for Transition Point 1 Admission to Program - have been purposefully omitted. Key Assessments Collected after Admission to Program (TP 1) Data Set Transition Point (TP) Course Level Assignments/Grades 2, 3, 4 Fieldwork Evaluations 2 Student Teaching Evaluations 3, 4 Capstone Assessment (TPA) 2, 3, 4 CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data Post Program RICA Scores * Each data set has been aligned with program outcomes and NCATE assessment categories (Appendix C, p. 30). Key Assessment Data Collected at Transition Points 2, 3, and 4 Course Level Assignments/Grades (TP 2, 3, 4) The Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Preparation Programs adopted by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) in 2001 for Preliminary Credential programs require the assessment of candidates on 13 Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs). The TPEs describe what beginning teachers should know and be able to do and are consistent with the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). These professional standards are used to formally evaluate candidates during student teaching however they are also used to guide course content and assignments. They are aligned with the conceptual framework program outcomes, the dispositions expected of all candidates, and as of fall 2007 have been aligned with course objectives on all course syllabi. Course Grades: While not an indicator of knowledge, skill and disposition development in and of themselves, the deliberate alignment of courses and assignments with professional standards and program outcomes allow course grades to be a viable measure of candidate proficiency development at transition points. In the elementary (EDEL) program all courses are graded Credit/No Credit. To receive a grade of Credit on an assignment, proficiency must be demonstrated at a level equivalent to the criteria to earn a grade of B (80%). To earn a grade of Credit for the course, candidates must receive Credit on every assignment. Tables 3-5 present the percentage of candidates, by pathway, receiving a grade of credit in each of the required courses in the Multiple Subject Program for three years ( ). The chart is segmented and color-coded to represent the transition point (TP) at which data are collected to

9 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 6 determine movement into initial student teaching (TP 2); final student teaching (TP 3); and exit from program (TP 4). Table 3: EDEL Course Pass Rates by Pathway ( ) EDEL Course Transition Point 2: 430-Foundations 2 Sem 3Sem Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N % 98.1% 100% 100% 100% 97.9% 90.0% 92.3% 100% 433-Reading 434-Diversity 435-Math 438-Fieldwork 450-Arts N % 97.5% 100% 100% 100% 97.9% 90.0% 92.3% 100% N % 98.1% 100% 100% 100% 97.9% 90.0% 92.3% 100% N % 98.8% 100% 100% 100% 97.9% 90.0% 92.3% 100% N % 96.9% 100% 100% 100% 98.7% 93.5% 96.2% 100% 100% N % 98.8% 100% 100% 97.9% 100% 100% 446-BCLAD Methods Transition Point 3: N % 437-Social Studies 1 N % 98.7% 100% 100% 100% 97.7% 100% 429-Language Arts 436-Science 451-Comm., School, & Classroom Issues N % 98.7% 100% 100% 92.9% 100% 100% N % 98.7% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 98.7% 97.8% 99.4% 100% 100% 100% 452-PE, Health, & Mainstreaming Transition Point 4: N % 100% 96.3% 100% 99.3% 100% 100% 439-Student N Teaching 2 % 96.2% 92.6% 100% 94.4% 96.8% 93.5% 100% 100% 453-TPA Support N % 100% 96.3% 100% 99.4% 100% 100% Overall Pass Rate 98.1% 98.6% NA 100% 99.1% 100% 98.8% 95.2% NA 93.1% 100% 100% Note: Candidates in both Bclad and STEP pathways are counted in both sections of the table (n = 0 2). 1. Two-semester candidates enroll in EDEL 437 during Transition Point 3. Three-semester candidates enroll in 437 during Transition Point Candidates enroll in EDEL 439 twice during the program, once during Transition Point 3 and again during Transition Point 4. Key: Yellow-Transition Point 2; Blue-Transition Point 3; Pink-Transition Point 4. Purple-(See Footnote #2)

10 Table 4: EDEL Course Pass Rates by Pathway ( ) EDEL Course Transition Point 2: 430-Foundations 2 Sem 3Sem CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 7 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N % 98.8% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98.6% 100% 100% 100% 100% 433-Reading 434-Diversity 435-Math 438-Fieldwork 450-Arts N % 99.4% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98.6% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 98.8% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98.6% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 99.4% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98.6% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 98.8% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97.3% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 99.4% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98.6% 93.3% 100% 100% 446-BCLAD Methods Transition Point 3: N % 100% 100% 437-Social Studies 1 N % 98.9% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 429-Language Arts 436-Science 451-Comm., School, & Classroom Issues N % 98.9% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 98.6% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 97.9% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 452-PE, Health, & Mainstreaming Transition Point 4: N % 100% 100% 0.0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 439-Student N Teaching 2 % 96.9% 97.6% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95.8% 100% 100% 100% 97.1% 100% 453-TPA Support N % 97.9% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Overall Pass Rate 98.7% 99.8% 100% 100% 99.0% 100% 99.0% 99.8% 100% 100% 99.5% 100% Note: Candidates in both Bclad and STEP pathways are counted in both sections of the table (n = 0 2). 1. Two-semester candidates enroll in EDEL 437 during Transition Point 3. Three-semester candidates enroll in 437 during Transition Point Candidates enroll in EDEL 439 twice during the program, once during Transition Point 3 and again during Transition Point 4. Key: Yellow-Transition Point 2; Blue-Transition Point 3; Pink-Transition Point 4. Purple-(See Footnote #2)

11 Table 5: EDEL Course Pass Rates by Pathway ( ) EDEL Course Transition Point 2: 430-Foundations 2 Sem 3Sem CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 8 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N % 98.5% 97.1% 100% 97.1% 100% 100% 433-Reading 434-Diversity 435-Math 438-Fieldwork 450-Arts N % 98.5% 97.1% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 98.5% 97.1% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 99.3% 97.1% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 97.8% 97.9% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 99.3% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 446-BCLAD Methods Transition Point 3: N % 100% 437-Social Studies 1 N % 98.5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99.3% 100% 100% 429-Language Arts 436-Science 451-Comm., School, & Classroom Issues N % 98.5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99.3% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 97.1% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99.3% 100% 100% 100% 100% N % 98.5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98.5% 100% 100% 452-PE, Health, & Mainstreaming Transition Point 4: N % 98.5% 100% 100% 100% 98.5% 100% 100% 439-Student N Teaching 2 % 96.2% 79.3% 100% 100% 100% 96.5% 95.7% 100% 100% 92.0% 100% 453-TPA Support N % 98.5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98.2% 100% 100% 100% Overall Pass Rate 98.3% 97.8% NA 100% 100% 100% 98.7% 99.3% 100% 100% 98.8% 100% Note: Candidates in both Bclad and STEP pathways are counted in both sections of the table (n = 0 2). 1. Two-semester candidates enroll in EDEL 437 during Transition Point 3. Three-semester candidates enroll in 437 during Transition Point Candidates enroll in EDEL 439 twice during the program, once during Transition Point 3 and again during Transition Point 4. Key: Yellow-Transition Point 2; Blue-Transition Point 3; Pink-Transition Point 4. Purple-(See Footnote #2)

12 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 9 Fieldwork Evaluations (TP 2) All candidates are evaluated by both the master teacher and university supervisor on fieldwork performance (90 hours). Fieldwork evaluations are aligned with program outcomes (Appendix D, p. 31) and the Unit Disposition Statement (Appendix E, p. 33). These evaluations are intended to measure candidate disposition toward the development of knowledge, skills and professional dispositions as indicators of potential success in student teaching. Candidate performance is rated on a 4 point scale (1=unacceptable; 2=developing; 3=acceptable; 4=exemplary). Candidates must receive passing scores (2.0 or better) on their fieldwork evaluations by both their master teachers and university supervisors to proceed into initial student teaching. Fieldwork evaluations are submitted using an electronic submission system. Tables 6-11 present the average fieldwork ratings by master teachers and supervisors for candidates by pathway for each of the dispositions assessed on fieldwork evaluations. The pass rates for each pathway and overall pass rate by semester are included. Table 6: Fieldwork evaluation average ratings and pass rates by pathway for Fall 2007 Fall 2007 Master Teacher Supervisor Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem Dispositions 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N = PD CE TC MS VL Passing Scores 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99.3% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (>=2.0) Overall % Dispositions: PD - Promote Diversity CE - Engage in Collaborative Endeavors TC - Think Critically MS Maintain Professional and Ethical Standards VL Value Life-Long Learning Table 7: Fieldwork evaluation average ratings and pass rates by pathway for Spring 2008 Spring 2008 Master Teacher Supervisor Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem Dispositions 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N = PD CE TC MS VL Passing Scores 100% 95.5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97.7% 100% 100% 100% 100% (>=2.0) Overall % Dispositions: PD - Promote Diversity CE - Engage in Collaborative Endeavors TC - Think Critically MS Maintain Professional and Ethical Standards VL Value Life-Long Learning

13 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 10 Table 8: Fieldwork evaluation average ratings and pass rates by pathway for Fall 2008 Fall 2008 Master Teacher Supervisor Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem Dispositions 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N = PD CE TC MS VL Passing Scores 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (>=2.0) Overall - 100% Dispositions: PD - Promote Diversity CE - Engage in Collaborative Endeavors TC - Think Critically MS Maintain Professional and Ethical Standards VL Value Life-Long Learning 1. Two candidates considered both BCLAD 3-Semester and STEP 3-Semester; counted in both pathways for both Master Teacher and Supervisor. Table 9: Fieldwork evaluation average ratings and pass rates by pathway for Spring 2009 Spring 2009 Master Teacher Supervisor Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem Dispositions 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N = PD CE TC MS VL Passing Scores 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (>=2.0) Overall - 100% Dispositions: PD - Promote Diversity CE - Engage in Collaborative Endeavors TC - Think Critically MS Maintain Professional and Ethical Standards VL Value Life-Long Learning 1. Two candidates considered both BCLAD 3-Semester and STEP 3-Semester; counted in both pathways for both Master Teacher and Supervisor. Table 10: Fieldwork evaluation average ratings and pass rates by pathway for Fall 2009 Fall 2009 Master Teacher Supervisor Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem Dispositions 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N = PD CE TC MS VL Passing Scores (>=2.0) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Overall - 100% Dispositions: PD - Promote Diversity CE - Engage in Collaborative Endeavors TC - Think Critically MS Maintain Professional and Ethical Standards VL Value Life-Long Learning

14 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 11 Table 11: Fieldwork evaluation average ratings and pass rates by pathway for Spring Master Teacher Supervisor Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem Dispositions 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N = PD CE TC MS VL Passing Scores 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (>=2.0) Overall - 100% Dispositions: PD - Promote Diversity CE - Engage in Collaborative Endeavors TC - Think Critically MS Maintain Professional and Ethical Standards VL Value Life-Long Learning 1. One candidate considered both BCLAD 2-Semester and STEP 2-Semester; counted in both pathways for both Master Teacher and Supervisor. Student Teaching Evaluations (TP 3, 4) Candidates are evaluated by both the master teacher and university supervisor at the completion of initial (5-week) and final (8-week) student teaching placements. The student teaching evaluation (Appendix F, p. 34) measures candidate performance on all 13 Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) and the corresponding California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTPs). Candidate performance is rated on a 4 point scale (1=unacceptable; 2=basic; 3=skilled; 4=distinguished) and specific pass rates have been determined for initial and final student teaching performance. Initial Student Teaching Evaluations (TP 3): It is expected that candidates are developing their skills during the initial student teaching assignment and that evidence for rating some TPEs may not have been observed at this point. Therefore, candidates must receive at least a 2.0 (basic) or better to receive credit. Any unacceptable ratings (1 s) require remediation procedures. Over all three years (Fall 2008 Spring 2010) the average rating on all TPE s for candidates completing the initial student teaching experience was 3.36, with an average pass rate of 98.9%. Final Student Teaching Evaluations (TP 4): By the end of final student teaching it is expected that candidates will demonstrate marked growth over time and will have developed the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to be recommended for a preliminary credential. Therefore, the average passing score for final student teaching is 2.85 or better. Any unacceptable ratings will result in no credit earned for student teaching. Over all three years (Fall 2008 Spring 2010) the average rating on all TPE s for candidates completing the final student teaching experience was 3.59, with an average pass rate of 98.4%. Tables provide the average rating by term on each TPE as assigned by the master teachers and supervisors for all candidates evaluated (both initial and final placements).

15 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 12 Table 12: Student Teaching TPE average ratings by pathway for Fall 2007 Fall 2007 TPE 1:Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction 2: Monitoring Student Learning 2 Sem 3Sem Master Teacher Supervisor Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N Avg N Avg : Interpretation and Use of Assessments 4: Making Content Accessible 5:Student Engagement 6: Dev. Appropriate Teaching Practices 7: Teaching English Learners 8: Learning About Students 9: Instructional Planning 10: Instructional Time 11: Social Environment 12: Prof., Legal, Ethical Obligations 13: Professional Growth N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg Average N Avg Overall Averages %3 and 4 ratings = 94.6% Average rating = 3.44 Note: There were no 2-Semester BCLAD nor 3-Semester STEP candidates taking student teaching in Fall 2007.

16 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 13 Table 13: Student Teaching TPE average ratings by pathway for Spring 2008 Spring 2008 TPE 1:Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction 2: Monitoring Student Learning Master Teacher Supervisor Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N Avg N Avg : Interpretation and Use of Assessments 4: Making Content Accessible 5:Student Engagement 6: Dev. Appropriate Teaching Practices 7: Teaching English Learners 8: Learning About Students 9: Instructional Planning 10: Instructional Time 11: Social Environment 12: Prof., Legal, Ethical Obligations 13: Professional Growth N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg Average N Avg Overall Averages %3 and 4 ratings = 93.6% Average rating = 3.44 Note: There were no BCLAD candidates taking student teaching in Spring 2008.

17 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 14 Table 14: Student Teaching TPE average ratings by pathway for Fall Fall 2008 TPE 1:Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction Avg 2 Sem 3Sem Master Teacher Supervisor Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N : Monitoring Student Learning 3: Interpretation and Use of Assessments 4: Making Content Accessible 5:Student Engagement 6: Dev. Appropriate Teaching Practices 7: Teaching English Learners 8: Learning About Students 9: Instructional Planning 10: Instructional Time 11: Social Environment 12: Prof., Legal, Ethical Obligations N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg : Professional Growth N Avg Average N Avg Overall Averages %3 and 4 ratings = 93.9% Average rating = 3.46

18 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 15 Table 15: Student Teaching TPE average ratings by pathway for Spring 2009 Spring 2009 TPE 1:Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction 2: Monitoring Student Learning 3: Interpretation and Use of Assessments 4: Making Content Accessible 5:Student Engagement 6: Dev. Appropriate Teaching Practices 7: Teaching English Learners 8: Learning About Students 9: Instructional Planning 10: Instructional Time 11: Social Environment 12: Prof., Legal, Ethical Obligations 2 Sem 3Sem Master Teacher Supervisor Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg : Professional Growth N Avg Average N Avg Overall Averages %3 and 4 ratings = 94.6% Average rating = Two candidates considered both BCLAD 3-Semester and STEP 3-Semester; counted in both pathways for both Master Teacher and Supervisor.

19 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 16 Table 16: Student Teaching TPE average ratings by pathway for Fall 2009 Fall 2009 TPE 1:Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction 2: Monitoring Student Learning 3: Interpretation and Use of Assessments 4: Making Content Accessible 5:Student Engagement 6: Dev. Appropriate Teaching Practices 7: Teaching English Learners 8: Learning About Students 9: Instructional Planning 10: Instructional Time 11: Social Environment 12: Prof., Legal, Ethical Obligations 2 Sem 3Sem Master Teacher Supervisor Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg : Professional Growth N Avg Average N Avg Overall Averages %3 and 4 ratings = 95.7% Average rating = 3.52 Note: There were no 2-Semester BCLAD candidates taking student teaching in Fall Two candidates considered both BCLAD 3-Semester and STEP 3-Semester; counted in both pathways for both Master Teacher and Supervisor.

20 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 17 Table 17: Student Teaching TPE average ratings by pathway for Spring 2010 Spring 2010 TPE 1:Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction Avg 2 Sem 3Sem Master Teacher Supervisor Bclad STEP Bclad STEP 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem 2 Sem 3Sem N : Monitoring Student Learning 3: Interpretation and Use of Assessments 4: Making Content Accessible 5:Student Engagement 6: Dev. Appropriate Teaching Practices 7: Teaching English Learners 8: Learning About Students 9: Instructional Planning 10: Instructional Time 11: Social Environment 12: Prof., Legal, Ethical Obligations N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg N Avg : Professional N Growth Avg Average N Avg Overall Averages %3 and 4 ratings = 95.3% Average rating = One candidate considered both BCLAD 2-Semester and STEP 2-Semester; counted in both pathways for both Master Teacher and Supervisor. Capstone Assessment Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA) (TP 2, 3, 4) The California Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA) tasks are designed to measure aspects of initial program professional standards the Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs) and to reflect what beginning teachers should know and be able to do before receiving a Preliminary Credential. Each performance task measures aspects of a number of TPEs, and the four tasks together measure all but one (TPE 12). Tasks are scored by university faculty trained by certified

21 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 18 TPA assessors (current N= 35) and recalibrated yearly. Tasks are blind scored by at least two assessors on a common 4 point rubric, rating performance at four levels (1 low to 4 high). Candidates must pass each task with an average score at Level 3. The four tasks are: Subject Specific Pedagogy (SSP) Designing Instruction (DI) Assessing Learning (AL) Culminating Teaching Experience (CTE) Candidates must complete all four tasks by transition point 4 (Program Exit). Portions of this assessment are evaluated at different transition points as candidates move through their program of study. Two-Semester candidates complete tasks SSP and DI in their first semester (TP 2) and tasks AL and CTE in their second semester (TP 3). Three-Semester and BCLAD candidates complete tasks SSP, DI, and AL in their second semester (TP 3) and task CTE in their third semester (TP 4). STEP candidates complete the TPA tasks following the schedule of the cohort in which they are enrolled (2 or 3 semester). Table 18 provides the average score on each TPA task. Average TPA scores are based on the final scores from each candidate from each semester. Candidates who do not pass on the first attempt receive remediation and have up to two more attempts within the semester to pass. Given the high pass rate, TPA scores were not disaggregated by pathway. Table 18: TPA average scores and pass rates (%) for Fall Spring 2010) TPA Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 SSP DI AL CTE N Avg % 100% 100% 100% 100% 98.2% N Avg % 100% 99.5% 100% 100% 98.2% N Avg % 100% 100% 99.4% N Avg % 100% 100% 99.4% Overall Average %3 and 4 ratings % 99.8% 100% 100% 99.1% Table 18 provides final attempt scores only. The number of passing scores (3 or higher) on the first attempt was not calculated prior to fall The breakdown by task of passing scores on the first attempt for is as follows: SSP 87%; DI 87%; AL 96%; CTE 95% SSP 91%; DI 88%; AL 98%; CTE 95%

22 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 19 Post Program Assessment Data CSU Exit and Year-Out Survey of Graduates and Employers The California State University Chancellor s Office conducts surveys of Initial Teacher Preparation programs. One is an Exit Survey that candidates take upon completion of the program. Another is a survey taken by employed graduates and their employers one year after program completion. Both are administered by the Chancellor s Office, completed online, analyzed, and results distributed annually to each of the 23 CSU campuses. The results provide valuable data on the efficacy of program curriculum and processes to educate teachers who have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to be successful professionals in the field and positively impact P-12 student learning. The year-out survey provides performance data based on employer observations, which is used to validate teacher graduate perception data. Survey results as reported from the Chancellor s Office are based on the total number of candidates that completed the survey each term. As such, the data provided for this report cannot be disaggregated by pathway. Table 19 provides Exit Survey results for each of three years (Fall 2007 Spring 2010). This table shows the average number and range of candidates that completed the survey each year and the average rating and range for all questions combined, based on a 0-3 scale. In addition average percentage and range is shown for the number of questions that received a rating of 2 or higher (Well to Adequately ) and those that were rated less than 2 (Somewhat or Not At All ). For disaggregated results by question see Appendix G, p. 36. Table 19: CSU Exit Survey Average Ratings and Percentages across all 45 questions All Questions Year Average N Average Range Average Rating (0 to 3 Scale) Well or Adequately Average Range Average 96.3% 96.5% 97.2% Range 82%- 100% 85% - 100% 87% % Somewhat or Not Average 3.3% 2.9% 2.4% At All Range 0%- 18% 0% - 15% 0% - 12% Rating scale: 3 - Well-prepared 2 - Adequately prepared 1 - Somewhat prepared 0 - Not at all prepared NOTE: The number of responses varies by question, so the Average N represents the average number of responses received. Cannot Answer/No Response (non-response) results are NOT included in calculations, as they do not describe effectiveness of candidate preparation. Table 20 provides the Year-Out Survey results by both supervisors (employers) of teachers that graduated from our program in each of three years ( ) and these graduates after one

23 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 20 year of teaching. The year in parentheses indicates the year the teachers were candidates in our program. The year at the top in each column indicates the year the results were reported. For disaggregated results by question see Appendix H, p. 42. Table 20: CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation Average Ratings and Percentages across 24 common questions asked of initial credential program completers All Questions Year 2007 ( Program) 2008 ( Program) 2009 ( Program) Average N Average Rating (0 to 3 Scale) Well or Adequately Supervisors Teachers Supervisors Teachers Supervisors Teachers Average Range Average Range Average 80.4% 80.8% 83.6% 80.8% 89.1% 87.4% Range 58% - 87% 43% - 96% 65% - 93% 59% - 92% 79% - 94% 63% - 97% Somewhat or Average 19.6% 19.2% 16.4% 19.2% 10.9% 12.7% Not At All Range 13% - 42% 4% - 57% 7% - 35% 8%-41% 6% - 21% 3% - 38% Rating scale: 3 - Well-prepared 2 - Adequately prepared 1 - Somewhat prepared 0 - Not at all prepared NOTE: The number of responses varies by question, so the Average N represents the average number of responses received. Cannot Answer/No Response (non-response) results are NOT included in calculations, as they do not describe effectiveness of candidate preparation. Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA) EDEL candidates can successfully exit the program through meeting all Transition Point 4 requirements, however to apply for the preliminary Multiple Subjects Credential they must pass the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA). The RICA is administered and scored through the California Commission of Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) by National Evaluation Systems, Inc (NES). The exam is given several times during the year and candidates can take it any time after their first semester. Many candidates pass the RICA prior to exiting from the program. Test results are reported directly by NES to the candidate, CCTC, and CSU, Fullerton s Credential Preparation Center. These results provide important information as to the effectiveness of our program s reading courses, and our candidates knowledge of important reading content and concepts. Table 21 provides RICA pass rates for all CSU, Fullerton graduates taking the assessment as compared with state wide results. Table 22 shows results for Multiple Subject candidates. RICA results are not available, by pathway. Table 21: RICA Pass Rates Compared to State Pass Rate CSU Fullerton State Pass Rate Pass Rate DATE Traditional Intern % 100% N = 388/390 N = 29/29 98% % 100% N = 380/381 N = 28/28 99% % 94% N = 498/502 N = 16/17 98%

24 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 21 Table 22: Multiple Subjects RICA Pass Rates CSU Fullerton Pass Rate DATE Traditional Intern % 100% N = 334/336 N = 4/ % 100% N = 327/328 N = 1/ % N = 338/341 NA Note: Low numbers of interns are due to the phasing out of the Intern Program. As of 2008, the Intern Program is no longer offered III. ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT DATA The Department has established a meeting/committee structure for reviewing and evaluating assessment data, including department faculty meetings, standing Credential Program coordinators meetings, course custodian meetings, and part-time faculty meetings. These groups regularly review assessment data and makes recommendations for program and course changes and/or assessment changes which are shared with department faculty as a whole. Analysis of Key Assessment Data Results Presented in Section II COURSE LEVEL ASSIGNMENTS/GRADES (Table 3) Program and Candidate Strengths: The overall pass rate in all courses and across all pathways is 99%, indicating high levels of proficiency for nearly all of our candidates. This high level of candidate success is viewed as related to the strength of program design. The general design offers foundational courses early in the program and aligns methods courses with field experience courses to provide opportunities to put knowledge and skills into practice. Because each assignment must be completed at a level of B or better to pass a course, courses have remediation measures that support candidate growth and success. Course pass rates indicate that a high majority of our candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to meet program and professional standards as aligned with course objectives. Areas for Improvement: While the wide N variation makes statistical comparison difficult, the pass rate range for 3-semester candidates ( %) and BCLAD candidates ( %) is a little lower than the other pathways (STEP % and 2-semester ( %). This could be attributed to the fact that 3-semester candidates typically are employed outside the program adding pressure to completing coursework while working in what are often full-time positions. However, the department is looking into the structure of the 3-semester program to assess whether course schedule could also be a factor, as it differs from the 2-semester schedule. Due to the drop in BCLAD enrollment, as of fall 2009 the department discontinued BCLAD only cohorts and opened the option for BCLAD candidates to choose either the 2- or 3-semester program. Overtime, we will be able to assess whether there is a difference in BCLAD candidate pass rates for those in the 2-semester versus the 3-semester program. While overall pass rates in this review indicate that the difference (if any) would not be significant, it would offer interesting information and cause to analyze course structures across programs if a difference is noted.

25 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 22 FIELDWORK EVALUATIONS (Tables 6-11) Program and Candidate Strengths: On average 100% of our candidates pass fieldwork evaluations. It should be noted, that this number includes candidates that may have repeated the course a second time--not passing on the first attempt. However, as the pass rate percentages show, this happens infrequently. The expectation of fieldwork is that students will demonstrate that they have, or can develop, the professional dispositions necessary to successfully perform in the classroom during student teaching. Therefore, the criterion for passing is set at 2.0 (developing) or better. Across all semesters and pathways the average ratings, by both master teachers and supervisors, show that the vast majority of candidates perform above the acceptable level (3.0 or higher), with the lowest average rating in any disposition category being In addition, the average scores indicate a high level of agreement between master teachers and supervisors, as the mean ratings are very close between the two groups, which contributes to score reliability. Areas for Improvement: While fieldwork evaluation scores do not raise areas of concern, the department recognizes that recent program changes could affect future scores on candidate fieldwork performance. In fall 2009, due to severe budgets cuts, the ratio of student teachers to supervisors was increased and the number of required fieldwork observations were reduced. While the data (Tables 10 and 11) does not indicate any significant impact on candidate performance, future scores will need careful monitoring to assure our candidates do not suffer from reduced supervisor support, and evaluations based on less observation time. The department plans to return to the original candidate/supervisor ratio and required observations when economically feasible. STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATIONS (Tables 12-17) Program and Candidate Strengths: Candidates complete two student teaching assignments one initial (5-week) and one final (8- week), each with a different set of expectations. The program is designed to scaffold and support candidates growth and proficiency over time. It is expected that candidate knowledge and skills as teachers will develop and become stronger across the two student teaching placements. Therefore, candidates should demonstrate at least basic (2.0) proficiency toward meeting TPE standards on initial student teaching evaluations and be able to demonstrate skilled competency at a minimum level of 2.85 by the end of their final placement. Overall evaluation results show that 98.9% of candidates pass initial student teaching, well exceeding the basic standard (2.0); earning average ratings above skilled (3.36) from both master teachers and supervisors. Final student teaching results show a pass rate of 98.4%, with average TPE ratings exceeding the 2.85 requirement. Master teacher and supervisor ratings for final student teaching candidates average 3.59, demonstrating proficiency on average at a level of skilled or higher. It should be noted, that these numbers include candidates that may have repeated either initial or final student teaching a second time--not passing on the first attempt. However, the resulting high pass rates are an indicator of effective program remediation for struggling candidates. As seen in Tables 12-17, the average scores on initial and final student teaching evaluations combined indicate a high level of agreement between master teachers and supervisors, which

26 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 23 contributes to score reliability (Mean ranges across all semesters and pathways: Master teachers = ; Supervisors = ). Overall, these results demonstrate that candidates receive the support necessary to perform at high levels of proficiency on TPE standards by program exit. Areas for Improvement: Overall results on student teaching evaluations show little evidence for concern. However, careful analysis of scores across each TPE does reveal information useful for program improvement. While well above the minimum requirement, TPE 3: Interpretation and Use of Assessments most frequently received the lowest average ratings across all semesters (56%). There was no other TPE that consistently earned lower ratings at such a high percentage. Analysis showed the next highest percentage of somewhat prepared was 16% (TPE 10). This makes the 56% for TPE 3 stand out as even more significant. Based on this finding faculty and appropriate committees have been meeting to discuss how the program can better provide content and pedagogical knowledge, as well as field placement support, to help candidates more effectively use assessments to guide their teaching and improve student learning. CAPSTONE ASSESSMENT TEACHING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (Table 18) Program and Candidate Strengths: Table 18 mean percentages and ratings show that on average our candidates exceed the minimum requirement for demonstrating competency on all four Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA) tasks ( % of scores are rated at level 3 or 4, with an average range of ). These high ratings support candidate TPE performance as noted on student teaching evaluations. Areas for Improvement: Candidates receive remediation and may repeat tasks up to two times if they do not pass on their first attempt. Although results show that the percent of initial scores not passing averaged only 8% in and 9% in , the breakdown by task reveals a potential program weakness. The highest percentages of initial scores not passing were found on Tasks SSP and DI (9-13% and 12-13% respectively). This finding may be somewhat expected given that candidates complete these tasks during the initial student teaching placement when candidates are less experienced. However, these results prompted the department to revise how and when EDEL 453, the TPA support course, is offered (as detailed in the Section IV of this report). It is anticipated that these changes will have a positive impact on candidate performance on these TPA tasks in their first attempts. CSU EXIT SURVEY (Table 19) Program and Candidate Strengths: Aggregate results in Table 19 show that candidates exit our program feeling highly prepared to be effective educators. Across all 45 questions measuring levels of preparedness in content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, dispositions, and impact on student learning, 96.7% of candidates across all three years responded with ratings averaging between (2=adequately prepared; 3=well prepared), with an average mean of An analysis of the disaggregated results (Appendix G) shows that the highest average ratings each year were in the areas of preparing lesson plans and activities ( ), using reflective teaching practices ( ), and creating supportive environments ( ). While not receiving the highest ratings, results on the question related to meeting the instructional needs of English Language Learners was heartening. Disaggregate results show that an average of 95% of candidates

27 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 24 responded that they felt well or adequately prepared to meet the instructional needs of English Language Learners (ESL), with an average rating of This has been an area of focus in our program for the past few years based on lower scores from previous CSU survey data in this area. The scores from this report cycle ( ) reflect that program changes as described in our previous accreditation documents are showing a positive impact on how prepared candidates feel to meet the needs of ESL students. Areas for Improvement: It is encouraging to report that candidates responding that they feel not at all prepared in response to the 45 survey questions averaged 0%. As a result, to identify program weaknesses the percentages and mean ratings of somewhat prepared responses were analyzed for each question. The highest percentages were found in response to meeting the instructional needs of students with special learning needs, with an average 14% of candidates responding they feel only somewhat prepared in this area. This has been a continued area of focus for our program from the analysis of results provided in previous years. Faculty and appropriate committees continue to develop ways to prepare faculty to better support our candidates knowledge and skills in this area as detailed in Section IV. Disaggregate results as shown in this report (Appendix G) do show our efforts are paying off, as the numbers of students feeling only somewhat prepared to meet special learning needs are slowing declining each year (17%; 14%; 11% respectively). Another area of concern is our candidate responses to the use of instructional technology. The percent of candidates responding feeling only somewhat prepared to use technology rose from 6% in to 11% in , with a slight decrease to 8% noted in The department has instituted many changes, as outlined in Section IV, to better prepare faculty and candidates to grow in their knowledge of instructional technologies and their skills in using them as a teaching tool. We anticipate these scores will improve as a result. CSU YEAR-OUT SURVEY OF GRADUATES AND EMPLOYERS (Table 20) Program and Candidate Strengths: Aggregate results in Table 20 show that after their first year of teaching, employment supervisors rate our graduates as highly effective beginning teachers. Across all 24 common questions measuring how well our graduates were prepared in regard to content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, dispositions, and impact on student learning, 84% of supervisors across all three years responded with ratings averaging between (2=adequately prepared; 3=well prepared), with an average mean of After their first year of teaching, results from graduates are similar, although slightly lower. 83% of graduates responded with ratings across all questions averaging between , with an average mean of An analysis of the disaggregated results (Appendix H) shows that the highest average ratings by supervisors and graduates were in the areas of preparing lesson plans and activities (S= ; G= ). These ratings exceed state averages. A significant area of strength noted by both supervisors and graduates was in meeting the instructional needs of English Language Learners. In this area, 81-87% of supervisors responded that CSUF graduates were well or adequately prepared. Graduates responses were slightly higher with 82%-91% responding they were well or adequately prepared, and were effective in meeting the instructional needs of ESL students. Both supervisor and graduate ratings exceeded state-wide results (S=75-78%; G=72-81%).

28 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 25 Areas for Improvement: To identify program weaknesses, the percentage of somewhat to not at all prepared responses were compared and analyzed for each question. Over all questions, three areas stood out for both supervisors and graduates as those in which better preparation was needed. These were: Meeting the instructional needs of learners with special needs Using instructional technology Knowing resources for at-risk pupils To facilitate discussion, the following chart notes the percentage of supervisors and graduates that responded somewhat to not at all prepared to questions in these three areas. Year Percent of somewhat to not at all prepared responses Special Needs Technology At-risk Pupils Supervisors Graduates Supervisors Graduates Supervisors Graduates % 44% 14% 57% 42% 36% % 36% 9% 41% 35% 29% % 38% 12% 31% 21% 24% Generally, graduates perceive themselves as less prepared in these areas than their supervisors report them to be (with the exception of the first two years in the at-risk category). Meeting the needs of students with special needs has been a focus of the department for the past few years, and while we may be making gains, is abundantly clear that we have to continue to strive to better prepare our candidates (and faculty) in this area. A new area of concern has arisen in this analysis; the dramatic rise of low ratings in graduates knowledge of resources for at-risk pupils. This could be attributed to a general increase in the pressures schools face to identify and better serve at-risk populations. As a program, we understand our responsibility to increase our graduates competency in this area and have begun the process of meeting to explore avenues for improving our candidates (and faculty) performance. It is somewhat satisfying to note that supervisor ratings reflect better performance than what graduates perceive to be true in the area of using technology. However, understanding that one s perception is reality for our beginning teachers, these ratings are a huge concern. As a result, significant efforts have been made to offer professional development for faculty, and increase student opportunities to receive additional instruction and practice in the use of educational technologies as a teaching tool across disciplines. Overall, the fact that the somewhat to not at all prepared percentages show a general decline from year to year is viewed as a testament to department efforts (as described in Section IV) to better prepare our graduates in each of these areas. We are committed to continuing these efforts and identifying additional methods to improve our performance and that of our graduates. READING INSTRUCTION COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT (RICA) (Tables 21-22) Program and Candidate Strengths: Table 22 shows % of our candidates successfully pass the RICA exam. These results are a testament to the effectiveness of our program s reading courses, and our candidates knowledge of important reading content and concepts.

29 Areas for Improvement: The data provide no indication for concern. CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 26 IV. USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE The following chart outlines activities in which department faculty and department committees are currently engaged, and future activities planned, to address those areas for improvement identified in Section III of this report. Goal Ensure equity between 2- and 3- sesmester programs Provide adequate support in fieldwork placement [re: change in # of supervisor observations] Increase candidate scores on TPE 3: Use of assessments Remediation Activities 1. Continue to gather feedback at Student Advisory Board meetings to identify programmatic issues faced by 3-semester candidates [on-going]. Share with faculty. 2. Program Coordinators discussed and defined possible reconfiguration of courses in the 3-semester program to better support candidate success [ ]. Will pilot with one block (cohort) in fall Meet with Block (cohort) Leaders and come to agreement on candidate and supervisor expectations regarding course work, field experiences, etc. to bring all pathways into alignment [completed spring 2010]. 3. Monitor BCLAD candidate pass rates, fieldwork and student teaching evaluation to determine if a difference in performance is revealed between those placed in 2-semester blocks as opposed to 3-semester blocks (re: new option for pathway choice by BCLAD candidates) [beginning fall 2010]. 1. Continue to gather feedback at Student Advisory Board meeting to identify concerns and proposed solutions regarding supervisor support during fieldwork placements. (began fall 2009; on-going). Share with faculty and supervisors. 2. Meet with supervisors to determine alternative methods of supporting students given changes in number of observations required (e.g., /phone communication, Blackboard communication/meetings) [began fall 09]. 3. Program Coordinators discuss possible changes to fieldwork evaluation given limited observation by supervisors (e.g., evaluate in consultation with Master Teacher; require only master teacher evaluation, etc.). Share ideas with faculty and supervisors [began spring 2010]. 1. Schedule regular Course Custodian meetings to examine ways to provide foundational content and work across methods courses to ensure that faculty are addressing ways to use student assessment data to guide instruction and improve student learning within different subject areas [beginning fall 2010]. 2. Provide professional development in supervisor meetings to enhance their support of candidates practice during student teaching on using assessment data to guide instruction and improve student learning [beginning fall 2010].

30 Goal Provide equitable TPA support for SSP and DI tasks Better prepare candidates to work with students with special needs Better prepare candidates to use instructional technologies Better prepare candidates to work with atrisk populations CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 27 Remediation Activities 1. Increased EDEL 453: TPA Support to be offered both semesters that TPA tasks are completed one unit each semester. This course used to only be offered for one unit in the last semester. [began spring 10]. The additional one unit will offer support during the semester in which SSP and DI are completed. 1. Continue to provide professional development for faculty and supervisors [ongoing]. For example in fall 2009, the department hosted a workshop session for faculty and supervisors, led by Special Education faculty. Concepts, ideas, and methods for meeting the needs of students with special needs were shared and practiced. 2. Increase faculty access to materials and activities shared by Special Education faculty and department faculty by posting them to the Community Blackboard Site [began fall 09]. 3. Course custodians meet with course-alike faculty to develop assignments and curriculum content that ensures candidates focus on students with special needs within all disciplines [on-going]. 1. The department offered a series of workshops for faculty to develop skills in using the latest instructional technologies to increase their ability to effectively model their use for candidates, and provide support for candidate use [ ]. On-going professional development opportunities will continue to be a priority of the department. 2. The department implemented the inclusion of a Technology Bootcamp to introduce and practice use of educational technologies (i.e., promethean boards, document camera, response clickers, etc.). All newly enrolled candidates must attend [began 2010]. 3. At faculty meetings faculty share the ways they use instructional technology in their delivery of course material and integrate its use into assignments [ongoing]. 4. A series of Saturday workshops is being planned for faculty and candidates to learn about various instructional technologies and how to use them to improve student learning [ ]. If successful, this practice will be continued. 1. Faculty met in course-alike groups to explore ways to better prepare candidates awareness of at-risk populations; including how to identify at-risk students and resources (including community and family) for working with them. This included modifying or adding course assignments and field experiences that included a focus on at-risk populations [spring 2010]. 2. These meetings will be continued and the outcomes (activities, materials) shared on the Community Blackboard Site. 3. The department chair will work with appropriate committees to identify specialists in this area that can provide professional development to faculty, and/or presentations to students.

31 APPENDIX A: Unit Conceptual Framework and Program Outcomes CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 28 Education Unit Conceptual Framework a transformational journey toward educational advancement and achievement Core Values We are a community of educators, educational partners, and students. Seven core values undergird our professional community. We value learning as a life long process, professional literature that guides and informs our practice, responsibility to self and to the group, diversity as enriching the whole, multiple pathways to learning including the use of technology, critical inquiry that promotes positive student outcomes, and authentic and reflective assessment. We aspire to adhere to and model these in all our professional interactions. Through experiencing these core values in their educational journey, we believe our students will embrace and in turn, model them in their professional lives. Based on our core values, our mission is as follows: Mission Statement Our mission is to teach, to serve, and to engage in scholarship. We teach our students to be critical thinkers and lifelong learners. We prepare professionals who improve student learning, promote diversity, make informed decisions, engage in collaborative endeavors, maintain professional and ethical standards, and become change agents in their workplaces. We engage in scholarly work that informs the profession and serve the educational community by providing applied scholarship. Student Outcomes and Indicators After succ essful completion of a program of study, our credential recipients and program graduates are: Outcome 1: Knowledgeable and Competent Specialists demonstrate strong foundation in subject matter or field of study demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field demonstrate ability to use technology as a resource Outcome 2: Reflective and Responsive Practitioners promote diversity make informed decisions engage in collaborative endeavors think critically Outcome 3: Committed and Caring Professionals become change agents maintain professional and ethical standards become life long learners Department of Elementary & Bilingual Education Theme Equity and Excellence We are committed to uphold the ideals of respect for the dignity and inherent worthiness of each person. We value all aspects of human development and emphasize the diverse gifts, needs, and interests of each learner. We embrace and are committed to the inclusion of multiple perspectives, voices, cultures, languages, values and knowledge. We develop and model varied learning and teaching methodologies in our classes. Community and Social Change We are committed to developing reflective and ethical leaders with a global perspective. Through reflective practices and a focus on lifelong learning, we prepare students to act as change agents as they influence decision making in schools and communities. Knowledge and Wisdom We are committed to a philosophy of preparing educational leaders through a course of study that bases practice upon knowledge of current research in curriculum and instruction. We further embrace the notion of knowledge being acquired through a variety of past and current experiences, methods and processes such as curiosity, critical thinking, and self reflection

32 APPENDIX B: EDEL Transition Points and Performance Measures CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 29 Elementary & Bilingual Education (EDEL) Admission to Program All Candidates Verification of passing all sections of Subject Matter Exam (CSET) Verification of passing Basic Skills Exam (CBEST) CPR training certificate GPA of 3.0 in prerequisite courses EDEL 315 and EDEL 325 and a passing grade (2.0 or better) in CAS 101, 312, 315, 325, or PSY 361 Completion of all General Education requirements; no more than 6 units remaining in major GPA of 2.75 in last 60 units Verification of child/youth experiences (department form) Autobiography (faculty review) Two faculty recommendations (faculty review) Personal philosophy of bilingual education (BCLAD only)[faculty review] Passing score on faculty interview (scored by committee; 23=2 nd interview) Writing sample (Problematic rating=2 nd interview) Oral Language Proficiency (Problematic rating=2 nd interview) Admission to Initial Student Teaching All Candidates Certificate of Clearance Verification of TB and MMR immunization Credit on all coursework to date (CR = Grade of B or better) Passing score on fieldwork evaluations by master teacher and supervisor (average 2.0 on program rubric; remediation for any area scored lower than 2) 3-Semester Candidates Passing score on TPA Tasks SSP and DI ( 3) [blind scored] Admission to Final Student Teaching All Candidates Credit on all coursework to date (CR = Grade of B or better) Passing score on fieldwork evaluations by master teacher and supervisor [if necessary] (average 2.0 on program rubric) Passing score on initial student teaching evaluations by master teacher and supervisor (average 2.0 on program rubric) 2-semester Candidates Passing score on TPA Tasks SSP and DI ( 3) [blind scored] 3-SemesterCandidates Passing score on TPA Task AL ( 3) [blind scored] Exit from Program All Candidates Successful completion of Bachelor s degree Credit on all coursework (CR = Grade of B or better) Passing score on final student teaching evaluations by master teacher and supervisor (average 2.85 on program rubric, with no TPE lower than 2) Verification of EL teaching requirement (signature sheet) Verification of GATE/SPED teaching requirement (signature sheet) Verification of completion of U.S. Constitution requirement 2-Semester Candidates Passing score on TPA Tasks AL and CTE ( 3) [blind scored] 3-Semester Candidates Passing score on TPA Task CTE ( 3) [blind scored]

33 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 30 APPENDIX C: Alignment of Key Assessments with Program Outcomes and NCATE Standard 1 Categories [TP =Transition Point at which data are collected] NCATE Standard 1 Element and Program Outcome Alignment CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Outcome 1 Indicators: a) Demonstrate strong foundation in subject matter or field of study PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Outcome 1 Indicators: b) Demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field c) Demonstrate ability to use technology as a resource Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions PROFESSIONAL & PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions d) Think critically DISPOSITIONS Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions c) Engage in collaborative Endeavors d) Think critically Outcome 3 Indicators: a) Become change agents b) Maintain professional and ethical standards c) Become life-long learners STUDENT LEARNING Outcome 1 Indicators: b) Demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions Initial Programs Subject Matter Competency Exams Major GPA [TP 1] Student Teaching Evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Capstone assessments (portfolios, TPA 1) [TP 2,3] CSU Exit/Post Grad/Employer Survey Data (select items) Student teaching evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Capstone Assessments (portfolio, TPA 2-3) [TP 3,4] CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Fieldwork Evaluations (select items) [TP 2] Student Teaching Evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data Application Process (selected elements) [TP 1] Fieldwork Evaluations (select items) [TP 2] Student Teaching Evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data Student teaching evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Capstone Assessments (portfolio, TPA 2-3) [TP 3,4] CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data

34 APPENDIX D: Fieldwork Evaluation Form CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 31 California State University Fullerton College of Education MULTIPLE SUBJECT CREDENTIAL PROGRAM Candidate Fieldwork Evaluation Student Teacher CWID # Block Leader Block # Semester/Year Master Teacher Supervisor Semester School Grade Level Directions: The Multiple Subject Program s mission is to graduate candidates who are: Knowledgeable & Competent Specialists; Reflective & Responsive Practitioners; and Committed & Caring Professionals. To successfully reach these outcomes we believe that candidates must possess particular dispositions toward teaching and learning. This evaluation is intended to measure candidates behaviors and effort toward demonstrating these dispositions. The disposition ratings will serve as an indicator of the candidate s potential for succeeding in student teaching and reaching outcome goals. Based on your observations and work with the candidate during their fieldwork placement, please rate the candidate s behavior and effort toward meeting the disposition indicators for each outcome goal. Each disposition indicator should be rated using the following criteria: 1 = Unacceptable Few to no examples of candidate behavior that exemplify the disposition description. Little to no evidence of consistency over time in demonstrating effort toward meeting indicator. 2 = Developing Some examples of candidate behavior that exemplifies the disposition description. Limited evidence of consistency over time in demonstrating effort toward meeting indicator. 3 = Acceptable Multiple indicators of candidate behavior that matches the disposition description. Adequate evidence of consistency over time in demonstrating effort toward meeting the indicator. 4 = Exemplary Extensive indicators of candidate behavior that exemplifies the disposition description. Substantial evidence of consistency over time in demonstrating effort toward meeting the indicator.

35 KNOWLEDGEABLE & COMPETENT SPECIALISTS Commitment to Learning: The candidate demonstrates curiosity and interest in learning more about students and content areas. The candidate takes initiative in practicing skills for working with small and large groups. CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 32 Unacceptable Developing Acceptable Exemplary The candidate readily participates in classroom routines. Use of Language: The candidate is diligent in appropriate and correct use of oral and written language. REFLECTIVE & RESPONSIVE PRACTITIONERS Unacceptable 1 Developing 2 Acceptable 3 Exemplary 4 Attention to Diversity: The candidate values multiple aspects of diversity. He or she respects children and adults of varied cultural backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, social classes, abilities, political beliefs, and disabilities. Self-Reflection: The candidate reflects on and evaluates his or her own behavior and work. The candidate is willing and able to recognize difficulties or deficiencies and begins to develop potential solutions. Collaboration: The candidate takes advantage of opportunities to communicate and/or work with professional colleagues and other adults. Feedback: The candidate is receptive and responsive to professional feedback incorporating suggestions into practice. He or she is willing to consider multiple perspectives of his or her own performance. COMMITTED & CARING PROFESSIONALS Professional Demeanor & Responsibility: The candidate is prompt, is not unnecessarily absent, notifies appropriate individuals when absence is necessary, completes assignments on time, and follows through on commitments. The candidate dresses appropriately for the situation and wears appropriate attire for teachers in the school. The candidate is poised and professional in his or her demeanor and communication with others. Professional Growth: The candidate seeks out and takes advantage of opportunities for professional growth beyond the minimum expectations of what is required in classes (e.g., attends faculty meetings, workshops, parent meetings, visits other classrooms, etc.) Unacceptable Developing Acceptable Exemplary Grading Criteria (based on overall average): CR = Remediation will be mandatory for any disposition marked as Unacceptable. Requirements for remediation must be fulfilled by end of student teaching placement. NC = < 2.0 Fieldwork must be repeated prior to student teaching if a grade of NC is received.

36 APPENDIX E: Fieldwork Aligned with Unit Dispositions CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 33 Education Unit Professional Dispositions Promote diversity Candidates value all aspects of human development including the diverse ideas, views, strengths, styles of learning, talents, and abilities of each learner. They are committed to the inclusion of multiple perspectives, voices, cultures, languages, experiences, and values. They recognize that each individual brings a depth and richness to the whole that helps develop understanding of individual complexity and appreciation for one another. Engage in collaborative endeavors Candidates demonstrate interpersonal and communication skills that promote respectful and collaborative relationships with families, colleagues and other professionals to support student learning and well-being. In their work with others, candidates model and encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation. Think Critically Candidates systematically reflect on their practice and constructive criticism from others to make informed decisions and grow as effective educators and specialists. In their work with others, they use a variety of formal and informal assessments to evaluate progress and performances, identify individual and group needs, and modify their teaching and/or leadership strategies for program and individual growth and improvement. Maintain professional and ethical standards Candidates understand and fulfill the ethical and professional responsibilities of educators and specialists as defined in state, national, and institutional standards. They display the emotional maturity, academic integrity, and professional commitment necessary to successfully demonstrate these standards in their work with students, families, and other professionals. Value life-long learning Candidates understand that professional development is a continuing process. They demonstrate the necessary skills to take responsibility for planning and pursuing their ongoing learning, reflecting with colleagues in their practice, and for contributing to the knowledge-base of the profession. In the field they act as responsible change agents by contributing to the school as a learning organization to foster student learning and well-being. Fieldwork Evaluation Elements The candidate values multiple aspects of diversity. He or she respects children and adults of varied cultural backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, social classes, abilities, political beliefs, and disabilities. The candidate takes advantage of opportunities to communicate and/or work with professional colleagues and other adults. The candidate is receptive and responsive to professional feedback incorporating suggestions into practice. He or she is willing to consider multiple perspectives of his or her own performance. The candidate reflects on and evaluates his or her own behavior and work. The candidate is willing and able to recognize difficulties or deficiencies and begins to develop potential solutions. The candidate is prompt, is not unnecessarily absent, notifies appropriate individuals when absence is necessary, completes assignments on time, and follows through on commitments. The candidate dresses appropriately for the situation and wears appropriate attire for teachers in the school. The candidate is poised and professional in his or her demeanor and communication with others. The candidate takes initiative in practicing skills for working with small and large groups. The candidate is diligent in appropriate and correct use of oral and written language. The candidate demonstrates curiosity and interest in learning more about students and content areas. The candidate seeks out and takes advantage of opportunities for professional growth beyond the minimum expectations of what is required in classes (e.g., attends faculty meetings, workshops, parent meetings, visits other classrooms, etc.)

37 APPENDIX F: Student Teaching Evaluation Form CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 34 California State University Fullerton College of Education EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST PROGRAM General Education Placement (439) Student Teacher CWID # Block Leader Block # Semester/Year Master Teacher Supervisor Semester School Grade Level Directions: Based on your observations and work with the candidate during student teaching, please rate their performance according to the criteria for each of the Teacher Performance Expectation Standards (TPEs). Please use link provided for detailed descriptions and sample indicators for each TPE. Each TPE should be rated using the following criteria: NE = No Evidence No opportunity to observe candidate in regard to this standard. Not enough evidence to make an assessment at this time. 1 = Unacceptable Few to no indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Little evidence of application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Cannot meet standard even with additional support from master teacher/and or supervisor. 2 = Basic Some indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Limited evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. 3 = Skilled Multiple indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Adequate evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Rarely required additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. 4 = Distinguished Extensive indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Substantial evidence of highly consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required no additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. Note: All TPE s must be assessed by the end of second student teaching placement. Those marked No Evidence in the first placement must be addressed in final placement. Remediation will be mandatory for any TPE marked as Unacceptable on first placement evaluation. Any TPE marked as Unacceptable in final placement will result in No Credit for student teaching.

38 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 35 STANDARDS OF QUALITY & EFFECTIVENESS AS A STUDENT TEACHER A. Making Subject Matter Comprehensible to Students NE Unacceptable 1 Basic 2 Skilled 3 Distinguished 4 TPE 1 Specific Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction Understands state adopted academic content standards and demonstrates the ability to teach to the standards in the following subject areas: Subject Areas: Health Math Music Reading/Language Arts Performing Arts Physical Education Science Social Studies Visual Arts B. Assessing Student Learning TPE 2 Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction TPE 3 Interpretation and Use of Assessment C. Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning Including GATE Students and Students with Special Needs TPE 4 Making Content Accessible TPE 5 Student Engagement TPE 6 Develops Appropriate Teaching Practices TPE 7 Teaching English Learners D. Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for Children TPE 8 Learning About Students TPE 9 Instructional Planning E. Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning TPE 10 Instructional Time TPE 11 Social Environment F. Developing as a Professional Educator TPE 12 Professional, Legal, and Ethical Obligations TPE 13 Professional Growth Grading Criteria (based on overall average): First student teaching placement CR = NC = < 2.0 Final student teaching placement CR = NC = < 2.85 and/or any unacceptable ratings

39 APPENDIX G: CSU Exit Survey Data Disaggregated by Question At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am......to prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for students' class activities....to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional activities CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 36 N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0) % 7% 0% 0% % 11% 2% 0%...to organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 27% 3% 0%...to use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 14% 0% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 32% 5% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 28% 4% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs....to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect learning....to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly....to get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior....to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the curriculum....to use computer-based technology for instruction, research, and record keeping....to monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods....to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam scores....to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn....to adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students....to use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions....to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and families....to communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of my students....to work collaboratively on school issues with other teachers in our school....to think about problems that occur in teaching and to try-out various solutions....to understand my professional, legal, and ethical obligations....to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that leads to professional growth % 43% 17% 1% % 19% 2% 0% % 15% 0% 0% % 14% 1% 0% % 33% 6% 1% % 30% 6% 0% % 14% 0% 0% % 21% 4% 0% % 16% 0% 0% % 15% 0% 0% % 13% 0% 0% % 34% 10% 1% % 24% 4% 0% % 18% 3% 1% % 19% 4% 1% % 16% 3% 1% % 11% 1% 0%...to know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at my grade level(s)....to teach reading-language arts according to California Content Standards in reading....to understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools....to teach mathematics according to California Content Standards in math % 26% 2% 0% % 11% 0% 0% % 19% 1% 0% % 15% 2% 1%

40 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 37 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am......to teach science according to California State Content Standards in science....to teach history and social studies according to California Content Standards....to teach visual and performing arts according to California Content Standards....to teach physical education according to the California P. E. Curriculum Framework. N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0) % 18% 2% 0% % 19% 2% 0% % 24% 7% 0% % 24% 9% 1%...to teach health according to the California Health Curriculum Framework % 25% 11% 1%...to design hands-on classroom activities that suit the attention spans of my students % 15% 2% 0%...to enable my young students to interact with their peers in healthy, productive ways % 11% 2% 0%...to promote the academic skills of pupils at different levels of prior proficiency % 18% 1% 0%...to extend students' concrete thoughts by familiarizing them with more abstract ideas % 22% 4% 0%...to assist students in managing their time and in keeping track of school assignments % 16% 3% 0%...to build on peer friendships, develop group skills, and encourage leadership roles % 13% 2% 0%...to encourage students to take risks in discovery activities and divergent thinking % 18% 2% 0%...to assist students in making sound ethical judgments % 17% 4% 0%...to assist students in decision-making, problem-solving, and critical thinking % 13% 2% 0%...to create an environment that supports language use, analysis, practice and fun % 10% 1% 0%...to use language so pupils at different levels understand oral and written English % 19% 2% 0%...to teach the skills of English writing and to provide appropriate feedback to students % 21% 3% 0%...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading and mathematics % 16% 1% 0%

41 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 38 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am......to prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for students' class activities....to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional activities N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0) % 9% 1% 0% % 14% 1% 0%...to organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 30% 3% 0%...to use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 15% 2% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 25% 5% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 26% 4% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs....to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect learning....to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly....to get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior....to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the curriculum....to use computer-based technology for instruction, research, and record keeping....to monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods....to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam scores....to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn....to adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students....to use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions....to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and families....to communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of my students....to work collaboratively on school issues with other teachers in our school....to think about problems that occur in teaching and to try-out various solutions % 37% 14% 1% % 14% 2% 0% % 12% 1% 0% % 14% 1% 0% % 29% 11% 1% % 32% 12% 1% % 14% 2% 0% % 21% 2% 0% % 18% 1% 0% % 12% 0% 0% % 13% 1% 0% % 40% 7% 1% % 28% 4% 0% % 19% 1% 0% % 23% 2% 0%...to understand my professional, legal, and ethical obligations % 19% 2% 0%...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that leads to professional growth % 9% 1% 0%...to know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at my grade level(s)....to teach reading-language arts according to California Content Standards in reading....to understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools....to teach mathematics according to California Content Standards in math....to teach science according to California State Content Standards in science % 24% 1% 0% % 14% 1% 0% % 22% 2% 0% % 15% 1% 0% % 19% 4% 0%

42 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 39 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am......to teach history and social studies according to California Content Standards....to teach visual and performing arts according to California Content Standards....to teach physical education according to the California P. E. Curriculum Framework. N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0) % 18% 3% 0% % 19% 4% 0% % 26% 5% 0%...to teach health according to the California Health Curriculum Framework % 27% 8% 0%...to design hands-on classroom activities that suit the attention spans of my students % 12% 1% 0%...to enable my young students to interact with their peers in healthy, productive ways % 12% 0% 0%...to promote the academic skills of pupils at different levels of prior proficiency % 17% 1% 0%...to extend students' concrete thoughts by familiarizing them with more abstract ideas % 26% 2% 0%...to assist students in managing their time and in keeping track of school assignments % 19% 2% 0%...to build on peer friendships, develop group skills, and encourage leadership roles % 20% 2% 0%...to encourage students to take risks in discovery activities and divergent thinking % 21% 2% 0%...to assist students in making sound ethical judgments % 19% 2% 0%...to assist students in decision-making, problem-solving, and critical thinking % 12% 1% 0%...to create an environment that supports language use, analysis, practice and fun % 10% 0% 0%...to use language so pupils at different levels understand oral and written English % 17% 2% 0%...to teach the skills of English writing and to provide appropriate feedback to students % 19% 1% 0%...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading and mathematics % 15% 1% 0%

43 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 40 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am......to prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for students' class activities....to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional activities N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0) % 9% 0% 0% % 9% 1% 0%...to organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 22% 5% 0%...to use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 14% 0% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 27% 3% 1%...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 25% 4% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs....to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect learning....to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly....to get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior....to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the curriculum....to use computer-based technology for instruction, research, and record keeping....to monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods....to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam scores....to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn....to adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students....to use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions....to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and families....to communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of my students....to work collaboratively on school issues with other teachers in our school....to think about problems that occur in teaching and to try-out various solutions % 33% 11% 1% % 16% 1% 0% % 12% 1% 0% % 14% 0% 0% % 24% 8% 1% % 24% 9% 0% % 17% 3% 0% % 20% 3% 0% % 17% 1% 0% % 16% 1% 0% % 13% 0% 0% % 31% 10% 0% % 23% 4% 0% % 26% 2% 0% % 23% 3% 0%...to understand my professional, legal, and ethical obligations % 25% 1% 0%...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that leads to professional growth % 11% 0% 0%...to know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at my grade level(s)....to teach reading-language arts according to California Content Standards in reading....to understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools....to teach mathematics according to California Content Standards in math....to teach science according to California State Content Standards in science % 21% 2% 0% % 16% 1% 0% % 22% 1% 0% % 20% 2% 0% % 20% 1% 0%

44 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 41 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am......to teach history and social studies according to California Content Standards....to teach visual and performing arts according to California Content Standards....to teach physical education according to the California P. E. Curriculum Framework. N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0) % 18% 1% 0% % 20% 3% 0% % 24% 4% 0%...to teach health according to the California Health Curriculum Framework % 30% 4% 0%...to design hands-on classroom activities that suit the attention spans of my students % 12% 0% 0%...to enable my young students to interact with their peers in healthy, productive ways % 12% 2% 0%...to promote the academic skills of pupils at different levels of prior proficiency % 19% 0% 0%...to extend students' concrete thoughts by familiarizing them with more abstract ideas % 21% 3% 0%...to assist students in managing their time and in keeping track of school assignments % 22% 2% 0%...to build on peer friendships, develop group skills, and encourage leadership roles % 16% 2% 0%...to encourage students to take risks in discovery activities and divergent thinking % 20% 2% 0%...to assist students in making sound ethical judgments % 18% 1% 0%...to assist students in decision-making, problem-solving, and critical thinking % 14% 1% 0%...to create an environment that supports language use, analysis, practice and fun % 10% 0% 0%...to use language so pupils at different levels understand oral and written English % 18% 1% 0%...to teach the skills of English writing and to provide appropriate feedback to students % 19% 2% 0%...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading and mathematics % 18% 1% 0%

45 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 42 APPENDIX H: CSU Year-Out Survey Data Disaggregated by Question General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2007 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered by the K-8 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher, who was named in the survey, please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Multiple Subject Programs CSU System: Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at her/his grade level % 16% % 12% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 16% % 18% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 23% % 25% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 13% % 11% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 19% % 19% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 13% % 25% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 16% % 19% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 26% % 32% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of his/her students % 17% % 20% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 16% % 14% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 29% % 22%

46 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 43 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2007 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered in 2007 by the K-8 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Multiple Subject Programs CSU System: Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Well or Somewhat Adequately or Not Well or N Mean SD N Adequately Mean SD Somewhat or Not understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 20% % 18% understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning % 19% % 20% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 19% % 17% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 19% % 21% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 14% % 17% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 17% % 19% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 19% % 20% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 19% % 22% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 17% % 19% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 26% % 22% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 16% % 16% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 19% % 15% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 42% % 35%

47 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 44 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2007 by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates, While They Taught in Grades K-8 Evaluation Questions Answered in 2007 by Teachers in Grades K-8 Who Completed CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs During : Once you finished your CSU credential program in , and when you were a K-8 teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Multiple Subject Programs CSU System: Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at your grade level(s) % 25% % 30% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 7% % 24% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 18% % 35% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 4% % 15% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 11% % 21% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 18% % 24% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 18% % 21% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 44% % 45% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of your students % 39% % 36% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 7% % 18% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 11% % 32%

48 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 45 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2007 by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates, While They Taught in Grades K-8 Evaluation Questions Answered in 2007 by Teachers in Grades K-8 Who Finished CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs in : Once you finished your CSU credential program in , and when you were a K-8 teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Multiple Subject Programs CSU System: Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand child development, human learning & the purposes of schools % 18% % 25% understand how personal, family & community conditions affect learning % 11% % 20% learn about pupils interests & motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 7% % 20% get students involved in engaging activities and sustain on-task behavior % 7% % 23% use computer-based applications so students learn curriculum subjects % 57% % 42% use computer-based technology in class activities and keep class records % 50% % 45% monitor student progress by using formal & informal assessment methods % 11% % 23% assess pupil progress by analyzing varied evidence including exam scores % 21% % 27% assist individual students in areas of instructional needs in reading/math % 11% % 24% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand & learn % 11% % 24% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 11% % 16% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and transitions % 7% % 24% know about resources in the school and community for at-risk pupils % 36% % 44%

49 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 46 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2008 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered by the K-8 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher, who was named in the survey, please assess how well s/he was prepared to.. This CSU Campus: Multiple Subject Programs CSU System: Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at her/his grade level % 10% ,019 90% 10% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 16% ,020 83% 17% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 23% ,021 79% 21% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 7% ,019 89% 11% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 16% ,017 83% 17% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 19% % 22% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 13% ,010 82% 18% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 24% % 30% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of his/her students % 17% ,011 82% 18% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 13% ,014 87% 13% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 20% ,002 80% 20%

50 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 47 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2008 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered in 2008 by the K-8 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Multiple Subject Programs CSU System: Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 18% % 18% understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning % 19% ,000 83% 17% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 15% ,004 85% 15% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 20% ,015 82% 18% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 9% % 16% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 8% % 16% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 13% ,009 81% 19% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 16% ,007 78% 22% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 17% % 18% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 20% ,010 79% 21% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 12% % 14% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 14% ,004 84% 16% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 35% % 32%

51 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 48 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2008 by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates, While They Taught in Grades K-8 Evaluation Questions Answered in 2008 by Teachers in Grades K-8 Who Completed CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs During : Once you finished your CSU credential program in , and when you were a K-8 teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Multiple Subject Programs CSU System: Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at your grade level(s) % 25% ,464 73% 27% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 11% ,473 78% 22% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 28% ,470 65% 35% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 8% ,469 86% 14% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 9% ,471 80% 20% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 15% ,452 77% 23% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 9% ,461 80% 20% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 36% ,435 55% 45% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of your students % 26% ,454 65% 35% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 11% ,470 82% 18% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 24% ,462 71% 29%

52 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 49 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2008 by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates, While They Taught in Grades K-8 Evaluation Questions Answered in 2008 by Teachers in Grades K-8 Who Finished CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs in : Once you finished your CSU credential program in , and when you were a K-8 teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Multiple Subject Programs CSU System: Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand child development, human learning & the purposes of schools % 19% ,467 77% 23% understand how personal, family & community conditions affect learning % 12% ,467 81% 19% learn about pupils interests & motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 16% ,464 80% 20% get students involved in engaging activities and sustain on-task behavior % 12% ,474 77% 23% use computer-based applications so students learn curriculum subjects % 41% ,442 60% 40% use computer-based technology in class activities and keep class records % 40% ,444 59% 41% monitor student progress by using formal & informal assessment methods % 9% ,469 79% 21% assess pupil progress by analyzing varied evidence including exam scores % 14% ,462 75% 25% assist individual students in areas of instructional needs in reading/math % 20% ,459 74% 26% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand & learn % 19% ,472 76% 24% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 11% ,462 84% 16% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and transitions % 16% ,467 78% 22% know about resources in the school and community for at-risk pupils % 29% ,456 57% 43%

53 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 50 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2009 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered by the K-8 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher, who was named in the survey, please assess how well s/he was prepared to.. This CSU Campus: Multiple Subject Programs CSU System: Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at her/his grade level % 6% % 12% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 13% % 17% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 11% % 21% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 6% % 12% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 9% % 17% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 15% % 22% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 13% % 18% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 13% % 28% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of his/her students % 11% % 16% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 6% % 14% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 7% % 18%

54 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 51 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2009 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered in 2009 by the K-8 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Multiple Subject Programs CSU System: Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 7% % 18% understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning % 9% % 17% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 11% % 16% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 17% % 20% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 12% % 14% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 14% % 14% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 11% % 16% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 13% % 20% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 11% % 17% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 13% % 21% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 7% % 14% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 6% % 14% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 21% % 28%

55 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 52 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2009 by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates, While They Taught in Grades K-8 Evaluation Questions Answered in 2009 by Teachers in Grades K-8 Who Completed CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs During : Once you finished your CSU credential program in , and when you were a K-8 teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Multiple Subject Programs CSU System: Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at your grade level(s) % 16% ,484 78% 22% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 10% ,483 80% 20% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 15% ,480 70% 30% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 4% ,483 87% 13% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 3% ,481 84% 16% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 9% ,472 81% 19% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 10% ,478 83% 17% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 38% ,458 59% 41% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of your students % 22% ,476 70% 30% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 4% ,477 84% 16% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 11% ,477 73% 27%

56 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Multiple Subjects - 53 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Multiple Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2009 by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates, While They Taught in Grades K-8 Evaluation Questions Answered in 2009 by Teachers in Grades K-8 Who Finished CSU Multiple Subject Credential Programs in : Once you finished your CSU credential program in , and when you were a K-8 teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Multiple Subject Programs CSU System: Multiple Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand child development, human learning & the purposes of schools % 9% ,473 81% 19% understand how personal, family & community conditions affect learning % 6% ,480 83% 17% learn about pupils interests & motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 6% ,483 83% 17% get students involved in engaging activities and sustain on-task behavior % 6% ,480 80% 20% use computer-based applications so students learn curriculum subjects % 31% ,455 64% 36% use computer-based technology in class activities and keep class records % 30% ,456 63% 38% monitor student progress by using formal & informal assessment methods % 11% ,475 81% 19% assess pupil progress by analyzing varied evidence including exam scores % 11% ,474 77% 23% assist individual students in areas of instructional needs in reading/math % 10% ,467 79% 21% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand & learn % 7% ,482 82% 18% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 5% ,479 87% 13% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and transitions % 6% ,475 82% 18% know about resources in the school and community for at-risk pupils % 24% ,465 61% 39%

57 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 1 Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report Academic Years 07-08, 08-09, and Institution: College of Education, California State University, Fullerton Date report is submitted: October 15, 2010 Date of last Site Visit: November, 2007 Program documented in this report: Name of Program Single Subject Preliminary Credential Program Secondary Education Credential(s) awarded - Single Subject Preliminary Credential (SB2042 and AB1059 compliant) Is this program offered at more than one site? No If yes, list all sites at which the program is offered: Program Contact: Maria Grant Phone # [email protected] If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact information for that person below: Name: Teresa Crawford Phone #: [email protected]

58 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 2 SECTION A SINGLE SUBJECT CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION I. CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION The Single Subject Credential Program at California State University, Fullerton prepares teacher candidates for careers as secondary school teachers through three distinct pathways. Two pathways are designed for students who have already earned the baccalaureate degree. One pathway serves undergraduates with an English major and provides a streamlined approach to receiving a baccalaureate degree and teaching credential. The organization of coursework and experiences in each of the pathways is designed to meet the varying needs of our credential candidates. Further, these pathways reflect principles consistent with the College of Education s Conceptual Framework and are aligned with the Program Outcomes (Appendix A, p. 20). Single Subject Program Pathways Two-Semester 12 units pre-requisites; 34 units in program In the two-semester program, the first semester provides an opportunity for the candidate to gain essential knowledge related to pedagogy in their particular content area of focus, classroom management, lesson planning, and differentiated instruction. Content-related instructional methods and effective teaching strategies are presented in the university classroom and are connected to the supervised fieldwork and student teaching experience. The second semester builds upon earlier competency development and offers additional experience in student teaching. Two Teaching Performance Assessments (TPAs) are completed each semester. Professional Track 18 units pre-requisites; 31 units in program Professional Track candidates have internships (paid positions, at least 3/5 teaching load) within a school district. In the Professional Track program, the first semester provides an opportunity for the candidate to gain essential knowledge related to pedagogy in their particular content area of focus, classroom management, lesson planning, and differentiated instruction. Content-related instructional methods and effective teaching strategies are presented in the university classroom and are connected to their supervised internship teaching experience. Additionally, Professional Track Interns are supported by an assigned Mentor Teacher at their school sites. Both the Mentor Teacher and the Intern participate in a Mentor/Buddy Training Session with a focus on coaching, reflective practice, and mentorship. Books to support this training are provided to both Mentor and Intern. The second semester builds upon earlier competency development and offers additional experience in student teaching. Two Teaching Performance Assessments (TPAs) are completed each semester. Streamlined Teacher Education Program (STEP) - English 12 units pre-requisites; 34 units in program In the STEP program, candidates follow the course and field experience design for the twosemester program as part of Phase III of an integrated teacher education program that allows students to simultaneously earn a bachelor s degree and the preliminary teaching credential. While working within Phase I and II of the STEP program, STEP students complete the requirements for the English Single Subject Matter Preparation Program (SMPP).

59 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 3 Single Subject Program Enrollments and Completers Table 1 provides data on the number of candidates who were enrolled in the Single Subject Program and the number of candidates who subsequently completed all program requirements. The numbers are reported by semester rather than academic year because the program is run in cohorts and candidates may enroll in a fall start cohort or a spring start cohort. The table has been organized to report numbers by pathway. Table 1: Program Enrollment and Completion Numbers Professional Track 2-Semester Term Enrolled Complete Enrolled Complete Active Withdrew FALL SPR FALL SPR FALL *14 14 SPR *63 Enrolled - Students admitted to the credential program this term. Completed - Number of candidates that enrolled this term who later successfully completed. Note: STEP candidate numbers are not indicated separately by pathway; they have been combined with 2-semester enrollment/completion numbers in this report. Future data collection will track each pathway separately. *Candidates are on-track to complete. Program Changes Since Last Accreditation Visit Fall 2007 Table 2 indicates changes made within the Single Subject Credential Program since Following the fall 2007 accreditation visit, several changes have been made within particular courses as well as in overall program design. In addition, changes have been made to implement the four Teacher Performance Assessments (TPAs) for candidates in all pathways. Table 2: Program Changes Since Fall 2007 Year of Program Modification Implementation Piloted Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA) Task Implemented use of audience responders into EDSC 440S, as a part of formative assessment curriculum Increased number of online classes offered for prerequisite courses Implemented TPA remediation support- EDSC Full implementation of TPA Task 4 (in addition to 1, 2, & 3) Created undergraduate pathways for combining a Child Adolescent Studies or Liberal Studies major with a Mathematics or Natural Science minor and credential program pre-requisites to prepare students for entering the Foundational Level Mathematic or Foundational Level General Science credential program (along with passage of required CSET exams) Implemented use of common textbook, Teaching Adolescents with Disabilities, throughout prerequisite and program courses to enhance candidates understanding of students with identified special needs

60 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 4 Year of Program Modification Implementation Implemented Math and Science Meet and Greet opportunity for local school district representatives to a) learn about new developments in CSUF s STEM education program, and b) meet with intern-eligible and newly credentialed CSUF math and science teachers seeking employment Due to budget crisis, changed supervisor units for student teacher observation from 0.5 unit/candidate to 0.4 unit/candidate and reduced observations in second semester from 7 to Piloted Online TPE Evaluation System with Foundational Level Mathematics Program Piloted use of handheld Flip HD video cameras and web-based video assessment tool for observation of student teachers in Foundational Level Mathematics. II. CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT/PERFORMANCE AND PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS INFORMATION The Single Subject Program is assessed through the College of Education Unit Assessment System designed for the continuous collection of multiple data sources, both internal and external, to monitor candidate performance and to manage and improve program effectiveness. Data analyzed to determine if candidates have met the requirements necessary to matriculate through specified program levels are collected at four (4) transition points: Admission to Program Admission to Initial Student Teaching Admission to Final Student Teaching Exit from Program Post Program Candidate data collected at the first transition point (Admission) establishes that candidates entering the program have the knowledge and dispositions necessary to be successful in pursuit of their educational objective. Data collected at the second and third transition points (Key Continuation Points) provide information on candidates ability to demonstrate deeper understanding of acquired knowledge, growth in implementation of skills, and continued development and display of dispositions outlined in institutional and professional standards. The fourth transition point (Exit from Program) provides data for determining whether candidates have acquired the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to be successful as professionals in the field of education. While not a program transition point, additional data are collected from graduates and their employers once candidates become practicing professionals (Post Program). These data assist in determining program effectiveness for educating professionals that positively impact P-12 student learning. As per CTC direction, admission data (Transition Point 1) will not be provided or described for the purposes of this report. The full complement of data gathered at each transition point to monitor candidate performance within the program is extensive. The measures are both quantitative and qualitative and reflect the depth of the program. While all requirements at each transition point (Appendix B, p. 21) must be met for candidates to progress through the program successfully, a core set of key

61 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 5 assessments have been identified to be collected and analyzed for the purpose of noting trends in candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions, and for predictive analysis of candidate success. The key assessments collected at specific transition points are identified in the following chart. This chart includes only those key assessments collected after candidates have been admitted to the program. Key assessments for Transition Point 1 Admission to Program - have been purposefully omitted. Key Assessments Collected after Admission to Program (TP 1) Data Set Transition Point (TP) Course Level Assignments/Grades 2, 3, 4 Fieldwork Evaluations 2 Student Teaching Evaluations 3, 4 Capstone Assessment (TPA) 2, 3, 4 CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data Post Program RICA Scores * Each data set has been aligned with program outcomes and NCATE assessment categories (Appendix C, p. 22). Key Assessment Data Collected at Transition Points 2, 3, and 4 Course Level Assignments/Grades (TP 2, 3, 4) The Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Preparation Programs adopted by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) in 2001 for Preliminary Credential programs require the assessment of candidates on 13 Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs). The TPEs describe what beginning teachers should know and be able to do and are consistent with the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). These professional standards are used to formally evaluate candidates during student teaching however they are also used to guide course content and assignments. They are aligned with the conceptual framework program outcomes, the dispositions expected of all candidates, and as of fall 2007 have been aligned with course objectives on all course syllabi. Course Grades: While not an indicator of knowledge, skill and disposition development in and of themselves, the deliberate alignment of courses and assignments with professional standards and program outcomes allow course grades to be a viable measure of candidate proficiency development at transition points. In the secondary (EDSC) program all courses are graded Credit/No Credit, with the exception of EDSC 410 which receives a letter grade. To receive a grade of Credit, proficiency must be demonstrated at a level equivalent to the criteria to earn a grade of B or better). Graded courses must be passed with a GPA of 2.7 (C-) or better. Table 3 presents the percentage of candidates receiving a grade of credit in each of the required courses in the Secondary Education Credential Program for three years ( ). Mean GPA is provided for EDSC 410 (the only graded course). All courses offered each semester must be passed to move through program transition points. All courses must be passed to exit the program (TP 4).

62 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 6 Table 3: EDSC Course GPA and Pass Rates by Semester ( ) EDSC Course Teach English Learners 440F Supervised Fieldwork 440S General Pedagogy Teaching Secondary 449E 2 Externship Secondary Teaching 449I 2 Internship Secondary Teaching 449S 2 Seminar Secondary Teaching 460 Teaching Assessment Seminar Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 N GPA Pass% 100% 98.6% 100% 96.5% 99.3% 99.0% N Pass% 100% 100% 100% 98.6% 98.8% 100% N Pass% 99.3% 100% 100% 98.6% 100% 100% N Pass% 98.6% 98.7% 99.4% 98.6% 97.2% 98.5% N Pass% 96.7% 98.7% 100% 93.6% 97.8% 96.9% N Pass% 100% 99.2% 96.2% 98.6% 100% 100% N Pass% 100% 100% 98.1% 98.6% 100% 100% N Pass% 100% 100% 98.6% 97.6% 98.4% 99.3% Overall Pass Rate 99.2% 99.4% 99.5% 97.7% 98.8% 99.4% Note: Courses without GPA listed are graded Credit/No Credit only. Pass % = Pass rate based on C (1.7) or better. Future data collection will track each pathway separately. 1. EDSC 410: Summer Grades are combined with Spring of the same year. 2. Courses 442, 449E, 449I, 449S are offered in multiple departments. Disaggregated Tables are in Appendix D (p. 23). Fieldwork Evaluations (TP 2) Candidates have a two semester student teaching placement. The first semester component starts with ten weeks of mostly observations and learning classroom procedures. This process is guided by the EDSC 440S instructor who provides orientation for all Master Teachers including providing them with a midpoint and final checklist of the experiences and skills the candidate should have had by these points. The progress on these along with course assignments related to fieldwork experiences is used as the basis for assigning credit for EDSC 440F. The remaining eight weeks of fieldwork in the first semester is considered a gradual induction into student teaching. During this time all candidates are leading some lessons and being evaluated by their master teacher(s) and university supervisor on fieldwork performance. At the end of the first semester, candidate proficiency levels are rated on the Teaching Performance Expectation standards (TPEs) (Form EI-3: Appendix E, p. 26). Candidates performance is rated on a 4 point scale (1=unacceptable; 2=developing; 3=acceptable; 4=exemplary). An average score of 2.0 or better must be received from master teachers and university supervisor to proceed into second semester student teaching. In addition, master teachers submit a readiness form (EI- 4: Appendix F, p. 27) which asks for candidate strengths and areas for improvement and includes an overall evaluation of candidate to readiness to continue into second semester student teaching.

63 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 7 Based on these evaluation measures, overall satisfactory progress is determined by the program advisor and SecTEP director for candidate continuation. This evaluation is used as the basis for awarding credit for 449E. Beginning fall 2010 the rated fieldwork evaluations (i.e., Form EI-3) will be completed using an electronic submission system, which will allow for the collection of statistical data for future CTC reports. For this submission, the final pass rates in the content area fieldwork course (EDSC 449E) will be used as evidence of our candidate s demonstration of proficiency on fieldwork evaluations. Candidates must meet the criteria for passing on fieldwork evaluations (among other requirements) to receive a grade of credit in their student teaching courses. As shown in Table 3, % percent of candidates successfully passed EDSC 440F and 449E with a grade of Credit, indicating proficiency levels in supervised fieldwork equivalent to a grade of B or better (3.0). Student Teaching Evaluations (TP 2, 3) Second semester student teaching assignments last the entire school semester of more than 15 weeks, and are supervised and monitored by advisors in the candidates credential subject area. As such the department that houses the specific credential program (e.g., Music; Mathematics) is responsible for the evaluations of second semester student teaching. Candidates are evaluated by both the master teacher and university on the Midterm Evaluation Form (STI-1: Appendix G, p. 28) in the first semester, and on the Final Evaluation Form (STI-2: Appendix H, p. 29) the second semester. Both the midterm and final student teaching evaluation measure candidate performance on all 13 Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) and the corresponding California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTPs) and are completed by the master teacher and university supervisor. Candidate performance is rated on a 4 point scale (1=unacceptable; 2=basic; 3=skilled; 4=distinguished) and specific pass rates have been determined for midterm and final student teaching performance. Midterm Student Teaching Evaluations (TP 2): It is expected that candidates are developing their skills during the initial weeks of student teaching and that evidence for rating some TPEs may not have been observed at this point. Therefore, candidates must receive at least a 2.0 (basic) or better to receive credit. Any unacceptable ratings (1 s) require remediation procedures. Final Student Teaching Evaluations (TP 3): By the end of the final student teaching placement it is expected that candidates will demonstrate marked growth over time and will have developed the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to be recommended for a preliminary credential. Therefore, the average passing score for final student teaching is 2.85 or better. Any unacceptable ratings will result in no credit earned for student teaching. Beginning fall 2010 both midterm and final student teaching evaluations (i.e., Forms STI-1 & 2) will be completed using an electronic submission system, which will allow for the collection of statistical data for future CTC reports. For this submission, the final pass rates in the initial student teaching Course (EDSC 449E) and the final student teaching course (EDSC 449I) will be used as evidence of our candidate s demonstration of proficiency on TPE standards. Candidates must meet the criteria for passing on student teaching evaluations (among other requirements) to receive a grade of credit in their student teaching courses.

64 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 8 As shown in Table 3, candidates successfully passed both EDSC 449E and 449I with a grade of Credit, indicating proficiency levels equivalent to a grade of B or better (3.0) in both initial and final student teaching. Capstone Assessment Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA) (TP 2, 3, 4) The California Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA) tasks are designed to measure aspects of initial program professional standards the Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs) and to reflect what beginning teachers should know and be able to do before receiving a Preliminary Credential. Each performance task measures aspects of a number of TPEs, and the four tasks together measure all but one (TPE 12). Tasks are scored by trained assessors including some university faculty (N=13). Assessors are trained by State Master Trainers, Lead Assessors or TPA coordinators and are recalibrated annually. Tasks are blind scored with at least fifteen percent being reviewed by two scorers on a common 4 point rubric, rating performance at four levels (1 low to 4 high). Candidates must pass each task with an average score at Level 3. The four tasks are: Subject Specific Pedagogy (SSP); Designing Instruction (DI); Assessing Learning (AL); Culminating Teaching Experience (CTE). The Teaching Performance Candidates must complete all four tasks by transition point 4 (Program Exit). Portions of this assessment are evaluated at different transition points as candidates move through their program of study (SSP - TP 3; DI, AL, and CTE TP4) Tables 4-7 provide the average score on each TPA task by discipline. Average TPA scores are based on the final scores from each candidate from each semester. Given the high pass rate TPA scores were not disaggregated by pathway.

65 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 9 Table 4: TPA Task SSP: Average Scores and Percentages of Passing Scores (Fall 07-Spring 2010) CONTENT AREA Fall 07 Spring 08 Fall 08 Spring 09 Fall 09 Art Business English Foreign Languages Found. Level Math History Mathematics Music Physical Education Science Social Science N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% N Avg 3.00 Pass % 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 88.9% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 83% 89% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N TOTALS & AVGS. Avg Pass % 100% 97.3% 98.8% 100% 99.3% NOTE: Spring 10 scores were not available at the time of this report. Pass % Percentage of students with passing scores (3 or 4)

66 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 10 Table 5: TPA Task DI: Average Scores and Percentages of Passing Scores (Spring 2008-Fall 2009) CONTENT AREA Fall 07 Spring 08 Fall 08 Spring 09 Fall 09 Art Business English N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 92% 100% 98% 100% 97.4% Foreign Languages Found. Level Math History Mathematics Music Physical Education Science Social Science TOTALS & AVGS. N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 83.3% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 82% 100% 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 95% 100% 100% 96% 91.7% N Avg Pass % 93.2% 100% 99% 98.5% 96.8% NOTE: Spring 10 scores are not available at the time of this report. Pass % Percentage of students with passing scores (3 or 4)

67 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 11 Table 6: TPA Task AL: Average Scores and Percentages of Passing Scores (Spring 2008-Spring 2010) CONTENT AREA Fall 07 Spring 08 Fall 08 Spring 09 Fall 09 Spring 10 Art Business English Foreign Languages Found. Level Math History Mathematics Music Physical Education Science Social Science N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97.3% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 90.9% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 91.7% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 93.8% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% 100% 85.7% 95.2% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 95.8% N TOTALS & AVGS. Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% 98.8% 98.4% 96.2% Pass % Percentage of students with passing scores (3 or 4)

68 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 12 Table 7: TPA Task CTE: Average Scores and Percentages of Passing Scores (Spring 2009-Spring 2010) CONTENT AREA Spring 09 Fall 09 Spring 10 Art Business English Foreign Languages Found. Level Math History Mathematics Music Physical Education Science Social Science TOTALS & AVGS. N Avg Pass % 100% 100% N Avg Pass % N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 97.2% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 91.7% N Avg Pass % 100% 93.8% N Avg Pass % 100% 85.7% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 100% 100% N Avg Pass % 100% 98.4% 98.0% NOTE: CTE TPA was offered for the first time in Spring 09. Pass % Percentage of students with passing scores (3 or 4) Tables 4-7 provide final attempt scores only. Candidates who do not pass on the first attempt receive remediation and have up to two more attempts to pass. The breakdown by task of passing scores on the first attempt for is as follows: SSP 93%; DI 98%; AL 99% SSP 97%; DI 95%; AL 93%; CTE 96% SSP 98%; DI 93%; AL 96%; CTE 97%

69 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 13 Post Program Assessment Data CSU Exit and Year-Out Survey of Graduates and Employers The California State University Chancellor s Office conducts surveys of Initial Teacher Preparation programs. One is an Exit Survey that candidates take upon completion of the program. Another is a survey taken by employed graduates and their employers one year after program completion. Both are administered by the Chancellor s Office, completed online, analyzed, and results distributed annually to each of the 23 CSU campuses. The results provide valuable data on the efficacy of program curriculum and processes to educate teachers who have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to be successful professionals in the field and positively impact P-12 student learning. The year-out survey provides performance data based on employer observations, which is used to validate teacher graduate perception data. Survey results as reported from the Chancellor s Office are based on the total number of candidates that completed the survey each term. As such, the data provided for this report cannot be disaggregated by pathway. Table 8 provides Exit Survey results for each of three years (Fall 2007 Spring 2010). This table shows the average number and range of candidates that completed the survey each year and the average rating and range for all questions combined, based on a 0-3 scale. In addition average percentage and range is shown for the number of questions that received a rating of 2 or higher (Well or Adequately ) and those that were rated less than 2 (Somewhat or Not at all ). For disaggregated results by question see Appendix I (p.31). Table 8: CSU Exit Survey Average Ratings and Percentages across all 41 Questions Year All Questions Average N Average Rating (0 to 3 Scale) Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not At All Average Range Average Range Average 93% 93% 94% Range 80% 99% 79% 99% 80% 100% Average 7% 7% 5% Range 2% 20% 1% 21% 0% 19% Rating scale: 3 - Well-prepared 2 - Adequately prepared 1 - Somewhat prepared 0 - Not at all prepared NOTE: The number of responses varies by question, so the Average N represents the average number of responses received. Cannot Answer/No Response (non-response) results are NOT included in calculations, as they do not describe effectiveness of candidate preparation.

70 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 14 Table 9 provides the Year-Out Survey results by both supervisors (employers) of teachers that graduated from our program in each of three years ( ) and these graduates after one year of teaching. The year in parentheses indicates the year the teachers were candidates in our program. The year at the top in each column indicates the year the results were reported. For disaggregated results by question see Appendix J (p. 37). Table 9: CSU System-wide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation Average Ratings and Percentages across 24 common questions asked of initial credential program completers All Questions Average N Average Rating (0 to 3 Scale) Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not At All Year 2007 ( Program) 2008 ( Program) 2009 ( Program) Supervisors Teachers Supervisors Teachers Supervisors Teachers Average Range Average Range Average 76% 79% 83% 83% 89% 84% Range 67% 90% 58% 89% 72% 95% 61% 97% 79% 95% 68% 94% Average 24% 21% 17% 17% 11% 16% Range 10% 33% 11% 42% 5% 28% 3% 39% 5% 21% 6% 32% Rating scale: 3 - Well-prepared 2 - Adequately prepared 1 - Somewhat prepared 0 - Not at all prepared NOTE: The number of responses varies by question, so the Average N represents the average number of responses received. Cannot Answer/No Response (non-response) results are NOT included in calculations, as they do not describe effectiveness of candidate preparation. III. ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT DATA The Department has established a meeting/committee structure for reviewing and evaluating assessment data, including department faculty meetings, standing Secondary Teacher Education Program advisor meetings, and course custodian meetings. These groups regularly review assessment data and makes recommendations for program and course changes and/or assessment changes which are shared with department faculty as a whole. Analysis of Key Assessment Data Results Presented in Section II COURSE LEVEL ASSIGNMENTS/GRADES (Table 3) Program and Candidate Strengths: The overall pass rate in all courses and across all pathways is from 97%-100%, indicating high levels of proficiency for nearly all of our candidates. This high level of candidate success is viewed as related to the strength of program design. The general design offers foundational courses early in the program and aligns methods courses with field experience courses to provide opportunities to put knowledge and skills into practice. Because each assignment must be completed at a level of B or better to pass a course, courses

71 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 15 have remediation measures that support candidate growth and success. Course pass rates indicate that a high majority of our candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to meet program and professional standards as aligned with course objectives. Areas for Improvement: While pass rates are strong overall, the nature of the Secondary Teacher Education Program with advisors across several departments outside the College of Education (e.g., Mathematics; Science Education; Music) requires that we regularly assess and revise when needed the courses taught by these content departments (442, 449E, 449I, 449S). Monthly meetings allow for frequent discussions and efficient communication of information pertinent to these courses. FIELDWORK EVALUATIONS (First Semester) Program and Candidate Strengths: On average close to 100% of our candidates pass fieldwork evaluations (EDSC 440F). It should be noted, that this number includes candidates that may have repeated the course a second time-- not passing on the first attempt. However, as the pass rate percentages show, this happens infrequently. The expectation of first semester fieldwork is that students will demonstrate that they have, or can develop, the professional dispositions necessary to successfully perform in the classroom during their second semester student teaching. Up until Fall 2010, candidate level of proficiency on the TPEs was rated by master teacher(s), supervisor, and program advisor (in consultation with the 442 instructor) using paper-based forms. As of Fall 2010 this process will be electronic. The criterion for passing the first semester fieldwork is set at an average TPE rating of 2.0 (developing) or better together with qualitative evidence of adequate performance. Areas for Improvement: While fieldwork pass rates do not raise areas of concern, the implementation of electronic evaluations will allow for more targeted monitoring of candidate performance on each TPE. These data will be used in subsequent years to focus attention on areas of program weakness. STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATIONS Program and Candidate Strengths: Candidates complete the second portion of their student teaching assignment with a semesterlong continuation of their first semester fieldwork placement. The program is designed to scaffold and support candidates growth and proficiency over time. It is expected that candidate knowledge and skills as teachers will develop and become stronger across the two semesters of student teaching. Up until Fall 2010, candidate level of proficiency on the TPEs was rated by master teacher(s), supervisor, and program advisor (in consultation with the EDSC 449S instructor) using paper-based forms. Data through Spring 2009 show only pass rates for the student teaching (449I) rather than disaggregated TPE ratings. As of Fall 2010 the evaluation process will be electronic. While candidates should demonstrate at least basic (2.0) proficiency toward meeting TPE standards by the end of their first semester, this is increased for their second semester when they must be able to demonstrate skilled competency at a minimum level of Overall pass rates for 449I show that close to 100% of candidates successfully completed second semester student teaching. It should be noted, that these numbers include candidates that may have repeated their final student teaching a second time--not passing on the first attempt. However, the resulting high pass rates are an indicator of effective program remediation for struggling candidates.

72 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 16 Areas for Improvement: While student teaching pass rates do not raise areas of concern, the implementation of electronic evaluations in Fall 2010 will allow for more targeted monitoring of candidate performance on each TPE. These data will be used in subsequent years to focus attention on areas of program weakness. The department recognizes that recent program changes could affect future scores on candidate fieldwork performance. In fall 2009, due to severe budgets cuts, the ratio of student teachers to supervisors was increased and the number of required second semester student teaching observations were reduced from 7 to 5. While the data do not indicate any significant impact on candidate pass rates in their fieldwork, future performance will need careful monitoring to assure our candidates do not suffer from reduced supervisor support and evaluations based on less observation time. The department plans to return to the original candidate/supervisor ratio and required observations when economically feasible. CAPSTONE ASSESSMENT TEACHING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (Tables 4-7) Program and Candidate Strengths: Tables 4-7 mean percentages and ratings show that on average our candidates exceed the minimum requirement for demonstrating competency on all four Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA) tasks (pass rates range from 96.2% to 100%). These high ratings support candidate TPE performance as noted on student teaching evaluations. Areas for Improvement: Candidates receive remediation and may repeat tasks up to two times if they do not pass on their first attempt. Although results show that the percent of initial scores not passing ranged from 1% to 7%, the breakdown by task reveals a potential program weakness. The highest percentages of initial scores not passing were found on Tasks DI and AL (3-7% and 1-7% respectively). This finding may be somewhat expected given that candidates in single subject programs have deep content knowledge (thus do well on the SSP task) but sometimes require additional support in pedagogical development related to supporting assessment and differentiation for students with special needs and English learners. CSU EXIT SURVEY (Table 8) Program and Candidate Strengths: Aggregate results in Table 8 show that candidates exit our program feeling highly prepared to be effective educators. Across all 41 questions measuring levels of preparedness in content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, dispositions, and impact on student learning, 93.3% of candidates across all three years responded with ratings averaging between (2=adequately prepared; 3=well prepared), with an average mean of An analysis of the disaggregated results (Appendix G) shows that the highest average ratings each year were in the areas of preparing lesson plans and activities ( ), using reflective teaching practices ( ), and creating supportive environments ( ). While not receiving the highest ratings, results on the question related to meeting the instructional needs of English Language Learners was heartening. Disaggregate results show that an average of 95% of candidates responded that they felt well or adequately prepared to meet the instructional needs of English Language Learners (ELL), with an average rating of This has been an area of focus in our program for the past few years based on lower scores from previous CSU survey data in this area. The scores from this report cycle ( ) reflect that program changes as described in

73 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 17 our previous accreditation documents are showing a positive impact on how prepared candidates feel to meet the needs of ELL students. Areas for Improvement: It is encouraging to report that candidates responding that they feel not at all prepared in response to the 41 survey questions averaged just 1%. As a result, to identify program weaknesses the percentages and mean ratings of somewhat prepared responses were analyzed for each question. The highest percentages were found in response to meeting the instructional needs of students with special learning needs, with an average 15% of candidates responding they feel only somewhat prepared in this area. This has been a continued area of focus for our program from the analysis of results provided in previous years. Faculty and appropriate committees continue to develop ways to prepare faculty to better support our candidates knowledge and skills in this area as detailed in Section IV. Another area of concern is our candidate responses to knowing about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and families with 16% of candidates responding feeling only somewhat prepared. This is a focus of two new faculty hired in 2009 and 2010 who teach one of the pre-requisite courses, EDSC 340 Diversity in Secondary Schools. Already new assignments have been created that help students better understand the needs of at-risk students and the community resources that exist to address these to some degree. Another new faculty member hired in 2009 is piloting in an Urban Teaching and Learning Partnership with a local high-need school district that is meant to help candidates placed in high-need schools better understand how to productively and effectively approach working with the students in their classrooms. We will need to work further in this area with content area advisors to continue this conversation beyond the pre-requisite and general pedagogy courses. CSU YEAR-OUT SURVEY OF GRADUATES AND EMPLOYERS (Table 9) Program and Candidate Strengths: Aggregate results in Table 9 show that after one year out from the program, as new teachers, program completers and their supervisors report perceptions of being highly prepared to be effective educators. Across all 24 items measuring levels of preparedness in content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, dispositions, and impact on student learning, 89% of supervisors and 84% of graduates in 2009 responded with ratings of 2=adequately prepared or 3=well prepared, with an average mean of 2.43 and 2.34, respectively. An analysis of the disaggregated results (Appendix G) shows that the highest average ratings each year were in the areas of preparing lesson plans and activities, teaching primary subject according to State Academic Standards, and assisting individual students in areas of their instructional needs in their subject area. Both supervisor and graduate ratings exceeded state-wide results. Areas for Improvement: To identify program weaknesses, the percentage of somewhat to not at all prepared responses were compared and analyzed for each question. Over all questions, two areas stood out for both supervisors and graduates as those in which better preparation was needed. These were: Meeting the instructional needs of learners with special needs Knowing resources for at-risk pupils To facilitate discussion, the following chart notes the percentage of supervisors and graduates that responded somewhat to not at all prepared to questions in these three areas.

74 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 18 Year Percent of somewhat to not at all prepared responses Special Needs At-risk Pupils Supervisors Graduates Supervisors Graduates % 28% 31% 42% % 25% 28% 39% % 32% 20% 29% Generally, graduates perceive themselves as less prepared in these areas than their supervisors report them to be. Meeting the needs of students with special needs has been a focus of the department for the past few years, and while we may be making gains (with the anomaly of the graduates rating in ), it is clear that we have to continue to strive to better prepare our candidates (and faculty) in this area. A new area of concern (and optimism) has arisen in this analysis; the low ratings in graduates knowledge of resources for at-risk pupils. This could be attributed to a general increase in the pressures schools face to identify and better serve at-risk populations. As a program, we understand our responsibility to increase our graduates competency in this area and have over the past few years, through new hiring and programmatic discussions, begun the process of improving our candidates (and faculty) performance. It is somewhat satisfying to note that both supervisor and graduate ratings in this area are improving. Overall, the fact that the somewhat to not at all prepared percentages show a general decline from year to year is viewed as a testament to department efforts (as described in Section IV) to better prepare our graduates in each of these areas. We are committed to continuing these efforts and identifying additional methods to improve our performance and that of our graduates. IV. USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE The following chart outlines activities in which department faculty and department committees are currently engaged, and future activities planned, to address those areas for improvement identified in Section III of this report. Goal Provide adequate support in fieldwork placement [re: change in # of supervisor observations] Increase candidate scores on TPA 2 &3: Designing Instruction and Use of Assessment Remediation Activities 1. Continue to gather feedback at Secondary Teacher Education Program board meetings to identify concerns and proposed solutions regarding supervisor support during fieldwork placements. (began Fall 2009; on-going). 2. Meet with supervisors to determine alternative methods of supporting students given changes in number of observations required (e.g., /phone communication, web-based video analysis of teaching) [began Spring 10]. 1. At regular SecTEP and Course Custodian meetings, examine ways to provide foundational content and work across methods courses to ensure that faculty are addressing ways to support ELLs in content area classes and use student assessment data to guide instruction and improve student learning within different subject areas [beginning Fall 2010]. 2. Provide professional development in supervisor meetings to enhance their support of candidates practice during student teaching on using assessment data to guide instruction and improve student learning [beginning Spring 2011].

75 Goal Better prepare candidates to work with students with special needs Better prepare candidates to work with at-risk populations CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 19 Remediation Activities 1. Continue to expand infusion of special education emphasis throughout credential pre-requisite and program coursework. For example in Fall 2009, the department implemented a two-week shadowing requirement for first semester student teachers during which they follow a credentialed special education teacher through her/his activities on a daily basis. [on-going] 2. Increase faculty access to materials and activities shared by Special Education faculty and department faculty by posting them to the Department Blackboard Site. [beginning Fall 2010] 3. Collaborate with SecTEP Advisors (from content departments) to develop assignments and curriculum content that ensures candidates focus on students with special needs within all content areas. [on-going] 1. Led by Course Custodians, faculty meet in course-alike groups to explore ways to better prepare candidates awareness of at-risk populations; including how to identify at-risk students and resources (including community and family) for working with them. This will included modifying or adding course assignments and field experiences that included a focus on at-risk populations [beginning Fall 2010]. 2. Resources generated from the meetings in #1 will be shared on the Department Blackboard Site. 3. The department chair will work with appropriate committees to identify specialists in this area that can provide professional development to faculty, and/or presentations to students.

76 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 20 APPENDIX A: Unit Conceptual Framework and Program Outcomes Education Unit Conceptual Framework a transformational journey toward educational advancement and achievement Core Values We are a community of educators, educational partners, and students. Seven core values undergird our professional community. We value learning as a life long process, professional literature that guides and informs our practice, responsibility to self and to the group, diversity as enriching the whole, multiple pathways to learning including the use of technology, critical inquiry that promotes positive student outcomes, and authentic and reflective assessment. We aspire to adhere to and model these in all our professional interactions. Through experiencing these core values in their educational journey, we believe our students will embrace and in turn, model them in their professional lives. Based on our core values, our mission is as follows: Mission Statement Our mission is to teach, to serve, and to engage in scholarship. We teach our students to be critical thinkers and lifelong learners. We prepare professionals who improve student learning, promote diversity, make informed decisions, engage in collaborative endeavors, maintain professional and ethical standards, and become change agents in their workplaces. We engage in scholarly work that informs the profession and serve the educational community by providing applied scholarship. Student Outcomes and Indicators After succ essful completion of a program of study, our credential recipients and program graduates are: Outcome 1: Knowledgeable and Competent Specialists demonstrate strong foundation in subject matter or field of study demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field demonstrate ability to use technology as a resource Outcome 2: Reflective and Responsive Practitioners promote diversity make informed decisions engage in collaborative endeavors think critically Outcome 3: Committed and Caring Professionals become change agents maintain professional and ethical standards become life long learners Department of Secondary Education Mission Statement The Mission of the Department of Secondary Education is to develop quality secondary school teachers. We are committed to providing a program that reflects the complex contexts of the secondary classroom and models a professional community where learning is interactive and dynamic. Our philosophy is to prepare educational leaders through a course of study which bases practice upon knowledge of current research in curriculum and instruction. We develop students as life long learners, reflective practitioners, and change agents who positively influence decision making in schools and communities to improve the education of adolescents.

77 APPENDIX B: EDSC Transition Points and Performance Measures CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 21 Secondary Education (EDSC) Admission to Program All Candidates Verification of passing all sections of Subject Matter Exam (CSET) or completion of Single Subject Preparation Program (SMPP) [requires advisor s signature] Verification of passing Basic Skills Exam (CBEST) CPR training certificate Certificate of Clearance Verification of TB and MMR immunization GPA of 3.0 in prerequisite courses (EDSC 310, 320, 330, and 340) Completion of all General Education Requirements; no more than 6 units remaining in major GPA of at least 2.75 in last 60 units Autobiography [faculty review] Two faculty recommendations [faculty review] Passing score on faculty interview [scored by committee 18=2 nd interview] Writing sample (English and Foreign Language) [Problematic rating=2 nd interview] Language Proficiency [Problematic rating=2 nd interview] Admission to Initial Student Teaching All Candidates Passing all credential coursework in progress Consistent attendance of all class meetings and fieldwork Submission of all Master Teacher Forms Admission to Final Student Teaching All Candidates Credit received for all completed coursework [CR = B or better] Passing score on TPE evaluations by master/mentor teacher(s) and supervisor (average 2.0 on TPE rubric; remediation for any TPE lower than 2) Passing score on TPA Task SSP (rating 3; blind scored ) after 2 attempts Verification of English Language (EL) teaching requirement [signature sheet] Verification of teaching Special Populations (GATE/SPED) [signature sheet] Completion of EDSC 410 Exit from Program All Candidates Successful completion of Bachelor s degree Credit on all coursework to date (CR = B or better) Passing score on final student teaching evaluations by master/mentor teacher(s) and supervisor (overall average 2.85 on TPE rubric, with no TPE lower than 2) Verification of U.S. Constitution requirement Passing score on TPA Tasks DI, AL and CTE [rating 3, blind scored]

78 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 22 APPENDIX C: Alignment of Key Assessments with Program Outcomes and NCATE Standard 1 Categories [TP =Transition Point at which data are collected] NCATE Standard 1 Element and Program Outcome Alignment CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Outcome 1 Indicators: a) Demonstrate strong foundation in subject matter or field of study PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Outcome 1 Indicators: b) Demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field c) Demonstrate ability to use technology as a resource Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions PROFESSIONAL & PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions d) Think critically DISPOSITIONS Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions c) Engage in collaborative Endeavors d) Think critically Outcome 3 Indicators: a) Become change agents b) Maintain professional and ethical standards c) Become life-long learners STUDENT LEARNING Outcome 1 Indicators: b) Demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions Initial Programs Subject Matter Competency Exams Major GPA [TP 1] Student Teaching Evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Capstone assessments (portfolios, TPA 1) [TP 2,3] CSU Exit/Post Grad/Employer Survey Data (select items) Student teaching evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Capstone Assessments (portfolio, TPA 2-3) [TP 3,4] CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Fieldwork Evaluations (select items) [TP 2] Student Teaching Evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data Application Process (selected elements) [TP 1] Fieldwork Evaluations (select items) [TP 2] Student Teaching Evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data Student teaching evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Capstone Assessments (portfolio, TPA 2-3) [TP 3,4] CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data

79 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 23 APPENDIX D: Course Rates for Courses taken in Content Specific Departments EDSC Course Grade Point Averages and Pass Rates (Fall 2007 Spring 2010) for EDSC 442 across all departments EDSC Course Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 EDSC 442 N 1 Tchg Business In Sec Sch Pass% 100% EDSC 442M N Teach FL Math Sec Schools Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 91.7% EDSC 442S N Tchg Soc Sci in Sec Sch Pass% 100% 100% 96.2% 100% 96.0% 100% ARTE 442 N Teaching Art Sec School Pass% 100% 100% 100% ENED 442 N Teach Engl Secondary Schl Pass% 97.3% 100% 100% 93.8% 100% 100% FLED 442 N Tchg for Lang in Sec Sch Pass% 93.8% 100% 82.6% KNES 442 N Teaching Physical Educ Pass% 100% 100% 100% MAED 442 N Teaching Math Sec Schools Pass% 100% 90.9% 100% 100% 100% 100% MUSE 442 N Prin+meth Tch Mus/Pub Sch Pass% 100% 100% 100% SCED 442 N Tch Science Secondary Sch Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% THED 442 N Tch Theatre in Sec School Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100%

80 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 24 EDSC Course Grade Point Averages and Pass Rates (Fall 2007 Spring 2010) for EDSC 449E (Externship Secondary Teach) across all departments EDSC Course EDSC 449E Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 N Pass% 97.6% 100% 100% 92.5% 97.4% 93.5% ARTE 449E N Pass% 100% 100% 100% ENED 449E N Pass% 94.6% 100% 100% 93.8% 100% 100% FLED 449E N Pass% 91.7% 100% 88.2% KNES 449E N Pass% 100% 100% 100% MAED 449E N Pass% 100% 90.9% 100% 100% 100% 100% SCED 449E N Pass% 100% 100% 100% THED 449E N 1 Pass% 100% EDSC Course Grade Point Averages and Pass Rates (Fall 2007 Spring 2010) for EDSC 449I (Internship Secondary Teach) across all departments EDSC Course EDSC 449I Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 N Pass% 100% 97.4% 96.3% 97.7% 100% 100% ARTE 449I N Pass% 100% 100% 100% ENED 449I N Pass% 100% 100% 96.0% 100% 100% 100% FLED 449I N Pass% 100% 100% 100% KNES 449I N Pass% 100% 100% 100% MAED 449I N Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% MUSE 449I N Pass% 100% 100% 100% SCED 449I N Pass% 100% 92.3%

81 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 25 EDSC Course Grade Point Averages and Pass Rates (Fall 2007 Spring 2010) for EDSC 449S (Seminar Secondary Teaching) across all departments EDSC Course EDSC 449S Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 N Pass% 100% 100% 100% 97.7% 100% 100% ARTE 449S N Pass% 100% 100% 100% ENED 449S N Pass% 100% 100% 96.0% 100% 100% 100% FLED 449S N Pass% 100% 100% 100% KNES 449S N Pass% 100% 100% 100% MAED 449S N Pass% 100% 100% 100% MUSE 449S N Pass% 100% 100% 100% SCED 449S N 13 Pass% 92.3%

82 APPENDIX E: Fieldwork Evaluation Form (EI-3) CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 26 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (714) FORM: EI-3 Revised February 2007 Secondary Education Cooperative Teacher Education Program (SECTEP) TPE LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY: EXTERN SEMESTER Distribution: Candidate collects from University Supervisor and Master/Mentor Teachers and submits to PDD Coordinator who forwards to SECTEP Coordinator. Candidate should keep a copy for professional records. CHECK ONE: UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR MASTER/MENTOR TEACHER SELF CANDIDATE SUBJECT MATTER AREA CWID Number SCHOOL DISTRICT SUBJECT AREA ADVISOR Rate candidate proficiency for each of the Teacher Performance Expectation Standards (TPEs) according to the following criteria. Detailed descriptions and sample indicators for each TPE are found at on the following page and at Rating Meaning NE No opportunity to observe candidate in regard to this standard. Not enough evidence to make an assessment at this time. No Evidence 1 Unacceptable Few to no indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Little evidence of application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Cannot meet standard even with additional support from master teacher/and or supervisor. 2 Basic Some indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Limited evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required some additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. 3 Skilled Multiple indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Adequate evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Rarely required additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. 4 Distinguished Extensive indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Substantial evidence of highly consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required no additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. TEACHING PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION A. MAKING SUBJECT MATTER COMPREHENSIBLE TO STUDENTS 1B Subject-Specific Pedagogical Skills for Single Subject Teaching Assignments B. ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING 2 Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction 3 Interpretation and Use of Assessments C. ENGAGING AND SUPPORTING STUDENTS IN LEARNING 4 Making Content Accessible 5 Student Engagement 6 Developmentally Appropriate Practices in Grades 4-8, Teaching English Learners D. PLANNING INSTRUCTION /DESIGNING LEARNING EXPERIENCES 8 Learning about Students 9 Instructional Planning E. CREATING/MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTS 10 Instructional Time 11 Social Environment 4 Distinguished 4 Distinguished 4 Distinguished 4 Distinguished 4 Distinguished 4 Distinguished F. DEVELOPING AS A PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR 12 Professional, Legal, and Ethical Obligations 13 Professional Growth NAME OF CANDIDATE Signature of Candidate and Date NAME OF EVALUATOR SIGNATURE OF EVALUATOR AND DATE LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY 3 Skilled 3 Skilled 3 Skilled 3 Skilled 3 Skilled 3 Skilled 2 Basic 2 Basic 2 Basic 2 Basic 2 Basic 2 Basic 1 Unacceptable 1 Unacceptable 1 Unacceptable 1 Unacceptable 1 Unacceptable 1 Unacceptable NE No Evidence NE No Evidence NE No Evidence NE No Evidence NE No Evidence NE No Evidence

83 APPENDIX F: Student Teaching Readiness Form (EI-4) CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 27 Department of Secondary Education (714) Revised June 2006 FORM: EI-4 Secondary Education Cooperative Teacher Education Program (SECTEP) FIRST SEMESTER FINAL EVALUATION AND PLAN FOR STUDENT TEACHING Distribution: Candidate submits to Subject Matter Coordinator who forwards to SECTEP Coordinator. Candidate should keep a copy for his/her records. 442 Methods Instructor University Supervisor Master/Mentor Teacher CANDIDATE CWID NUMBER SUBJECT MATTER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT SUBJECT MATTER PROGRAM COORDINATOR 1. Please describe the candidate s strengths. 2. Please describe areas or skills the candidate needs to work on. 3. Please describe to what extent the candidate is prepared to work with English Learners, special populations, and struggling readers. 4. Is the extern ready to continue into student teaching? [ ] YES [ ] NO [ ] UNDER THESE CONDITIONS: NAME OF CANDIDATE NAME OF EVALUATOR SIGNATURE OF CANDIDATE AND DATE SIGNATURE OF EVALUATOR AND DATE STUDENT TEACHING ASSIGNMENT (INTERNS DO NOT COMPLETE): [ ] FALL [ ] SPRING MASTER TEACHERS: Please identify the most probable student teaching assignment for your candidate. The candidate should be assigned a minimum of FIVE periods per day: THREE classes must be teaching; ONE period for conferences with master teachers and ONE for planning. Subject: Subject: Master Teacher Name First Last Master Teacher Name First Last School Grade School Grade Period Room# Time Period Room# Time Subject: CONFERENCE PERIOD Master Teacher Name First Last Period Room# Time School Period Room# Time PLANNING PERIOD School Period Room# Time

84 APPENDIX G: Initial Student Teaching Evaluation Form (STI-1) CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 28 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (714) FORM: STI-1 Revised February 2007 Secondary Education Cooperative Teacher Education Program (SECTEP) TPE LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY: STUDENT TEACHING MIDTERM EVALUATION Distribution: Candidate collects from University Supervisor and Master/Mentor Teachers and submits to Seminar Instructor who forwards to SECTEP Coordinator. Candidate should keep a copy for professional records. CHECK ONE: UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR MASTER/MENTOR TEACHER SELF CANDIDATE SUBJECT MATTER AREA CWID Number SCHOOL DISTRICT SUBJECT AREA ADVISOR Rate candidate proficiency for each of the Teacher Performance Expectation Standards (TPEs) according to the following criteria. Detailed descriptions and sample indicators for each TPE are found at on the following page and at Rating Meaning NE No opportunity to observe candidate in regard to this standard. Not enough evidence to make an assessment at this time. No Evidence 1 Unacceptable 2 Basic 3 Skilled 4 Distinguished Few to no indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Little evidence of application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Cannot meet standard even with additional support from master teacher/and or supervisor. Some indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Limited evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required some additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. Multiple indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Adequate evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Rarely required additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. Extensive indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Substantial evidence of highly consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required no additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. TEACHING PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION A. MAKING SUBJECT MATTER COMPREHENSIBLE TO STUDENTS 1B Subject-Specific Pedagogical Skills for Single Subject Teaching Assignments B. ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING 2 Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction 3 Interpretation and Use of Assessments C. ENGAGING AND SUPPORTING STUDENTS IN LEARNING 4 Making Content Accessible 5 Student Engagement 6 Developmentally Appropriate Practices in Grades 4-8, Teaching English Learners D. PLANNING INSTRUCTION /DESIGNING LEARNING EXPERIENCES 8 Learning about Students 9 Instructional Planning E. CREATING/MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTS 10 Instructional Time 11 Social Environment F. DEVELOPING AS A PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR 12 Professional, Legal, and Ethical Obligations 13 Professional Growth NAME OF CANDIDATE NAME OF EVALUATOR 4 Distinguished 4 Distinguished 4 Distinguished 4 Distinguished 4 Distinguished 4 Distinguished Signature of Candidate and Date SIGNATURE OF EVALUATOR AND DATE LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY 3 Skilled 3 Skilled 3 Skilled 3 Skilled 3 Skilled 3 Skilled 2 Basic 2 Basic 2 Basic 2 Basic 2 Basic 2 Basic 1 Unacceptable 1 Unacceptable 1 Unacceptable 1 Unacceptable 1 Unacceptable 1 Unacceptable NE No Evidence NE No Evidence NE No Evidence NE No Evidence NE No Evidence NE No Evidence

85 APPENDIX H: Final Student Teaching Evaluation Form (STI-2) CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 29 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (714) FORM: STI-2 Revised February 2007 Secondary Education Cooperative Teacher Education Program (SECTEP) STUDENT TEACHING FINAL EVALUATION Distribution: Candidate collects from University Supervisor and Master/Mentor Teachers and submits to Seminar Instructor who forwards to SECTEP Coordinator. Candidate should keep a copy for professional records. CHECK ONE: UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR MASTER/MENTOR TEACHER CANDIDATE SUBJECT MATTER AREA CWID Number SCHOOL DISTRICT SUBJECT AREA ADVISOR Rate candidate proficiency for each of the Teacher Performance Expectation Standards (TPEs) according to the following criteria. Detailed descriptions and sample indicators for each TPE are found at on the following page and at Rating Meaning NE No opportunity to observe candidate in regard to this standard. Not enough evidence to make an assessment at this time. No Evidence 1 Unacceptable 2 Basic 3 Skilled 4 Distinguished Few to no indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Little evidence of application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Cannot meet standard even with additional support from master teacher/and or supervisor. Some indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Limited evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required some additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. Multiple indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Adequate evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Rarely required additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. Extensive indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Substantial evidence of highly consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required no additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. TEACHING PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION A. MAKING SUBJECT MATTER COMPREHENSIBLE TO STUDENTS 1B Subject-Specific Pedagogical Skills for Single Subject Teaching Assignments Add your comments here. 4 Distinguished LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY 3 Skilled 2 Basic 1 Unacceptable NE No Evidence B. ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING 2 Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction Add your comments here. 4 Distinguished 3 Skilled 2 Basic 1 Unacceptable NE No Evidence 3 Interpretation and Use of Assessments Add your comments here. C. ENGAGING AND SUPPORTING STUDENTS IN LEARNING 4 Making Content Accessible Add your comments here. 4 Distinguished 3 Skilled 2 Basic 1 Unacceptable NE No Evidence 5 Student Engagement Add your comments here. 6 Developmentally Appropriate Practices in Grades 4-8, 9-12 Add your comments here. 7 Teaching English Learners Add your comments here.

86 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 30 D. PLANNING INSTRUCTION /DESIGNING LEARNING EXPERIENCES 8 Learning about Students Add your comments here. 4 Distinguished 3 Skilled 2 Basic 1 Unacceptable NE No Evidence 9 Instructional Planning Add your comments here. E. CREATING/MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTS 10 Instructional Time Add your comments here. 4 Distinguished 3 Skilled 2 Basic 1 Unacceptable NE No Evidence 11 Social Environment Add your comments here. F. DEVELOPING AS A PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR 12 Professional, Legal, and Ethical Obligations Add your comments here. 4 Distinguished 3 Skilled 2 basic 1 unacceptable NE no evidence 13 Professional Growth Add your comments here. NAME OF CANDIDATE NAME OF EVALUATOR Signature of Candidate and Date SIGNATURE OF EVALUATOR AND DATE

87 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 31 APPENDIX I: CSU Exit Survey Data Disaggregated by Question for Each Year At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am... N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale)...to prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for students' class activities % 16% 2% 0%...to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional activities % 24% 4% 0%...to organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 34% 10% 1%...to use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 25% 5% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 34% 11% 1%...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 31% 9% 0% Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0)...to meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 38% 14% 1%...to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect learning % 24% 7% 1%...to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 23% 5% 1%...to get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 28% 7% 1%...to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the curriculum % 28% 8% 1%...to use computer-based technology for instruction, research, and record keeping % 26% 5% 0%...to monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 26% 4% 0%...to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam scores % 26% 5% 0%...to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 27% 6% 1%...to adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 20% 4% 0%...to use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 26% 4% 0%...to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and families % 42% 16% 0%...to communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of my students % 30% 8% 1%...to work collaboratively on school issues with other teachers in our school % 37% 6% 0%...to think about problems that occur in teaching and to try-out various solutions % 30% 4% 1%...to understand my professional, legal, and ethical obligations % 28% 5% 0%...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that leads to professional growth % 22% 3% 0%...to know and understand the subject(s) in which I earned my teaching credential(s) % 17% 2% 0%...to teach my primary subject according to State Academic Standards in my grade(s) % 16% 2% 0%...to contribute to students' reading skills including comprehension in my subject area % 31% 7% 0%

88 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 32 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am... N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0)...to use textbooks and other materials that are aligned with State Standards in my area % 22% 5% 0%...to recognize adolescence as a period of intense pressure for students to be like peers % 19% 3% 0%...to anticipate and address issues of drug, alcohol and tobacco use by my students % 36% 12% 3%...to anticipate and address possession of weapons and threats of violence at school % 36% 17% 3%...to anticipate and address the needs of students who are at risk of dropping out % 38% 14% 2%...to understand adolescent development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 32% 3% 0%...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in my subject area % 23% 4% 0%...to establish academic expectations that are intellectually challenging for students % 21% 4% 0%...to provide opportunities for students to develop advanced problem-solving skills % 27% 5% 0%...to communicate my course goals and requirements to students and parents % 21% 3% 0%...to develop fair criteria for course grades and to explain these to students and parents % 22% 4% 0%...to help students realize the connections between my subject and life beyond school % 22% 5% 0%...to help students realize the impact of academic choices on life- and career-options % 27% 3% 1%...to encourage/enable students to assume increasing responsibility for their learning % 26% 3% 0%...to encourage/enable students to learn behaviors that contribute to future success % 25% 4% 0%

89 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 33 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am... N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale)...to prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for students' class activities % 17% 1% 0%...to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional activities % 26% 1% 0%...to organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 36% 10% 0%...to use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 34% 4% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 40% 9% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 34% 7% 0% Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0)...to meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 45% 15% 1%...to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect learning % 35% 5% 1%...to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 25% 4% 0%...to get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 33% 4% 0%...to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the curriculum % 36% 9% 0%...to use computer-based technology for instruction, research, and record keeping % 26% 6% 0%...to monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 27% 2% 0%...to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam scores % 33% 3% 1%...to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 31% 5% 0%...to adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 25% 3% 0%...to use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 28% 4% 0%...to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and families % 41% 16% 3%...to communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of my students % 35% 11% 0%...to work collaboratively on school issues with other teachers in our school % 32% 12% 1%...to think about problems that occur in teaching and to try-out various solutions % 27% 6% 1%...to understand my professional, legal, and ethical obligations % 27% 6% 0%...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that leads to professional growth % 19% 3% 0%...to know and understand the subject(s) in which I earned my teaching credential(s) % 13% 1% 0%...to teach my primary subject according to State Academic Standards in my grade(s) % 12% 2% 0%...to contribute to students' reading skills including comprehension in my subject area % 33% 7% 0%

90 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 34 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am... N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0)...to use textbooks and other materials that are aligned with State Standards in my area % 20% 4% 0%...to recognize adolescence as a period of intense pressure for students to be like peers % 23% 3% 0%...to anticipate and address issues of drug, alcohol and tobacco use by my students % 37% 14% 2%...to anticipate and address possession of weapons and threats of violence at school % 39% 17% 4%...to anticipate and address the needs of students who are at risk of dropping out % 40% 15% 3%...to understand adolescent development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 33% 4% 0%...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in my subject area % 21% 3% 0%...to establish academic expectations that are intellectually challenging for students % 29% 5% 0%...to provide opportunities for students to develop advanced problem-solving skills % 31% 6% 0%...to communicate my course goals and requirements to students and parents % 26% 3% 0%...to develop fair criteria for course grades and to explain these to students and parents % 27% 3% 0%...to help students realize the connections between my subject and life beyond school % 25% 5% 0%...to help students realize the impact of academic choices on life- and career-options % 28% 4% 1%...to encourage/enable students to assume increasing responsibility for their learning % 27% 2% 1%...to encourage/enable students to learn behaviors that contribute to future success % 26% 3% 0%

91 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 35 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am... N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale)...to prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for students' class activities % 21% 2% 0%...to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional activities % 25% 3% 0%...to organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 37% 6% 0%...to use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 26% 4% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 39% 12% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 37% 6% 0% Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0)...to meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 42% 16% 1%...to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect learning % 31% 4% 0%...to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 23% 1% 0%...to get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 27% 5% 0%...to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the curriculum % 30% 10% 0%...to use computer-based technology for instruction, research, and record keeping % 24% 6% 0%...to monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 24% 2% 0%...to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam scores % 32% 3% 0%...to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 31% 4% 0%...to adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 28% 2% 0%...to use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 25% 2% 0%...to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and families % 40% 17% 2%...to communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of my students % 36% 8% 0%...to work collaboratively on school issues with other teachers in our school % 35% 7% 1%...to think about problems that occur in teaching and to try-out various solutions % 33% 3% 0%...to understand my professional, legal, and ethical obligations % 30% 4% 0%...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that leads to professional growth % 21% 1% 0%...to know and understand the subject(s) in which I earned my teaching credential(s) % 16% 1% 0%...to teach my primary subject according to State Academic Standards in my grade(s) % 14% 0% 0%...to contribute to students' reading skills including comprehension in my subject area % 37% 4% 0%

92 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 36 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am... N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0)...to use textbooks and other materials that are aligned with State Standards in my area % 22% 4% 0%...to recognize adolescence as a period of intense pressure for students to be like peers % 21% 1% 0%...to anticipate and address issues of drug, alcohol and tobacco use by my students % 43% 9% 2%...to anticipate and address possession of weapons and threats of violence at school % 40% 16% 2%...to anticipate and address the needs of students who are at risk of dropping out % 41% 11% 1%...to understand adolescent development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 33% 1% 0%...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in my subject area % 24% 2% 0%...to establish academic expectations that are intellectually challenging for students % 26% 2% 0%...to provide opportunities for students to develop advanced problem-solving skills % 33% 3% 0%...to communicate my course goals and requirements to students and parents % 28% 1% 0%...to develop fair criteria for course grades and to explain these to students and parents % 27% 2% 0%...to help students realize the connections between my subject and life beyond school % 23% 2% 0%...to help students realize the impact of academic choices on life- and career-options % 25% 3% 0%...to encourage/enable students to assume increasing responsibility for their learning % 26% 2% 0%...to encourage/enable students to learn behaviors that contribute to future success % 22% 2% 0%

93 Appendix J: CSU Year-Out Survey Data Disaggregated by Question for Each Year CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 37 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2007 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered in 2007 by the 7-12 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Single Subject Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Single Subject Programs CSU System: Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at her/his grade level % 12% % 5% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 26% % 18% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 32% % 23% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 24% % 12% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 29% % 18% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 32% % 23% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 29% % 18% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 33% % 26% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of his/her students % 21% % 19% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 18% % 15% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 29% % 20%

94 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 38 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2007 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered in 2007 by the 7-12 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Single Subject Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Single Subject Programs CSU System: Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand adolescent growth, human learning and the purposes of schools % 24% % 19% understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning % 21% % 18% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 21% % 17% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 32% % 20% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 10% % 11% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 16% % 10% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 24% % 14% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 26% % 16% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 21% % 14% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 21% % 19% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 18% % 11% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 24% % 17% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 31% % 27%

95 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 39 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2007 by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates, While They Taught in Grades 7-12 Evaluation Questions Answered in 2007 by Teachers in Grades 7-12 Who Completed CSU Single Subject Credential Programs in : Once you finished your CSU credential program in 2006, and when you served as a 7-12 teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Single Subject Programs CSU System: Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at your grade level(s) % 16% % 15% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 23% % 27% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 34% % 40% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 11% % 16% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 16% % 23% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 24% % 33% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 20% % 26% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 28% % 39% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of your students % 30% % 37% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 16% % 20% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 28% % 31%

96 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 40 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2007 by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates, While They Taught in Grades 7-12 Evaluation Questions Answered in 2007 by Teachers in Grades 7-12 Who Completed CSU Single Subject Credential Programs During : Once you finished your CSU credential program in 2006, and when you served as a 7-12 teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Single Subject Programs CSU System: Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand adolescent growth, human learning and the purposes of schools % 18% % 26% understand how personal, family and community conditions affect learning % 20% % 23% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 20% % 27% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 20% % 29% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 24% % 36% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 29% % 33% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 13% % 18% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 15% % 25% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 15% % 23% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 16% % 23% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 11% % 17% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 16% % 21% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 42% % 45%

97 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 41 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2008 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered in 2008 by the 7-12 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Single Subject Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Single Subject Programs CSU System: Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at her/his grade level % 5% % 5% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 18% % 18% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 23% % 25% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 12% % 11% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 12% % 17% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 21% % 29% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 18% % 24% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 25% % 32% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of his/her students % 17% % 23% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 15% % 18% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 16% % 24%

98 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 42 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2008 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered in 2007 by the 7-12 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Single Subject Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Single Subject Programs CSU System: Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand adolescent growth, human learning and the purposes of schools % 18% % 22% understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning % 19% % 23% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 18% % 22% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 23% % 20% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 10% % 13% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 7% % 11% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 17% % 20% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 19% % 22% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 14% % 19% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 21% % 23% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 13% % 15% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 11% % 18% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 28% % 34%

99 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 43 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2008 by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates, While They Taught in Grades 7-12 Evaluation Questions Answered in 2008 by Teachers in Grades 7-12 Who Completed CSU Single Subject Credential Programs in : Once you finished your CSU credential program in 2007, and when you served as a 7-12 teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Single Subject Programs CSU System: Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at your grade level(s) % 3% % 12% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 23% % 25% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 35% % 39% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 6% % 13% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 17% % 20% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 18% % 28% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 11% % 21% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 25% % 38% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of your students % 27% % 37% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 14% % 19% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 19% % 25%

100 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 44 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2008 by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates, While They Taught in Grades 7-12 Evaluation Questions Answered in 2008 by Teachers in Grades 7-12 Who Completed CSU Single Subject Credential Programs During : Once you finished your CSU credential program in 2007, and when you served as a 7-12 teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Single Subject Programs CSU System: Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand adolescent growth, human learning and the purposes of schools % 13% % 23% understand how personal, family and community conditions affect learning % 15% % 19% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 20% % 24% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 21% % 26% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 17% % 30% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 15% % 28% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 9% % 18% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 12% % 23% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 10% % 20% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 13% % 21% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 6% % 15% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 13% % 19% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 39% % 43%

101 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 45 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2009 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered in 2009 by the 7-12 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Single Subject Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Single Subject Programs CSU System: Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at her/his grade level % 7% % 6% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 16% % 17% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 21% % 23% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 8% % 11% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 14% % 17% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 12% % 23% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 8% % 18% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 14% % 27% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of his/her students % 14% % 20% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 8% % 15% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 13% % 20%

102 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 46 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2009 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered in 2009 by the 7-12 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Single Subject Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Single Subject Programs CSU System: Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand adolescent growth, human learning and the purposes of schools % 8% % 17% understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning % 8% % 18% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 11% % 17% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 13% % 19% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 9% % 10% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 5% % 8% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 9% % 17% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 8% % 17% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 7% % 15% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 12% % 19% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 6% % 11% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 12% % 16% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 20% % 29%

103 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 47 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2009 by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates, While They Taught in Grades 7-12 Evaluation Questions Answered in 2009 by Teachers in Grades 7-12 Who Completed CSU Single Subject Credential Programs in : Once you finished your CSU credential program in 2008, and when you served as a 7-12 teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Single Subject Programs CSU System: Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at your grade level(s) % 10% % 15% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 14% % 26% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 30% % 38% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 6% % 15% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 14% % 22% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 12% % 26% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 12% % 19% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 32% % 38% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of your students % 21% % 36% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 15% % 22% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 21% % 28%

104 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Single Subject - 48 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Single Subject Teaching Credential Programs During , as Evaluated in 2009 by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates, While They Taught in Grades 7-12 Evaluation Questions Answered in 2009 by Teachers in Grades 7-12 Who Completed CSU Single Subject Credential Programs During : Once you finished your CSU credential program in 2008, and when you served as a 7-12 teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Single Subject Programs CSU System: Single Subject Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand adolescent growth, human learning and the purposes of schools % 16% % 24% understand how personal, family and community conditions affect learning % 14% % 21% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 17% % 23% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 17% % 28% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 14% % 32% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 10% % 31% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 11% % 18% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 19% % 26% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 9% % 20% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 19% % 22% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 9% % 16% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 15% % 21% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 29% % 44%

105 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 1 Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report Academic Years 07-08, 08-09, and Institution: College of Education, California State University, Fullerton Date report is submitted: October 15, 2010 Date of last Site Visit: November 2007 Program documented in this report: Name of Program - Special Education Credential(s) awarded - Level I Education Specialist in Mild/Moderate, Moderate/Severe, and Early Childhood, Level II Education Specialist in Mild/Moderate, Moderate/Severe, and Early Childhood, Resource Specialist Certificate, Early Childhood Certificate Is this program offered at more than one site? Yes No X If yes, list all sites at which the program is offered: Program Contact: Dr. Melinda Pierson Phone #: [email protected] If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact information for that person below: Name: Teresa Crawford Phone #: [email protected]

106 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 2 SECTION A EDUCATION SPECIALIST CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION I. CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION The Education Specialist Credential Program at California State University, Fullerton prepares teacher candidates for careers as special education teachers through three pathways dependent on credential objective. One pathway is designed for traditional students who have already earned the baccalaureate degree. A second pathway serves undergraduates and provides a streamlined approach to receiving a baccalaureate degree and teaching credential. And a third pathway is an alternative program designed for intern teachers. The organization of coursework and experiences in each of the pathways is designed to meet the varying needs of our credential candidates. Further, these three pathways reflect principles consistent with our Unit s Conceptual Framework and are aligned with the Unit s and Program Outcomes (Appendix A, p. 30). Education Specialist Program Pathways Preliminary Level I Education Specialist Credential Traditional The Traditional Level I Education Specialist Program for Mild/Moderate (M/M), Moderate/Severe (M/S), and Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) can be completed in twelve months if the nine units of prerequisite courses have been completed prior to admission. Candidates complete courses in foundations and methods in general education with an emphasis in special education during their first semester and then complete the second semester coursework which focuses on assessment and methodology needed for Education Specialists. Candidates complete two semesters of student teaching one in a general education setting and one in a special education setting. Streamlined Teacher Education Program (STEP) This program is designed for freshmen planning to be teachers. Students in the Streamlined Teacher Education Program (STEP) combine their bachelor's degree requirements with credential program courses to earn both the degree and the preliminary credential in an efficient, well-planned program. For a special education credential, one additional semester is required. Students in STEP complete the requirements for the bachelor's degree in either Child and Adolescent Development or Liberal Studies and the requirements for a Professional (preliminary) Education Specialist Credential (for teaching special education). Professional Level II Education Specialist Credential Traditional The Professional Level II Education Specialist Credential Program for Mild/Moderate, Moderate/Severe, and Early Childhood Special Education includes 24 units, 18 of which may apply to the MSE Concentration in Special Education. Two courses support the development and review of the Level II Professional Induction Plan; another allows university credit for professional development/induction activities. The remaining courses address health and safety issues, use of educational technologies to support teaching and learning, methodologies for research, and current issues and trends in special education.

107 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 3 Integrated Level I and Level II Credential Intern The Education Specialist Internship Program is a rigorous two-year program that results in a Clear Education Specialist Credential. It is designed for persons who are employed in teaching positions. Often, when persons in our credential programs receive a job offer from a school district, they choose to become an intern. Others enroll as interns when they have been placed in an environment where they already work with children in a special education setting. Typically, interns are second career candidates who already possess a credential in general education. In the Education Specialist Internship program, candidates do not receive a preliminary clear credential. Instead, they bypass that step and finish the program with a clear credential. Education Specialist Program Enrollments and Completers Tables 1-3 provide data on the number of candidates who were enrolled in the Education Specialist Program each semester and the number of those candidates that completed all program requirements and were recommended for a credential by May 2010 (spring). Candidates recommended after May 2010 are not included in completer counts. Numbers in the completed columns indicate that of those enrolled that term, that many completed by May In some cases this count is zero (0), which indicates none have yet completed; however they remain on track to complete in a future semester (post spring 2010) or, in some cases, may have withdrawn from the program. Enrolled = Students admitted to the credential program this term. Completed = Number of candidates that enrolled this term who were recommended for a credential by May Table 1: Program Enrollment and Completion Numbers for Mild/Moderate Candidates Level I Traditional and STEP Level II Traditional Level I & II Combined Intern Pathway/Semester Enrolled Completed Enrolled Completed Enrolled Completed Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Table 2: Program Enrollment and Completion Numbers for Moderate/Severe Candidates Pathway/Semester Level I Traditional and STEP Level II Traditional Level I & II Combined Intern Enrolled Completed Enrolled Completed Enrolled Completed Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring

108 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 4 Table 3: Program Enrollment and Completion Numbers for Early Childhood Special Education Candidates Pathway/Semester Level I Traditional and STEP Level II Traditional Level I & II Combined Intern Enrolled Completed Enrolled Completed Enrolled Completed Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Program Changes Since Last Accreditation Visit Fall 2007 Table 4 indicates changes made within the Education Specialist Program since Following the fall 2007 accreditation visit, several changes have been made to particular courses within the program, as well as in overall program design. Table 4: Program Changes Since Fall 2007 Year of Program Modification Implementation Changed department from admissions coordinator to program coordinator-led to model Added online candidate disposition evaluations by supervisors to fieldwork Began the use of online student teacher competency evaluations by supervisors Due to budget cuts, the department adjusted the supervisor to student teacher ratio from 2-1 to Transcript review by the Fieldwork Coordinator and Program Coordinator in each fieldwork block students are stopped from proceeding to the next level of coursework if specific courses are not completed Aligned required grade point average for completion to the college and CTC standard of Added Autism Authorization for those with existing LH or MM credentials II. CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT/PERFORMANCE AND PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS INFORMATION Each credential pathway is unique in how it fits into the overall program and the assessments it uses to determine candidate performance and proficiency for meeting credential requirements. This section presents descriptions of the key assessments used and reports data results within each pathway. Preliminary Level I Education Specialist Credential The Education Specialist Program for the Preliminary Level I Credential is assessed through the College of Education Unit Assessment System designed for the continuous collection of multiple data sources, both internal and external, to monitor candidate performance and to manage and

109 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 5 improve program effectiveness. Data analyzed to determine if candidates have met the requirements necessary to matriculate through specified program levels are collected at four (4) transition points: Admission to Program Admission to Initial Student Teaching Admission to Final Student Teaching Exit from Program Post Program Candidate data collected at the first transition point (Admission) establishes that candidates entering the program have the knowledge and dispositions necessary to be successful in pursuit of their educational objective. Data collected at the second and third transition points (Key Continuation Points) provide information on candidates ability to demonstrate deeper understanding of acquired knowledge, growth in implementation of skills, and continued development and display of dispositions outlined in institutional and professional standards. The fourth transition point (Exit from Program) provides data for determining whether candidates have acquired the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to be successful as professionals in the field of education. While not a program transition point, additional data are collected from graduates and their employers once candidates become practicing professionals (Post Program). These data assist in determining program effectiveness for educating professionals that positively impact P-12 student learning. As per CTC direction, admission data (Transition Point 1) will not be provided or described for the purposes of this report. The full complement of data gathered at each transition point to monitor candidate performance within the program is extensive. The measures are both quantitative and qualitative and reflect the depth of the program. While all requirements at each transition point (Appendix B, p. 31) must be met for candidates to progress through the program successfully, a core set of key assessments have been identified to be collected and analyzed for the purpose of noting trends in candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions, and for predictive analysis of candidate success. The key assessments collected at specific transition points are identified in the following chart. This chart includes only those key assessments collected after candidates have been admitted to the program. Key assessments for Transition Point 1 Admission to Program - have been purposefully omitted. Key Assessments Collected after Admission to Program (TP 1) Data Set Transition Point (TP) Course Level Assignments/Grades 2, 3, 4 Fieldwork Evaluations 2,3 Directed (Student) Teaching Evaluations 3, 4 Capstone Assessment (Portfolio) 3 CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data Post Program RICA Scores * Each data set has been aligned with program outcomes and NCATE assessment categories (Appendix C, p. 32).

110 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 6 Key Assessment Data Collected at Transition Points 2, 3, and 4 Course Level Assignments/Grades (TP 2, 3, 4) The Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Preparation Programs adopted by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) in 2001 for Preliminary Credential programs require the assessment of candidates on 13 Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs). In addition, Level I candidates are expected to meet the professional ethical and practice standards as required by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). Both sets of professional standards are used to formally evaluate Level I MM/MS credential candidates CEC standards only for ECSE candidates during directed teaching, however they are also used to guide course content and assignments. Both sets of standards are aligned with the conceptual framework program outcomes, the dispositions expected of all candidates, and as of fall 2007 have been aligned with course objectives on all course syllabi. Course Grades: While not an indicator of knowledge, skill and disposition development in and of themselves, the deliberate alignment of courses and assignments with professional standards and program outcomes allow course grades to be a viable measure of candidate proficiency development at transition points. In the education specialist (SPED) program some courses are graded Credit/No Credit and others receive a letter grade. In Credit/No credit courses proficiency must be demonstrated at a level equivalent to the criteria to earn a grade of B (80%). Graded courses must be passed with a 1.7 GPA (C-) and a 3.0 overall GPA must be maintained. Table 5 presents mean GPA and pass rate percentages for all graded courses. Pass rate percentages are presented for candidates receiving a grade of credit in each of the required Credit/No Credit courses. Currently candidate GPA and pass rates are not tracked by pathway. As such the table represents all Level I candidates (MM/MS/ECSE, Intern). Future reports will track and present data by pathway. Courses offered each semester must be passed to move through program transition points. All courses must be passed to exit the program (TP 4). Table 5: GPA and Pass Rates for all Level I Candidates by Term SPED Course 400 Early Childhood 421 Working with Families Foundations 433 Language Arts/Reading 434 EL Methods Summer 2007 Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Summer 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Summer 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 92.5% 95.2% 100% 95.7% 94.2% N GPA Pass% 100% 98.8% 98.5% 100% 91.4% 90.3% 95.0% 97.3% 97.1% N GPA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.97 Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 91.1% 100% 100% 100% N GPA NA NA NA NA 4.00 Pass% 100% 100% 98.1% 92.9% 100% 100% N Pass% 100% 98.4% 98.2% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

111 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 7 SPED Course Math 436 Early Literacy Fieldwork 439 Elem. Student Teaching 462 Practice and Procedures 463 MM Disabilities 464 MS Disabilities 482A MM Curriculum and Methods 482B MS Curriculum and Methods 489A MM Directed Teaching 489B MS Directed Teaching 489C Directed Tch. Infants and Toddlers 489D Directed Tch. Preschool 490 Field Studies 514 Infant Assessment Summer 2007 Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Summer 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Summer 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 N Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 91.7% 100% 100% N GPA NA NA 3.73 Pass% 100% 94.7% 94.1% N Pass% 100% 100% 96.9% 100% 100% 100% N Pass% 97.4% 96.0% 89.7% 100% 97.6% 100% N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98.9% 100% 98.0% 95.5% N GPA Pass% 96.7% 91.8% 95.7% 96.0% 97.1% 84.8% 100% 89.5% 94.4% N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 88.9% N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N GPA Pass% 100% 95.0% 100% 100% 100% 100% N Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93.8% 93.3% 96.2% N Pass% 100% 95.8% 100% 100% 90.9% 95.5% N Pass% 100% 97.6% 100% N Pass% 100% 91.7% 96.9% N Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% N GPA Pass% 100% 97.7% 97.3%

112 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 8 SPED Course 515 Preschool Assessment 520 Assessment in Spec. Ed. 522 Positive Behavior Support HCOM 407 Speech/Lang Development Overall Average and Pass Rate Summer 2007 Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Summer 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Summer 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 N GPA Pass% 100% 97.0% 100% N GPA Pass% 83.3% 100% 100% 93.0% 97.1% 96.2% N GPA Pass% 87.5% 100% 96.4% 94.8% 93.9% 98.8% N GPA Pass% 90.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 94.7% 96.6% GPA Pass% 99.2% 98.0% 99.3% 99.4% 97.1% 96.2% 98.9% 96.9% 97.7% Pass % = Pass Rate based on C (1.7) or better Note: Courses without GPA listed are graded Credit/No Credit only. Not all courses are offered each term. Fieldwork Evaluations (TP 2, 3) Candidates in all pathways are evaluated by their university supervisor, in consultation with their master teacher, on fieldwork performance. These evaluations are completed twice once prior to initial directed teaching and again prior to final directed teaching. Fieldwork evaluations are aligned with program outcomes (Appendix D, p. 33) and the Unit Disposition Statement (Appendix E, p. 34). These evaluations are intended to measure candidate professional dispositions as indicators of potential success in student teaching. Candidate performance is rated on a 4 point scale (1=unacceptable; 2=developing; 3=acceptable; 4=exemplary). Candidates must receive passing scores (2.0 or better) on their fieldwork evaluations to proceed into initial and final student teaching. Prior to fall 2008, fieldwork evaluations were not collected electronically. Therefore, pass rates on fieldwork evaluations were tied to pass rate percentages for the fieldwork course (SPED 438). Candidates must receive passing scores on the fieldwork evaluation to receive a passing grade in the course. In fall 2007 and spring % of candidates (F07 N=44; SP08 N=20) passed the fieldwork course. Beginning fall 2008, fieldwork evaluations have been submitted electronically. Tables 6-9 present the average fieldwork ratings for candidates by pathway for each of the dispositions assessed on fieldwork evaluations (fall 2008-spring 2010). The pass rates for each pathway and overall pass rate by semester are included. Interns are included in objective pathways. Future reports will track interns separately.

113 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 9 Table 6: Fieldwork Evaluation Average Ratings and Pass Rates by Pathway for Fall 2008 Dispositions ECSE Master Teacher Mild/ Moderate Fall 2008 Moderate/ Severe ECSE Supervisor Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe N = PD CE TC MS VL Passing Scores (>=2.0) 100% 100% 75.0% 100% 100% 100% Overall % Dispositions: PD - Promote Diversity CE - Engage in Collaborative Endeavors TC - Think Critically MS Maintain Professional and Ethical Standards VL Value Life-Long Learning Table 7: Fieldwork Evaluation Average Ratings and Pass Rates by Pathway for Spring 2009 Dispositions ECSE Master Teacher Mild/ Moderate Spring 2009 Moderate/ Severe ECSE Supervisor Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe N = PD CE TC MS VL % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Passing Scores (>=2.0) Overall - 100% Dispositions: PD - Promote Diversity CE - Engage in Collaborative Endeavors TC - Think Critically MS Maintain Professional and Ethical Standards VL Value Life-Long Learning Table 8: Fieldwork Evaluation Average Ratings and Pass Rates by Pathway for Fall 2009 Fall 2009 Dispositions Master Teacher Supervisor ECSE Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe ECSE Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe N = PD CE TC MS VL % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Passing Scores (>=2.0) Overall - 100% Dispositions: PD - Promote Diversity CE - Engage in Collaborative Endeavors TC - Think Critically MS Maintain Professional and Ethical Standards VL Value Life-Long Learning

114 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 10 Table 9: Fieldwork Evaluation Average Ratings and Pass Rates by Pathway for Spring 2010 Dispositions ECSE Master Teacher Mild/ Moderate Spring 2010 Moderate/ Severe ECSE Supervisor Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe N = PD CE TC MS VL % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Passing Scores (>=2.0) Overall - 100% Dispositions: PD - Promote Diversity CE - Engage in Collaborative Endeavors TC - Think Critically MS Maintain Professional and Ethical Standards VL Value Life-Long Learning Directed Teaching Evaluations (Student Teaching) (TP 3, 4) Traditional and STEP candidates are formally evaluated by both the master teacher and university supervisor at the completion of their initial (TP 3) and final (TP 4) directed teaching placements. Intern candidates are evaluated only by the university supervisors. The evaluations used differ by credential objective (M/M; M/S; ECSE) and are the same for both traditional and intern candidates within each objective. Mild/Moderate (M/M); Moderate/Severe (M/S) Initial Student Teaching Evaluations Mild/Moderate/Severe candidates (including interns) must complete an initial directed teaching placement in a general education setting. The directed teaching evaluation at the end of this placement (Appendix F, p. 35) measures candidate performance on all 13 Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) and the corresponding California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTPs). Candidate performance is rated on a 4 point scale (1=unacceptable; 2=basic; 3=skilled; 4=distinguished). In the initial placement it is expected that candidates are developing their skills, therefore the pass rate for this evaluation is set at 2.0 or higher. Prior to fall 2008, directed teaching evaluations were not collected electronically. Therefore, pass rates on the TPE directed teaching evaluations were tied to pass rate percentages for the initial directed teaching course (SPED 439). Candidates must receive passing scores on the TPE directed teaching evaluation to receive a passing grade in the course. In fall % of candidates (N=43) passed the directed teaching course, and in spring % (N=25) passed. Beginning fall 2008, student teaching evaluations have been submitted electronically. Tables present the average rating by term for each TPE as assigned by the master teachers and supervisors. Interns are included in objective pathways. Future reports will track interns separately.

115 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 11 Table 10: Student Teaching TPE Average Ratings by Pathway for Fall 2008 Fall 2008 TPE 1:Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction Master Teacher Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe Mild/ Moderate Supervisor Moderate/ Severe N = : Monitoring Student Learning : Interpretation and Use of Assessments : Making Content Accessible :Student Engagement : Dev. Appropriate Teaching Practices : Teaching English Learners : Learning About Students : Instructional Planning : Instructional Time : Social Environment : Prof., Legal, Ethical Obligations : Professional Growth Average Overall Averages %3 and 4 ratings = 98.2% Average rating = 3.35 Table 11: Student Teaching TPE Average Ratings by Pathway for Spring 2009 TPE 1:Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction Spring 2009 Master Teacher Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe Mild/ Moderate Supervisor Moderate/ Severe N = : Monitoring Student Learning : Interpretation and Use of Assessments : Making Content Accessible :Student Engagement : Dev. Appropriate Teaching Practices : Teaching English Learners

116 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 12 Spring 2009 TPE Master Teacher Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe Mild/ Moderate Supervisor Moderate/ Severe 8: Learning About Students : Instructional Planning : Instructional Time : Social Environment : Prof., Legal, Ethical Obligations : Professional Growth Average Overall Averages %3 and 4 ratings = 100% Average rating = 3.28 Table 12: Student Teaching TPE Average Ratings by Pathway for Fall 2009 Fall 2009 TPE 1:Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction Master Teacher Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe Mild/ Moderate Supervisor Moderate/ Severe N = : Monitoring Student Learning : Interpretation and Use of Assessments : Making Content Accessible :Student Engagement : Dev. Appropriate Teaching Practices : Teaching English Learners : Learning About Students : Instructional Planning : Instructional Time : Social Environment : Prof., Legal, Ethical Obligations : Professional Growth Average Overall Averages %3 and 4 ratings = 100% Average rating = 3.38

117 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 13 Table 13: Student Teaching TPE Average Ratings by Pathway for Spring 2010 TPE 1:Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction Spring 2010 Master Teacher Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe Mild/ Moderate Supervisor Moderate/ Severe N = : Monitoring Student Learning : Interpretation and Use of Assessments : Making Content Accessible :Student Engagement : Dev. Appropriate Teaching Practices : Teaching English Learners : Learning About Students : Instructional Planning : Instructional Time : Social Environment : Prof., Legal, Ethical Obligations : Professional Growth Average Overall Averages %3 and 4 ratings = 100% Average rating = 3.61 Mild/Moderate (M/M); Moderate/Severe (M/S) Final Student Teaching Evaluations Mild/Moderate/Severe candidates complete their final directed teaching placement in a special education setting. The directed teaching evaluation at the end of this placement measures candidate performance on the Council of Exceptional Children (CEC) professional standards (Appendix G, p. 37). Candidate performance is rated on a 4 point scale (1=unacceptable; 2=basic; 3=skilled; 4=distinguished). By the end of final directed teaching, it is expected that candidates will have developed the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to be recommended for a Level I credential. Therefore, the average passing score for final student teaching is 2.85 or better. Prior to fall 2008, student teaching evaluations were not collected electronically. Therefore, pass rates on final student teaching evaluations were tied to pass rate percentages for the special education placement student teaching course (SPED 489A/B). Candidates must receive passing scores on the student teaching evaluation to receive a passing grade in the course. In fall % of M/M candidates (N=21) passed the student teaching course (489A), and in spring % (N=38) passed. In fall % of M/S candidates (N=10) passed the student teaching course (489B), and in spring % (N=24) passed.

118 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 14 Beginning fall 2008, student teaching evaluations have been submitted electronically. There are a number of competencies measured on the evaluations within each standard category (see Appendix G). Tables present the average rating by term on each standard as assigned by the master teachers and supervisors (questions for each standard have been aggregated). Interns are included in objective pathways. Future reports will track interns separately. Table 14: Special Education Student Teaching Competencies Average Ratings by Pathway Fall 2008 Fall 2008 Standards Master Teacher Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe Mild/ Moderate Supervisor Moderate/ Severe N = I. Professional, Legal, and Ethical Practices II. Educational Policy and Perspectives III. Educating Diverse Learners with Disabilities IV. Managing Learning Environments V. Effective Communication and Collaborative Partnerships VI. Assessment, Curriculum, and Instruction VII. Assessment and Evaluation of Students VII. Planning and Implementing Curriculum And Instruction IX. Positive Behavior Support X. Communication and Social Networks XI. Curriculum Moderate/Severe Disabilities XII. Movement, Mobility, Sensory, and Specialized Health Care Average Average rating = 3.55 Overall Averages %Passing ( 2.85) = 100% Note: Master Teacher evaluations were not submitted electronically in Fall 08.

119 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 15 Table 15: Special Education Student Teaching Competencies Average Ratings by Pathway Spring 2009 Spring 2009 Standards Master Teacher Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe Mild/ Moderate Supervisor Moderate/ Severe N = I. Professional, Legal, and Ethical Practices II. Educational Policy and Perspectives III. Educating Diverse Learners with Disabilities IV. Managing Learning Environments V. Effective Communication and Collaborative Partnerships VI. Assessment, Curriculum, and Instruction VII. Assessment and Evaluation of Students VII. Planning and Implementing Curriculum And Instruction IX. Positive Behavior Support X. Communication and Social Networks XI. Curriculum Moderate/Severe Disabilities XII. Movement, Mobility, Sensory, and Specialized Health Care Average Overall Averages Average rating = 3.54 %Passing ( 2.85) = 100% Table 16: Special Education Student Teaching Competencies Average Ratings by Pathway Fall 2009 Fall 2009 Standards Master Teacher Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe Mild/ Moderate Supervisor Moderate/ Severe N = I. Professional, Legal, and Ethical Practices II. Educational Policy and Perspectives III. Educating Diverse Learners with Disabilities IV. Managing Learning Environments V. Effective Communication and Collaborative Partnerships VI. Assessment, Curriculum, and Instruction VII. Assessment and Evaluation of Students VII. Planning and Implementing Curriculum And Instruction IX. Positive Behavior Support X. Communication and Social Networks XI. Curriculum Moderate/Severe Disabilities XII. Movement, Mobility, Sensory, and Specialized Health Care Average Overall Averages Average rating = 3.28 %Passing ( 2.85) = 85.3%

120 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 16 Table 17: Special Education Student Teaching Competencies Average Ratings by Pathway Spring 2010 Spring 2010 Standards Master Teacher Mild/ Moderate Moderate/ Severe Mild/ Moderate Supervisor Moderate/ Severe N = I. Professional, Legal, and Ethical Practices II. Educational Policy and Perspectives III. Educating Diverse Learners with Disabilities IV. Managing Learning Environments V. Effective Communication and Collaborative Partnerships VI. Assessment, Curriculum, and Instruction VII. Assessment and Evaluation of Students VII. Planning and Implementing Curriculum And Instruction IX. Positive Behavior Support X. Communication and Social Networks XI. Curriculum Moderate/Severe Disabilities XII. Movement, Mobility, Sensory, and Specialized Health Care Average Overall Averages Average rating = 3.51 %Passing ( 2.85) = 96.8% Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) Student Teaching Evaluations ECSE candidates (including interns) must complete two student teaching placements in an early childhood setting (infant/toddler and preschool). The student teaching evaluation at the end of this placement (Appendix H, p. 42) measures candidate performance on the Council of Exceptional Children (CEC); defining the knowledge and skill base for all beginning special education teachers of early childhood students. Candidate performance is rated on a 4 point scale (1=unacceptable; 2=basic; 3=skilled; 4=distinguished). In the initial placement it is expected that candidates are developing their skills, therefore the pass rate for this evaluation is set at 2.0 or higher. By the end of final student teaching it is expected that candidates will have developed the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to be recommended for a Level I credential. Therefore, the average passing score for final student teaching is 2.85 or better. Prior to fall 2008, student teaching evaluations were not collected electronically. Therefore, pass rates on final student teaching evaluations were tied to pass rate percentages for the special education placement student teaching course (SPED 489C/D). Candidates must receive passing scores on the student teaching evaluation to receive a passing grade in the course. In fall % of ECSE candidates (N=29) passed the infant/toddler student teaching course 489C, and in spring % (N=42) passed the preschool student teaching course 489D. Beginning fall 2008, student teaching evaluations have been submitted electronically. There are a number of competencies measured on the evaluations within each standard category (see Appendix G, p. 37). Tables present the average rating by term on each standard as assigned by the master teachers and supervisors (questions for each standard have been aggregated). Interns are included in objective pathways. Future reports will track interns separately.

121 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 17 Note: Candidates may take 489C or 489D in any order. Currently the electronic system is not set to calculate scores based on student teaching placement (C/D). The criterion for passing is set at 2.85 or better. Any candidate that scores a below a 2.85 or 2.0 is flagged and the Program Coordinator makes the determination for CR/NC based on whether it was the initial or final placement. The system is being updated to address this issue so that the evaluation results can be tracked separately according to placement. Table 18: Early Childhood Special Education Competencies Average Pass rates Fall 2008 Fall 2008 Standards Master Teacher Supervisor N = 9 37 I. Assessment II. Instructional Planning III. Individual Learning Differences and Instructional Practices IV. Learning Environments and Social Interactions V. Language and Communication VI. Collaboration VII. Professional and Ethical Practice Overall Averages Average Average rating = 3.54 %Passing ( 2.85) = 100% Table 19: Early Childhood Special Education Competencies Average Pass rates Fall Spring 2009 Standards Master Teacher Supervisor N = I. Assessment II. Instructional Planning III. Individual Learning Differences and Instructional Practices IV. Learning Environments and Social Interactions V. Language and Communication VI. Collaboration VII. Professional and Ethical Practice Overall Averages Average Average rating = 3.57 %Passing ( 2.85) = 91.9%

122 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 18 Table 20: Early Childhood Special Education Competencies Average Pass rates Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Standards Master Teacher Supervisor N = I. Assessment II. Instructional Planning III. Individual Learning Differences and Instructional Practices IV. Learning Environments and Social Interactions V. Language and Communication VI. Collaboration VII. Professional and Ethical Practice Overall Averages Average Average rating = 3.38 %Passing ( 2.85) = 100% Table 21: Early Childhood Special Education Competencies Average Pass rates Fall Spring 2010 Standards Master Teacher Supervisor N = I. Assessment II. Instructional Planning III. Individual Learning Differences and Instructional Practices IV. Learning Environments and Social Interactions V. Language and Communication VI. Collaboration VII. Professional and Ethical Practice Overall Averages Average Average rating = 3.60 %Passing ( 2.85) = 100% Capstone Assessment Portfolio (TP 3) Special Education credential candidates work throughout the program on the compilation of a cumulative portfolio that demonstrates proficiency on the Common Standards of the Commission on Exception Children (CEC) and is organized around the six California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). Evidence is collected and compiled through all terms of fieldwork and directed teaching. Satisfactory progress on the portfolio as determined by the master teacher and supervisor of each term of fieldwork and student teaching is required for candidates to progress to the next level of directed teaching and for successful completion of the program. The final directed teaching course pass rates indicate the percent of candidates that maintained satisfactory progress on the portfolio (see Table 5, 489A/B/C/D).

123 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 19 Post Program Assessment Data CSU Exit and Year-Out Survey of Graduates and Employers The California State University Chancellor s Office conducts surveys of Initial Teacher Preparation programs. One is an Exit Survey that candidates take upon completion of the program. Another is a survey taken by employed graduates and their employers one year after program completion. Both are administered by the Chancellor s Office, completed online, analyzed, and results distributed annually to each of the 23 CSU campuses. The results provide valuable data on the efficacy of program curriculum and processes to educate teachers who have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to be successful professionals in the field and positively impact P-12 student learning. The year-out survey provides performance data based on employer observations, which is used to validate teacher graduate perception data. Survey results as reported from the Chancellor s Office are based on the total number of candidates that completed the survey each term. As such, the data provided for this report cannot be disaggregated by pathway. Table 22 provides Exit Survey results for each of three years (Fall 2007 Spring 2010). This table shows the average number and range of candidates that completed the survey each year and the average rating and range for all questions combined, based on a 0-3 scale. In addition average percentage and range is shown for the number of questions that received a rating of 2 or higher (Well to Adequately ) and those that were rated less than 2 (Somewhat or Not At All ). For disaggregated results by question see Appendix I on page 45. Table 22: CSU Exit Survey Average Ratings and Percentages across all 55 questions Year All Questions Average N Average Rating (0 to 3 Scale) Average Range Average Range Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not At All Average 95.4% 90.8% 88.8% Range 78% 100% 74% 97% 67% 96% Average 4.5% 7.3% 9.7% Range 0% 22% 1% 25% 3% 30% Rating scale: 3 Well prepared 2 Adequately prepared 1 Somewhat prepared 0 Not at all prepared NOTE: The number of responses varies by question, so the Average N represents the average number of responses received. Cannot Answer/No Response (non response) results are NOT included in calculations, as they do not describe effectiveness of candidate preparation.

124 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 20 Table 23 provides the Year-Out Survey results by both supervisors (employers) of teachers that graduated from our program in each of three years ( ) and these graduates after one year of teaching. The year in parentheses indicates the year the teachers were candidates in our program. The year at the top in each column indicates the year the results were reported. For disaggregated results by question see Appendix J on page 51. Table 23: CSU Year-Out Evaluation of Teacher Preparation Average Ratings and Percentages across 24 common questions asked of initial credential program completers All Questions Average N Average Rating (0 to 3 Scale) Well or Adequately Year 2007 ( Program) 2008 ( Program) 2009 ( Program) Supervisors Teachers Supervisors Teachers Supervisors Teachers Average Range Average Range Average 77% 74.8% 91.3% 65.5% 74.1% 72.1% Range 60% 100% 64% 93% 86% 100% 45% 83% 65% 86% 47% 100% Somewhat or Average 23.1% 25.3% 8.7% 34.5% 25.9% 27.9% Not At All 17% Range 0% 40% 7% 36% 0% 14% 14% 35% 0% 53% 55% Rating scale: 3 Well prepared 2 Adequately prepared 1 Somewhat prepared 0 Not at all prepared NOTE: The number of responses varies by question, so the Average N represents the average number of responses received. Cannot Answer/No Response (non response) results are NOT included in calculations, as they do not describe effectiveness of candidate preparation. Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA) SPED candidates can successfully exit the program through meeting all Transition Point 4 requirements, however to apply for the preliminary Level 1 Education Specialist Credential they must pass the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment (RICA). The RICA is administered and scored through the California Commission of Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) by National Evaluation Systems, Inc (NES). The exam is given several times during the year and candidates can take it any time after their first semester. Many candidates pass the RICA prior to exiting from the program. Test results are reported directly by NES to the candidate, CCTC, and CSU, Fullerton s Credential Preparation Center. These results provide important information as to the effectiveness of our program s reading courses, and our candidates knowledge of important reading content and concepts. Table 24 provides RICA pass rates for all CSU, Fullerton graduates taking the assessment as compared with state wide results. Table 25 shows results for Education Specialist candidates. RICA results are not available, by pathway.

125 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 21 Table 24: RICA Pass Rates Compared to State Pass Rate CSU Fullerton Pass Rate State Pass DATE Traditional Intern Rate % 100% N = 388/390 N = 29/29 98% % 100% N = 380/381 N = 28/28 99% % 94% N = 498/502 N = 16/17 98% Table 25: Education Specialist RICA Pass Rates CSU Fullerton Pass Rate DATE Traditional Intern % 100% N = 54/54 N = 25/ % 100% N = 53/53 N = 27/ % 94% N = 160/161 N = 16/17 Professional Level II Education Specialist Credential Candidates that hold a Level I Education Specialist Credential and who are employed in a Special Education position may complete (if admitted) the requirements to earn a Level II Credential. The Level II program is designed to provide a mechanism for the successful induction of a new professional. The emphasis of the Level II program is to move the 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. Requirements for a Level II Credential include: 1) The completion of a research based portfolio which provides evidence of the design and implementation of an approved induction plan, and 2). The completion of 24 units of advanced academic coursework designed to build on the knowledge base that was established in the Preliminary Level I Program. Candidates are assessed on their proficiency for meeting these requirements at different transition points throughout the program as shown on the advanced program transition point chart (Appendix K, p. 63). The key assessments collected at these transition points are: Data Set Transition Point (TP) Course Level Assignments/Grades 2, 4 Capstone Assessment (Induction Portfolio) 4 * Key assessments for Transition Point (TP) 1 Admission to Program have been purposefully omitted.

126 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 22 Key Assessment Data Collected at Transition Points 2 and 4 Course Level Assignments/Grades (TP 2, 4) The National Board Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) are used to guide course content and assignments in advanced Level II Credential coursework. Course objectives for Level II candidates are aligned with NBPTS standards and the conceptual framework program outcomes on all syllabi as of fall 07. Course Grades: While not an indicator of knowledge, skill and disposition development in and of themselves, the deliberate alignment of courses and assignments with professional standards and program outcomes allow course grades to be a viable measure of candidate proficiency development at transition points. In the Education Specialist program (SPED), Level II candidates must pass all courses with GPA of 1.7 (C-) or higher and maintain an overall GPA of 3.0. Tables 26 presents mean GPA and pass rate percentages for all required Level II Credential courses. Courses offered each semester must be passed to move through program transition points. All courses must be passed to exit the program (TP 4). Table 26: GPA and Pass Rates for all Level II Candidates by Term SPED Course Summer 2007 Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Summer 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Summer 2009 Fall 2009 Spring Senior Educational Practicum 504 Advanced Educational Technologies 529 Collaborative Seminar 533 Issues/ Trends Collaborative Services 584 Trans. Vocation and Careers 532 MM Seminar 531 MS Seminar N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 97.8% 98.5% 94.0% 97.9% N GPA Pass% 96.4% 87.5% 98.6% 97.3% 100% 100% N GPA Pass% 95.1% 89.7% 93.3% 89.7% 95.7% 96.6% N GPA Pass% 100% 98.0% 87.5% 97.9% 94.3% 93.8% N GPA Pass% 96.9% 92.8% 95.0% 94.7% 92.6% 96.4% N GPA Pass% 92.9% 100% 96.6% 100% 96.4% 94.1% N GPA Pass% 100% 85.7% 91.7% 83.3% 87.5% 100%

127 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 23 SPED Course 535 ECSE Seminar 551 Bilingual- Multicultural Sp. Educ. HESC Health Education Overall Average and Pass Rate Summer 2007 Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Summer 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Summer 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 94.4% 100% 100% N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 96.0% 98.4% 94.7% 95.7% 93.7% 97.4% N GPA Pass% 100.0% 90.3% 96.2% 98.6% 91.3% 100.0% GPA Pass% 100% 97.6% 95.5% 92.7% 95.0% 95.8% 95.7% 94.9% 97.3% 1. HESC 558 Intersession Grades are combined with Spring of the same year. Note: Courses without GPA listed are graded Credit/No Credit only. Pass % = Pass Rate based on C (1.7) or better Capstone Assessment Portfolio (TP 4) Level II candidates develop a working research based Portfolio. This portfolio includes an individualized plan for change and professional growth (Induction plan) and is centered on the specific emphasis chosen for the Level II program. Candidates are expected to include a resource file of materials related to teaching English Learners, identification of problems and practices, family attitudes toward special education labels, legal issues in special education, and best practice research findings, etc. This portfolio is meant to cover the entire credentialing coursework and experiences, and is an extension of the Level I portfolio. The portfolio is the main assignment in SPED 533: Issues/Trends in Collaborative/Consultative Services and is evaluated by the course instructor and the candidate s school site employer using a 30 point rubric (Appendix L, p. 64). Candidates must pass the portfolio requirements with an average score of 28 or better to demonstrate proficiency and successfully complete the program. Table 27 below provides the percent of candidates that met expectations (satisfactory progress) as determined by their course instructor and school-site employer from fall 2007-spring Table 27: Portfolio Pass Rates by Term Portfolio Evaluation Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 SPED 533 N Pass% 100% 98.0% 87.5% 97.9% 94.3% 93.8% Special Education Certificates Candidates enrolled in the in Resource Specialist Certificate of Competency (RSP) program are required to hold a multiple or single subject credential and an advanced Education Specialist credential in special education (LH or SH). They must complete 12 units of advanced teacher preparation coursework with a 3.0 GPA and have a minimum of three years special education

128 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 24 teaching experience to receive an RSP certificate. From fall 2007 through spring 2010, eight candidates successfully completed all requirements and applied for the RSP Credential. The Resource Specialist Certificate of Competency (RSP) will continue to be an option for candidates who hold the Learning Handicap (LH) or Severely Handicap (SH) credential. However, this option will phase out as these credentials are no longer being offered as a credential option through the CTC. Candidates enrolled in the Certificate in Early Childhood Special Education program are required to hold a Level II Mild Moderate or Moderate Severe credential. Candidates must complete a 21 unit advanced course of study with a 3.0 GPA to receive an Early Childhood Certificate. From fall 2007 through spring 2010 eight candidates have successfully completed all requirements and applied for the Early Childhood Certificate. Note: Numbers of certificate completers are based on candidates that actually applied for the certificate through the CSUF Teacher Credentialing Office. There may be additional candidates that completed requirements, but did not, or have not yet applied. III. ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT DATA The Department has established a meeting/committee structure for reviewing and evaluating assessment data, including department faculty meetings, standing Credential Program committee meetings, standing Graduate Program committee meetings, course custodian meetings, supervisor meetings and part-time faculty meetings. These groups regularly review assessment data and make recommendations for program and course changes and/or assessment changes which are shared with department faculty as a whole. Analysis of Key Assessment Data Results Presented in Section II for Level I Candidates COURSE LEVEL ASSIGNMENTS/GRADES (Table 5) Program and Candidate Strengths: The overall pass rate in all courses and across all pathways is 99.1%, indicating high levels of proficiency for nearly all of our candidates. This high level of candidate success is viewed as related to the strength of program design. The general design offers foundational courses early in the program and aligns methods courses with field experience courses to provide opportunities to put knowledge and skills into practice. Course pass rates indicate that a high majority of our candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to meet program and professional standards as aligned with course objectives. Areas for Improvement: GPA data reveal no specific areas of concern at this time. FIELDWORK EVALUATIONS (Tables 6-9) Program and Candidate Strengths: On average 100% of our candidates pass fieldwork evaluations. The expectation of fieldwork is that students will demonstrate that they have, or can develop, the professional dispositions necessary to successfully perform in the classroom during student teaching. Therefore, the criterion for passing is set at 2.0 (developing) or better. Across all semesters and pathways the

129 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 25 average ratings, by both master teachers and supervisors, show that the vast majority of candidates perform above the acceptable level (3.0 or higher), with the lowest average rating in any disposition category being In addition, the average scores indicate a high level of agreement between master teachers and supervisors, as the mean ratings are very close between the two groups, which contributes to score reliability. Areas for Improvement: While fieldwork evaluation scores do not raise areas of concern, the department recognizes that recent program changes could affect future scores on candidate fieldwork performance. In fall 2009, due to severe budgets cuts, the ratio of student teachers to supervisors was increased. While the data (Tables 8 and 9) does not indicate any significant impact on candidate performance, future scores will need careful monitoring to assure our candidates do not suffer from reduced supervisor support. DIRECTED TEACHING EVALUATIONS (Tables 10-21) Program and Candidate Strengths: Candidates complete two directed teaching assignments one placement is in a general education setting and one placement is in a special education setting, each with a different set of expectations. The program is designed to scaffold and support candidates growth and proficiency over time. It is expected that candidate knowledge and skills as teachers will develop and become stronger across the two student teaching placements. Therefore, candidates should demonstrate at least basic (2.0) proficiency toward meeting TPE standards on initial directed teaching evaluations and be able to demonstrate skilled competency at a minimum level of 2.85 by the end of their final placement. Overall evaluation results show that 96.7% of candidates pass initial directed teaching, well exceeding the basic standard (2.0); earning average ratings above skilled (3.41) from both master teachers and supervisors. Final student teaching results show a pass rate of 99.6%, with average TPE ratings exceeding the 2.85 requirement. By program area, master teacher and supervisor ratings for final directed teaching mild/moderate candidates average 3.38, moderate/severe candidates average 3.14, and early childhood candidates average Across program areas, these scores demonstrate proficiency on average at a level of skilled or higher. As seen in Tables 10-21, the average scores in both placements of student teaching evaluations combined indicate a high level of agreement between master teachers and supervisors, which contributes to score reliability (Mean ranges across all semesters and pathways: Master teachers = ; Supervisors = ). Overall, these results demonstrate that candidates receive the support necessary to perform at high levels of proficiency on TPE and CEC standards by program exit. Areas for Improvement: Overall results on student teaching evaluations show little evidence for concern. One area of concern are the master teacher ratings in the spring of 2009 and spring 2010 for moderate/severe candidates which were lower than the other two pathways as rated by the master teachers. The Credential Committee at the department level will review this data and monitor future master teacher evaluation ratings in this program area carefully to determine if the candidates need further instruction and support in specific areas of concern.

130 CSU EXIT SURVEY (Table 22) CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 26 Program and Candidate Strengths: Aggregate results in Table 22 show that candidates exit our program feeling highly prepared to be effective educators. Across all 55 questions measuring levels of preparedness in content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, dispositions, and impact on student learning, an average of 91.6% of candidates across all three years responded with ratings averaging between (2=adequately prepared; 3=well prepared), with an average mean of An analysis of the disaggregated results (Appendix I) shows that the highest average ratings each year were in the areas of preparing lesson plans and making prior arrangements for students class activities (83% were well prepared), meeting the needs of students with special learning needs (83% were well prepared), understanding how personal, family and community conditions often affect learning (83% were well prepared) and evaluating and reflecting on my own teaching and seeing out assistance that leads to professional growth (82% were well prepared). While not receiving the highest ratings, results on the questions related to meeting the instructional needs of English Language Learners and of students from diverse cultural backgrounds was heartening. Disaggregate results show that an average of 90% of candidates responded that they felt well or adequately prepared to meet the instructional needs of English Language Learners (ESL), with an average rating of This has been an area of focus in our program for the past few years based on lower scores from previous CSU survey data in this area. The scores from this report cycle ( ) reflect that program changes as described in our previous accreditation documents are showing a positive impact on how prepared candidates feel to meet the needs of ESL students. Areas for Improvement: It is encouraging to report that candidates responding that they feel not at all prepared in response to the 55 survey questions averaged 0-3% in The lowest percentages were found in response to teach visual and performing arts according to California Content Standards with an average 66% of candidates responding they feel well or adequately prepared in this area. In addition, to teach physical education according to the California PE Curriculum Framework averaged 76% as well or adequately prepared with to teach health according to the California Health Curriculum Framework averaging 74% of candidates reporting that they are well or adequately prepared. These are three areas that our program does not cover because we are not required to teach them. CSU YEAR-OUT SURVEY OF GRADUATES AND EMPLOYERS (Table 23) Program and Candidate Strengths: Aggregate results in Table 20 show that after their first year of teaching, employment supervisors rate our graduates as highly effective beginning teachers. Across all 24 common questions measuring how well our graduates were prepared in regard to content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, dispositions, and impact on student learning, an average 84% of supervisors across all three years responded with ratings averaging between (2=adequately prepared; 3=well prepared), with an average mean of After their first year of teaching, results from graduates were as follows: an average 71% of graduates responded with ratings across all questions averaging between , with an average mean of An analysis of the disaggregated results (Appendix H) shows that the highest average ratings by supervisors and graduates were in the areas of adhering to principles of educational equity in

131 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 27 the teaching of all students (G = 87% average, S = 92% average) and understanding how personal, family, and community conditions may affect learning (G = 88% average, S = 80% average). These ratings exceed state averages. A significant area of strength noted by supervisors was in meeting the instructional needs of English Language Learners. In this area, % of supervisors responded that CSUF graduates were well or adequately prepared. Areas for Improvement: To identify program weaknesses, the percentage of somewhat to not at all prepared responses were compared and analyzed for each question. Over all questions, three areas stood out for both supervisors and graduates as those in which better preparation was needed. These were: Knowing and understanding the subjects of the curriculum at your grade level Using computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects Knowing resources in the school and community for at-risk students/families To facilitate discussion, the following chart notes the percentage of supervisors and graduates that responded somewhat to not at all prepared to questions in these three areas. Year Percent of somewhat to not at all prepared responses Curriculum Technology At-risk Pupils Supervisors Graduates Supervisors Graduates Supervisors Graduates % 33% 22% 36% 40% 36% % 45% 8% 50% 8% 55% % 53% 28% 47% 35% 47% Generally, graduates perceive themselves as less prepared in these areas than their supervisors report them to be. It is encouraging that the supervisors see the skills that the teachers demonstrate even when the graduates sometimes do not realize they are performing better than what they feel they are. The department is going to focus on these three areas by continuing course custodian meetings with adjunct faculty who teach these courses. In addition, this will be an ongoing program improvement area through the department s Credential Committee meetings on a monthly basis. Curriculum and materials can be added to specific courses to strengthen the program in these areas. READING INSTRUCTION COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT (RICA)(Tables 24-25) Table 24 shows % of our candidates successfully pass the RICA exam. These results are a testament to the effectiveness of our program s reading courses, and our candidates knowledge of important reading content and concepts. Areas for Improvement: While the pass rates are very high, data reveal a small decrease in the intern pass rate in We will continue to monitor future results to determine if this reveals a pattern and should be considered an area of concern.

132 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 28 Analysis of Key Assessment Data Results Presented in Section II for Level II Candidates COURSE LEVEL ASSIGNMENTS/GRADES (Table 26) Program and Candidate Strengths: The overall pass rate in all courses and across all pathways is 96.1%, indicating high levels of proficiency for nearly all of our candidates. The program is designed to begin with induction plan development and support in SPED 529 followed by SPED 496 where students complete professional development to address their induction plan goals. Students then take SPED 533 in the final semester as an evaluation of their overall competency completion. The additional five courses address Level II standards. Course pass rates indicate that a high majority of our candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to meet program and professional standards as aligned with course objectives. Areas for Improvement: GPA data reveal no specific areas of concern at this time. CAPSTONE ASSESSMENT PORTFOLIO (Table 27) Program and Candidate Strengths: Table 27 provides the portfolio evaluation rates as determined by the course instructor and the school site employer from fall 2007-spring In six semesters the average rating on the portfolio in SPED 533 was 95.1%. Areas for Improvement: The faculty in the Department of Special Education aim for a 100% pass rate for all candidates in all three program areas. The department s credential committee will address this with the current SPED 533 faculty and determine how additional support can be given to candidates who may be struggling to keep up with the demands of teaching full-time and attending credential courses. IV. USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE The following chart outlines activities in which department faculty and department committees are currently engaged, and future activities planned, to address those areas for improvement identified in Section III of this report. Goal Provide adequate support in fieldwork placement [re: change in # of supervisor observations] Remediation Activities 1. Continue to gather feedback to identify concerns and proposed solutions regarding supervisor support during fieldwork placements. (began fall 2009; ongoing). Share with faculty and supervisors. 2. Meet with supervisors to determine alternative methods of supporting students given changes in number of observations required (e.g., /phone communication, Blackboard communication/meetings) [began fall 09]. 3. Program Coordinators discuss possible changes to fieldwork evaluation given limited observation by supervisors (e.g., evaluate in consultation with Master Teacher; require only master teacher evaluation, etc.). Share ideas with faculty and supervisors [began spring 2010].

133 Goal Understanding of curriculum at different grade levels Better prepare candidates to use instructional technologies Better prepare candidates to work with culturally diverse populations CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 29 Remediation Activities 1. Faculty in methods classes are focusing on curriculum from kindergarten through high school in several subject areas. 2. Strong course custodians hold regular meetings with adjunct faculty to support them with training their students in methods across the grade span. 1. The department encouraged attendance at workshops for faculty to develop skills in using the latest instructional technologies to increase their ability to effectively model their use for candidates, and provide support for candidate use [ ]. On-going professional development opportunities will continue to be a priority of the department. 2. The department held one intern meeting per year to focus on instructional and assistive technology to introduce and practice use of educational technologies (i.e., promethean boards, document camera, response clickers, etc.) with our intern teachers. 3. At faculty meetings faculty share the ways they use instructional technology in their delivery of course material and integrate its use into assignments [ongoing]. 1. Faculty met in groups to incorporate foundations and methods for teaching English Learners throughout the program and required a new course, SPED 551, for the Level II credential program which focuses on bilingual and multicultural special education. 2. The department chair will work with appropriate committees to identify specialists in this area that can provide professional development to faculty, and/or presentations to students.

134 APPENDIX A: Unit Conceptual Framework and Program Outcomes CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 30 Education Unit Conceptual Framework a transformational journey toward educational advancement and achievement Core Values We are a community of educators, educational partners, and students. Seven core values undergird our professional community. We value learning as a life long process, professional literature that guides and informs our practice, responsibility to self and to the group, diversity as enriching the whole, multiple pathways to learning including the use of technology, critical inquiry that promotes positive student outcomes, and authentic and reflective assessment. We aspire to adhere to and model these in all our professional interactions. Through experiencing these core values in their educational journey, we believe our students will embrace and in turn, model them in their professional lives. Based on our core values, our mission is as follows: Mission Statement Our mission is to teach, to serve, and to engage in scholarship. We teach our students to be critical thinkers and lifelong learners. We prepare professionals who improve student learning, promote diversity, make informed decisions, engage in collaborative endeavors, maintain professional and ethical standards, and become change agents in their workplaces. We engage in scholarly work that informs the profession and serve the educational community by providing applied scholarship. Student Outcomes and Indicators After succ essful completion of a program of study, our credential recipients and program graduates are: Outcome 1: Knowledgeable and Competent Specialists demonstrate strong foundation in subject matter or field of study demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field demonstrate ability to use technology as a resource Outcome 2: Reflective and Responsive Practitioners promote diversity make informed decisions engage in collaborative endeavors think critically Outcome 3: Committed and Caring Professionals become change agents maintain professional and ethical standards become life long learners

135 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 31 APPENDIX B: SPED Level I Transition Points and Performance Measures Special Education (SPED) Admission to Program All Candidates: Verification of passing Basic Skills Exam (CBEST) Verification of passing all sections of Subject Matter Exam (CSET) [some conditional admissions allowed. Early Childhood candidates exempt] Certificate of Clearance GPA of 3.0 in all prerequisite courses (SPED 371 all candidates; EDEL 315; CAS 312 or 325 K-8 candidates; EDSC 310 and candidates; HCOM 407 Early Childhood candidates; SPED 421, 430, 461 Interns) Minimum GPA for admissions 2.75 Verification of completion of U.S. Constitution requirement Verification of child/youth experiences (two faculty review) Three letters of recommendation (faculty review) Letter of intent (faculty review) Passing score on faculty interview (scored by committee; 7=2 nd interview) Admission to Initial Student Teaching All Candidates: Verification of TB and MMR immunization Passing score on all sections of Subject Matter Exam (CSET) [Conditional admits only] Approved Level I study plan (advisor) GPA 3.0 on coursework to date Passing score on disposition evaluations by supervisor (average 2.0 on program rubric; remediation for any area scored lower than 2) used for General Ed. and SPED fieldwork placements Admission to Final Student Teaching All Candidates: GPA 3.0 (B) on all coursework to date Passing score on disposition evaluations by supervisor (average 2.0 on program rubric; remediation for any area scored lower than 2) used for General Ed. and SPED fieldwork placements Satisfactory progress on field notebook (portfolio) requirements (Master teacher & Supervisor review) MM/MS Candidates Passing score on student teaching TPE evaluations by master teacher and supervisor (average 2.0 on program rubric; remediation for any area scored lower than 2) ECSE Candidates: Passing score on ECSE student teaching evaluations by master teacher and supervisor (average 2.0 on program rubric; remediation for any area scored lower than 2) Exit from Program All Candidates: Overall GPA of 3.0 Complete BIP with a grade of B or better CPR training certificate MM/MS Candidates: Passing score on Special Education Competency student teaching evaluations by master teacher and supervisor (average 2.85 on program rubric) ESCE Candidates: Passing score on ECSE student teaching evaluations by master teacher and supervisor (average 2.85 on program rubric;

136 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 32 APPENDIX C: Alignment of Key Assessments with Program Outcomes and NCATE Standard 1 Categories [TP =Transition Point at which data are collected] NCATE Standard 1 Element and Program Outcome Alignment CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Outcome 1 Indicators: a) Demonstrate strong foundation in subject matter or field of study PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Outcome 1 Indicators: b) Demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field c) Demonstrate ability to use technology as a resource Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions PROFESSIONAL & PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions d) Think critically DISPOSITIONS Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions c) Engage in collaborative Endeavors d) Think critically Outcome 3 Indicators: a) Become change agents b) Maintain professional and ethical standards c) Become life-long learners STUDENT LEARNING Outcome 1 Indicators: b) Demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions Initial Programs Subject Matter Competency Exams Major GPA [TP 1] Student Teaching Evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Capstone assessment (portfolio) [TP 3] CSU Exit/Post Grad/Employer Survey Data Student teaching evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Capstone Assessment (portfolio) [TP 3] CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Fieldwork Evaluations (select items) [TP 2] Student Teaching Evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data Application Process (selected elements) [TP 1] Fieldwork Evaluations (select items) [TP 2] Student Teaching Evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data Student teaching evaluations (select items) [TP 3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Capstone Assessments (portfolio) [TP 3] CSU Exit/Alumni/Employer Survey Data

137 APPENDIX D: Fieldwork Evaluation Form CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 33 DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION (714) FORM: DT-CD Revised March 2007 Level I Education Specialist Credential Program Directed Teaching Experience Candidate Dispositions Directions: Evaluation should be completed by the fourth week of directed teaching. University supervisor completes evaluation with input from Master Teacher and reviews with candidate. Supervisor retains original for submission to Department of Special Education. Candidate and master teacher retains a copy for professional records. CANDIDATE CWID NUMBER Course SCHOOL DISTRICT AGE LEVEL/SETTING RUBRIC FOR ASSESSING CANDIDATE DISPOSITIONS 4 = Exemplary Extensive indicators of candidate behavior that exemplifies the disposition description. Substantial evidence of consistency over time in demonstrating effort toward meeting the indicator. 3 = Acceptable Adequate evidence of consistency over time in demonstrating effort toward meeting the indicator. Multiple indicators of candidate behavior that matches the disposition description. Some examples of candidate behavior that exemplifies the disposition description. Limited evidence of consistency over time in 2 = Developing demonstrating effort toward meeting indicator 1 = Unacceptable. Few to no examples of candidate behavior that exemplify the disposition description. Little to no evidence of consistency over time in demonstrating effort toward meeting indicator. KNOWLEDGEABLE & COMPETENT SPECIALISTS Commitment to Learning: The candidate demonstrates curiosity and interest in learning more about students and content areas. The candidate takes initiative in practicing skills for working with small and large groups. The candidate readily participates in classroom routines. Use of Language: The candidate is diligent in appropriate and correct use of oral and written language. REFLECTIVE & RESPONSIVE PRACTITIONERS Attention to Diversity: The candidate values multiple aspects of diversity. He or she respects children and adults of varied cultural backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, social classes, abilities, political beliefs, and disabilities. Self-Reflection: The candidate reflects on and evaluates his or her own behavior and work. The candidate is willing and able to recognize difficulties or deficiencies and begins to develop potential solutions. Collaboration: The candidate takes advantage of opportunities to communicate and/or work with professional colleagues and other adults. Feedback: The candidate is receptive and responsive to professional feedback incorporating suggestions into practice. He or she is willing to consider multiple perspectives of his or her own performance. COMMITTED & CARING PROFESSIONALS Professional Demeanor & Responsibility: The candidate is prompt, is not unnecessarily absent, notifies appropriate individuals when absence is necessary, completes assignments on time, and follows through on commitments. The candidate dresses appropriately for the situation and wears appropriate attire for teachers in the school. The candidate is poised and professional in his or her demeanor and communication with others. Professional Growth: The candidate seeks out and takes advantage of opportunities for professional growth beyond the minimum expectations of what is required in classes (e.g., attends faculty meetings, workshops, parent meetings, visits other classrooms, etc.)

138 APPENDIX E: Fieldwork Aligned with Unit Dispositions CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 34 Education Unit Professional Dispositions Promote diversity Candidates value all aspects of human development including the diverse ideas, views, strengths, styles of learning, talents, and abilities of each learner. They are committed to the inclusion of multiple perspectives, voices, cultures, languages, experiences, and values. They recognize that each individual brings a depth and richness to the whole that helps develop understanding of individual complexity and appreciation for one another. Engage in collaborative endeavors Candidates demonstrate interpersonal and communication skills that promote respectful and collaborative relationships with families, colleagues and other professionals to support student learning and well-being. In their work with others, candidates model and encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation. Think Critically Candidates systematically reflect on their practice and constructive criticism from others to make informed decisions and grow as effective educators and specialists. In their work with others, they use a variety of formal and informal assessments to evaluate progress and performances, identify individual and group needs, and modify their teaching and/or leadership strategies for program and individual growth and improvement. Maintain professional and ethical standards Candidates understand and fulfill the ethical and professional responsibilities of educators and specialists as defined in state, national, and institutional standards. They display the emotional maturity, academic integrity, and professional commitment necessary to successfully demonstrate these standards in their work with students, families, and other professionals. Value life-long learning Candidates understand that professional development is a continuing process. They demonstrate the necessary skills to take responsibility for planning and pursuing their ongoing learning, reflecting with colleagues in their practice, and for contributing to the knowledge-base of the profession. In the field they act as responsible change agents by contributing to the school as a learning organization to foster student learning and well-being. Fieldwork Evaluation Elements The candidate values multiple aspects of diversity. He or she respects children and adults of varied cultural backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, social classes, abilities, political beliefs, and disabilities. The candidate takes advantage of opportunities to communicate and/or work with professional colleagues and other adults. The candidate is receptive and responsive to professional feedback incorporating suggestions into practice. He or she is willing to consider multiple perspectives of his or her own performance. The candidate reflects on and evaluates his or her own behavior and work. The candidate is willing and able to recognize difficulties or deficiencies and begins to develop potential solutions. The candidate is prompt, is not unnecessarily absent, notifies appropriate individuals when absence is necessary, completes assignments on time, and follows through on commitments. The candidate dresses appropriately for the situation and wears appropriate attire for teachers in the school. The candidate is poised and professional in his or her demeanor and communication with others. The candidate takes initiative in practicing skills for working with small and large groups. The candidate is diligent in appropriate and correct use of oral and written language. The candidate demonstrates curiosity and interest in learning more about students and content areas. The candidate seeks out and takes advantage of opportunities for professional growth beyond the minimum expectations of what is required in classes (e.g., attends faculty meetings, workshops, parent meetings, visits other classrooms, etc.)

139 APPENDIX F: Student Teaching Evaluation Form CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 35 California State University Fullerton College of Education EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST PROGRAM General Education Placement (439) Student Teacher CWID # Block Leader Block # Semester/Year Master Teacher Supervisor Semester School Grade Level Directions: Based on your observations and work with the candidate during student teaching, please rate their performance according to the criteria for each of the Teacher Performance Expectation Standards (TPEs). Please use link provided for detailed descriptions and sample indicators for each TPE. Each TPE should be rated using the following criteria: NE = No Evidence No opportunity to observe candidate in regard to this standard. Not enough evidence to make an assessment at this time. 1 = Unacceptable Few to no indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Little evidence of application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Cannot meet standard even with additional support from master teacher/and or supervisor. 2 = Basic Some indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Limited evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. 3 = Skilled Multiple indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Adequate evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Rarely required additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. 4 = Distinguished Extensive indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Substantial evidence of highly consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required no additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. Note: All TPE s must be assessed by the end of second student teaching placement. Those marked No Evidence in the first placement must be addressed in final placement. Remediation will be mandatory for any TPE marked as Unacceptable on first placement evaluation. Any TPE marked as Unacceptable in final placement will result in No Credit for student teaching.

140 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 36 STANDARDS OF QUALITY & EFFECTIVENESS AS A STUDENT TEACHER A. Making Subject Matter Comprehensible to Students NE Unacceptable 1 Basic 2 Skilled 3 Distinguished 4 TPE 1 Specific Pedagogical Skills for Subject Matter Instruction Understands state adopted academic content standards and demonstrates the ability to teach to the standards in the following subject areas: Subject Areas: Health Math Music Reading/Language Arts Performing Arts Physical Education Science Social Studies Visual Arts B. Assessing Student Learning TPE 2 Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction TPE 3 Interpretation and Use of Assessment C. Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning Including GATE Students and Students with Special Needs TPE 4 Making Content Accessible TPE 5 Student Engagement TPE 6 Develops Appropriate Teaching Practices TPE 7 Teaching English Learners D. Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for Children TPE 8 Learning About Students TPE 9 Instructional Planning E. Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning TPE 10 Instructional Time TPE 11 Social Environment F. Developing as a Professional Educator TPE 12 Professional, Legal, and Ethical Obligations TPE 13 Professional Growth Grading Criteria (based on overall average): First student teaching placement CR = NC = < 2.0 Final student teaching placement CR = NC = < 2.85 and/or any unacceptable ratings

141 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 37 APPENDIX G: M/M/S Student Teaching Evaluation (Special Education Placement) Department of Special Education (714) FORM: ST-SEC Revised March 2007 Level I Education Specialist Credential Program Mild/Moderate/Severe Student Teaching Experience (489A/B) Special Education Competencies Directions: Evaluator completes and reviews with candidate and master teacher. Candidate, master teacher, and supervisor initial each page sign the last page on three copies. Supervisor retains original for submission to Department of Special Education. Candidate and master teacher retains a copy for professional records. If necessary, master teacher and supervisor evaluations may be separate. CHECK ONE: UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR MASTER/MENTOR TEACHER CHECK ONE: MIDPOINT FINAL CANDIDATE CWID NUMBER Date SCHOOL DISTRICT AGE LEVEL/SETTING Rate candidate proficiency for each of the standards according to the following criteria. Rating Meaning NE No Evidence No opportunity to observe candidate in regard to this standard. Not enough evidence to make an assessment at this time. 1 Unacceptable 2 Basic 3 Skilled 4 Distinguished Few to no indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Little evidence of application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Cannot meet standard even with additional support from master teacher/and or supervisor. Some indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Limited evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required some additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. Multiple indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Adequate evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Rarely required additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. Extensive indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Substantial evidence of highly consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required no additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. LEVEL OF STANDARD PROFICIENCY CORE STANDARDS FOR MILD/MODERATE/SEVERE NE I PROFESSIONAL, LEGAL, AND ETHICAL PRACTICES: Each candidate demonstrated knowledge of the ethical standards, professional practices, and laws and regulations related to the provision of services to individuals with disabilities and their families. Each candidate applies the highest standards to his/her professional conduct (CTC Category I, Standard 10) II EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND PERSPECTIVES: Each candidate develops a professional perspective by examining educational policies and existing and emergent practices in relation to fundamental issues, theories, and research in education (CTC Category I, Standard 11). III EDUCATING DIVERSE LEARNERS WITH DISABILITIES: Each candidate demonstrates an understanding and acceptance of differences in culture, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, socio-economic status, lifestyle orientation, language, abilities, disabilities, and aspirations of individual learners. The candidate demonstrates understanding of communication development and communication differences and uses strategies and techniques that are age appropriate to develop communication skills. Each candidate applies principles of equity and analyzes the implementation of those principles in curricular content, instructional practices, collaborative activities, and interactions with families when working with diverse populations of learners with disabilities (CTC Category I, Standard 12). IV MANAGING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS: Each candidate demonstrates knowledge and skills in managing learning environments for diverse learners that are safe and effective and that facilitate positive self-esteem and self-advocacy. The candidate demonstrates knowledge of behavior management strategies, varying communicate in styles that impact learning, and laws and regulations for promoting behavior that is positive and selfregulatory (CTC Category I, Standard 10). V EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS: Each

142 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 38 Candidate demonstrates the ability to collaborate and communicate effectively with (1) individuals with disabilities and their parents, other family members, and primary caregivers; (2) school administrators, general and special education teachers, specialists, paraprofessionals; and (3) community agency and related service personnel. The candidate works in partnership to design, implement, and evaluate integrated services that reflect transitional stages across the life span for all learners (CTC Category I, Standard 16). VI ASSESSMENT, CURRICULUM, AND INSTRUCTION: Each candidate demonstrates knowledge of basic principles and strategies of assessment, curriculum, and instruction that are appropriate for individuals with diverse backgrounds, varying language and cognitive abilities, and special needs. Each candidate demonstrates appropriate use of principles and strategies for planning, recommending services, and implementing instruction, including the use of supplementary aids, services, and technology for individuals with disabilities (CTC Standard I, Standard 17). SPECIALIST STANDARDS FOR MILD/MODERATE/SEVERE NE VII ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION OF STUDENTS: Each candidate demonstrates knowledge and skills related to using and communicating the results of a variety of individualized assessment and evaluation approaches appropriate for students with mild/moderate/severe disabilities. Each candidate is able to make appropriate educational decisions on the basis of a variety of non-biased, standardized and non-standardized techniques, instruments and processes that are functional, curriculum-referenced, performance-based, and appropriate to the diverse needs of individual students. Candidates utilize these approaches to assess the developmental, academic, behavior, social, communication, vocational, and community life skills needs of students and the outcomes of instruction (Category III, Standard 22) 1. Uses criterion referenced testing to plan for and evaluate all students in the classroom. a. Implements Task Analysis as evaluative instruments. 2. Implements functional assessments to ascertain performance leveling all domains of learning (must include but not be limited to domestic, vocational, recreation/leisure, community, self-help, speech/communication, functional academics) 3. Selects an appropriate standardized/formalized testing pool and implement with a target student to determine current needs. Will use tools that will contribute to determining appropriate curricula. 4. Conducts informal assessments such as checklists and interviews to gather information from family/significant others. a. Conducts Significant Other Interview with parents, or family, or surrogate family. b. Conducts a MAPS (Making an Action Plan) session to evaluate peers and significant others assessments. 5. Selects and implement other informal tools of assessment such as interviews with other pertinent personnel, review of case files, observation. 6. Completes an Ecological Inventory for a target student. 7. Interprets test results. 8. Uses test results to determine program objectives and skill level starting point. 9. Communicates test results to significant others. 10. Develops and implement ongoing assessment measures to evaluate progress. 11. Uses these data to determine efficacy of program. 12. Uses error analysis measures to make program modifications. SPECIALIST STANDARDS FOR MILD/MODERATE/SEVERE NE VII PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION: Each candidate will demonstrate knowledge and skills in selecting curricula and using instructional strategies to meet the diverse earning characteristics of students with mild/moderate/severe disabilities across an array of environments and activities. Each candidate utilizes assessment data to collaboratively develop IEP goals, objectives, adaptations, and instructional plans. The instructional plans are responsive to the unique needs of the student, general education settings, and the core curriculum, and are implemented and adjusted systematically to promote maximum learning and generalization (Category III, Standard 23). 1. Uses data from assessments to collectively complete the Individualized Education Plans and Individualized Transition Plans that reflect life-span needs. a. IEPs and ITPs are developed that reflect age-appropriate functional curricula. b. Writes long and short term observable, measurable, behavior objectives based on Mage s three components: condition, behavior, and criterion. c. Objectives are stated in positive, accelerative language. Behaviors must be increased. d. Objectives reflect inclusive practices. e. IEPs and ITPs incorporate objectives regarding generalization and maintenance of acquired skills and knowledge. f. ITPs are developed to reflect life-span needs and transitions within settings, across settings, and from year to year. 2. Communicates assessment information, reporting pupil progress, and mutual educational concerns to parents, other appropriate professionals, and agencies

143 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 39 effectively. 3. Plans and designs programs to include generalization across a variety of settings, people, and events, using a multiple exemplar stimulus and response generalization strategy. 4. Competes Ecological Inventory to determine relevant curricula content in all domains of learning (must include but not be limited to domestic, vocational, recreation/leisure, community, self-help, speech/communication, functional academics). 5. Plans instruction for acquisition and generalization based on IEP/ITP objective sin al domains of learning (must include but not be limited to domestic, vocational, recreation/leisure, community, self-help, speech/communication, functional academics). 6. Develops and implements Task Analyses (TA) to assess baseline levels of performance on those objectives indicated by IEPs. 7. Develops and implements Student Repertoire Inventory for each TA. a. Constructs TA for each objective on the IEP. b. All TAs are written in the form of Content and Process Analysis. c. Conducts Student Repertoire Inventory (SRI) to determine age appropriate target level of performance and to determine needed adaptations. d. Conducts baseline data for each TA for o less than one day and no more than three. e. Uses baseline data collected from TAs to determine prompt hierarchy and teaching level for each individual student. 8. Demonstrates an understanding of stimulus control through program development and instructional methodology in all instructional settings. a. Teaches to natural cues or fades any necessary cues to natural cues. b. Teaches in natural contexts. c. Uses a prompt hierarchy that is tailored to meet individual needs (shaping or fading; most to least or least to most) d. Uses functional reinforcers. e. uses dense schedules of reinforcement during acquisition phases of learning, fades reinforcement as acquisition occurs. f. Demonstrates clear delineation between prompts and reinforcement. g. Makes use of all learning opportunities. 9. Uses research-based and effective teaching practices that achieve targeted student outcomes. 10. Uses student outcome data to systematically modify, supplement, or adapt instructional and learning environments. Continues to collect data for each Task Analysis and uses these data to determine efficacy of the TA and instructional methods. If student is succeeding and meets criteria, TA is concluded and new TAs developed. If student is failing, TA methods of instruction are analyzed and revised. a. Based on baseline data, progress data, and expected target success, sets aim line and insures that student responses remain on or above aim line. If student falls too far below aim line, this is an indication that program changes must be made, and candidate makes modifications accordingly. 11. Uses a variety of peer-mediated and group instructional strategies to facilitate active participation and learning of diverse groups of learners. a. Candidate teaches same-age non-disabled peers to provide direct instruction in a variety of contexts. 12. Implements, modifies, and monitors instructional programs of individual students across a range of instructional settings. a. Implements all programs to generate generalized skills using a multiple exemplar stimulus and response generalization model (e.g. generalization across items, people, and settings). SPECIALIST STANDARDS FOR MILD/MODERATE/SEVERE NE IX POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT: Each candidate demonstrates competence in establishing and maintaining an educational environment that is free from coercion and punishment and where interventions are positive, proactive, and respectful of students. Each candidate demonstrates the ability to design and implement positive behavior support plans and interventions based on functional analysis assessments (Category III, Standard 24). 1. Describes basic technology of operant principles: reinforcement (positive and negative) and punishment, stimulus control, stimulus discrimination, and stimulus generalization. 2. Demonstrates an understanding of these basic principles by describing application of these principles in the literature. 3. Describes difficult or challenging behaviors and identifies them as they occur in the classroom or community. 4. Prepares an operational definition of a difficult or challenging behavior. 5. Implements basic tools of observing and recording behavior (ABC Chart, frequency counts, interval recording, and Scatter Plot). 6. Describes basic applied procedures typically implemented to decrease challenging behavior (Differential reinforcement of Other Behavior DRO, DRA, DRL).

144 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education Describes basic aversion procedures typically implemented to decrease challenging behavior (Time0out, response costing, overcorrection, verbal reprimands). 8. Reviews the literature and consolidates to demonstrate discrimination between aversive and nonaversive interventions implemented to decrease challenging behavior. 9. Reviews the current literature which argues in favor of the use of aversive intervention. 10. Describes the current laws which mandate against the use of aversion intervention. 11. Assesses quality of life variables for target students. 12. Based on results of assessment, designs modifications in ecological or environmental factors that will reduce the likelihood of the challenging behavior, or prevent the challenging behavior from occurring. 13. Describes the four main motivations underlying challenging behaviors and how challenging behavior serves a communication function. 14. Administers the following instruments to perform a functional assessment of challenging behaviors, including Scatter Plot, ABC, Significant Other Interview, Behavior Map, Communicative Functions Analysis, Motivation Assessment Scale, quantitative data collection, ecological and leaning style inventories. 15. Based on results of data collection, summarizes and analyzes data in written form. 16. Generates hypotheses based on data results. 17. Tests hypotheses with target student. 18. Designs and implements a positive behavior support strategy for reducing challenging behavior in all five of the following areas: (1) life style enhancement, stimulus change, or setting modifications; (2) new, efficient, functionally equivalent replacement behavior; (3) positive consequences; (4) emergency management; and (5)? 19. Applies a positive behavior support approach in contexts of the general education classroom and community settings. 20. Applies positive behavior support to students with mild to moderate disabilities, students with moderate to severe disabilities, and students with no know disability or students who are at risk. SPECIALIST STANDARDS FOR MILD/MODERATE/SEVERE NE X COMMUNICATION AND SOCIAL NETWORKS: Each candidate collaborates with others to facilitate each student s ability to effectively communicate and increase the extent and variety of social interactions to achieve meaningful social relationships. This includes assessment of verbal and non-verbal communication abilities and needs, identification of effective intervention techniques, development of needed augmentation systems social skill instruction, and creating opportunities for interaction (Category III, Standard 25). 1. students with critical social and communication skills that will enable them to develop meaningful social experiences and social networks in their lives. 2. Assesses current verbal and non-verbal communication skills. 3. Assesses communication and social interaction interests to conduct assessments to evaluate needs of students. 4. Assesses a variety of environments for opportunities to facilitate students social interactions with typical peers. a. Conducts the Communication interview with family or significant others. b. Conducts formal augmentative communication assessment. c. Conducts a Reinforcer Survey. d. Conducts a Quality of Life Questionnaire to determine current opportunities to participate with non-disabled peers and to determine current opportunities for choice making and self-advocacy. e. Conducts the Motivation Assessment Scale to determine tangible, sensory, social affiliation, and escape needs. 5. Uses outcome data to determine appropriate mode of communication curriculum (verbal or non-verbal, augmentative systems). 6. Implements strategies, techniques, and technology (high and low) to enhance effective communication in a variety of settings (including school, home, community, and regular education). 7. Teaches interpersonal skills that promote social acceptance and decrease the probability of challenging behavior. a. Implements Incidental Teaching methods to generate communicative responses. b. Implements discrete trial and massed trial strategies to concentrate on difficult-toacquire responses. Incorporates these responses into the context of generalizable response repertoires. c. uses non-disabled peers as role models to generate generalizable communicative interactions. d. Identifies and instructs functional communication skills that generalize to broad variety of contexts, such as requesting assistance, making social greetings to peers or adults, or asking to be excused from a difficult or tedious task. 8. Teaches communication skills that provide for choice making, independence, selfmanagement, and self-advocacy. a. Communication training sessions include strategies for generating independent,

145 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 41 self-management, and self-advocacy responses. 9. Schedule reflects times across the day when instruction for choice making is implemented. a. After completing assessment, meets with team to determine needs and ensures that objectives are included in the IEP. b. Based on needs, works with team to develop an appropriate system that will meet individual s needs in school, at home, in community, and with non-disabled peers. c. Uses system to teach social interaction skills and skills to have needs met. d. Makes system immediately and continuously accessible to student. 10. Works with students to expand their social networks and friendships on school campus and away from school. a. Identifies and/or creates natural opportunities for including non-disabled peers in a variety of contexts (in the classroom, on the playground, in other classrooms, etc.) b. Encourages and coaches non-disabled peers to interact with students. c. Uses non-disabled peers as appropriate role models for generating communicative skills. d. Initiates and encourages extra-curricular activities and interactions to expand social network. XI CURRICULUM MODERATE/SEVERE DISABILITIES: Each candidate demonstrates the ability to work with IEP teams to develop Individualized Education Plans and to teach, adapt, modify, and integrate the curriculum within natural environments such as general education classrooms and schools, community, work and recreation settings, to meet the specific needs of students with moderate to severe disabilities (Category III, standard 26). (The specific objectives for these standards are the same as those for VII ASSESSMENT AND EVALAUTION OF STUDENTS and VII PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING CURRICULUM AND INSTRUTION and must be demonstrated for both standards but need not be duplicated. XII MOVEMENT, MOBILITY, SENSORY, AND SPECIALIZED HEALTH CARE: Each candidate demonstrates knowledge of and ability to support the movement, mobility, sensory, and specialized health care needs required for a learner to participate fully in classrooms, schools, and the community. The candidate uses appropriate and safe techniques, procedures, materials, and adaptive equipment, including the use of technology. Each candidate demonstrates knowledge of federal, state, and local policies related to specialized health care in educational settings (Category III, Standard 27). 1. Teaches students how to initiate and generalize use of mobility and other functional motor movements in order to promote maximum participation and involvement in the general education classroom, the campus, and community activities. 2. Through modeling, candidate demonstrates ability to do the following: cauterization; colostomy care; suctioning; assistive and adaptive devices useful for mobility and sensory functioning; and assessment, repair and updating these services. 3. Uses safety and precaution to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, implement proper lifting techniques and necessary medical equipment such as wheelchairs, assistive devices, and suctioning machines. 4. Communicates information regarding sensory, movement, mobility and specialized health care needs and procedures with general educators, students, parents, and other significant individuals involved to increase the level of understanding and sensitivity for persons with special health care needs. 5. If parents or significant others are agreeable, as much as possible, candidate implements these services in the inclusive setting. Where inappropriate, candidate performs alternative activities and discerns appropriateness.

146 APPENDIX H: Early Childhood Student Teaching Evaluation CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 42 Department of Special Education (714) FORM: ST-ECSE Revised March 2007 Level I Education Specialist Credential Program Mild/Moderate/Severe Student Teaching Experience (489C/D) Early Childhood Special Education Competencies Directions: University supervisor and master teacher completes and reviews with candidate. Candidate, master teacher, and supervisor initial each page sign the last page on three copies. Supervisor retains original for submission to Department of Special Education. Candidate and master teacher retains a copy for professional records. If necessary, master teacher and supervisor evaluations may be separate. CHECK ONE: UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR MASTER/MENTOR TEACHER CHECK ONE: MIDPOINT FINAL CANDIDATE CWID NUMBER Date SCHOOL DISTRICT AGE LEVEL/SETTING Rate candidate proficiency for each of the standards according to the following criteria. Rating Meaning NE No Evidence No opportunity to observe candidate in regard to this standard. Not enough evidence to make an assessment at this time. 1 Unacceptable 2 Basic 3 Skilled 4 Distinguished Few to no indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Little evidence of application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Cannot meet standard even with additional support from master teacher/and or supervisor. Some indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Limited evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required some additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. Multiple indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Adequate evidence of consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Rarely required additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. Extensive indicators of candidate's ability to understand and apply elements consistent with the standard. Substantial evidence of highly consistent application of the standard demonstrated in candidate s work. Required no additional support from master teacher and/or supervisor. STANDARD INFANT LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY PRESCHOOL LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY I Assessment NE NE a Gather relevant background data Selects appropriate formal and informal assessments for infants, young b children, and their families Administers formal and informal measures to assess the development c and learning of young children d Appropriately modifies assessment strategies for individual needs e Assists families in identifying concerns and priorities Creates and maintains records to assess, evaluate instruction, and f monitor child development and learning Interprets information from formal and informal assessments with g respect to articulated assessment questions Uses assessment information in making eligibility or program decisions h for young children from culturally and/or linguistically diverse backgrounds i Reports assessment results using effective communication skills Participates as a team member to integrate assessment results in the j development and implementation of IFSPs and IEPs k Assists families in identifying concerns, resources, and priorities Participates and collaborates as a team member in conducting familycentered assessments l m Evaluates services with families

147 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 43 II Instructional Planning NE NE a Involves the family in setting instructional goals and monitoring progress b Implements, monitors, and evaluates IFSPs and IEPs Sequences, implements, and evaluates individualized learning c objectives d Develops, implements, and evaluates task analyses Implements intervention strategies incorporating information from e multiple disciplines Plans and implements developmentally appropriate individual and group activities in consideration of cultural and linguistic differences f (i.e., play, environmental routines, parent-mediated activities, group projects, cooperative learning, and systematic instruction) g Integrates affective, social, and life skills with the curricula Incorporates and implements instructional and assistive technology into h educational programs i Uses functional assessment to develop intervention plans j Prepares activity, daily, and weekly lesson plans k Prepares and organizes materials to implement lesson plans l Uses instructional time effectively m Makes adjustments to instruction based on continual observation III Individual Learning Differences and Instructional Practices NE NE Uses intervention strategies that affirm and respect family, cultural, and a linguistic diversity Uses strategies to facilitate integration with non-disabled peers into b various settings Uses instructional practices based on knowledge of the child, family, c community, and curricular expectations Uses knowledge of future educational settings to develop learning d experiences and select instructional strategies e Prepares young children for successful transitions Teaches young children to problem-solve and use strategies to get their f needs met Uses procedures to increase the self-management, self-reliance, and g self-esteem of young children Uses strategies to promote maintenance and generalization of skills h across learning environments IV Learning Environments and Social Interactions NE NE Establishes and maintains positive relationships with individuals both a with and without exceptional learning needs Provides a stimuli-rich indoor and outdoor environment that utilizes b materials, media, and technology including adaptive and assistive technology Organizes the physical, temporal and social learning environments to c maximize young children s active participation in group and home settings through Organizes, develops, and sustains learning environments that support d positive intracultural and intercultural experiences e Designs and manages daily routines Creates an environment that encourages and teaches self-advocacy f and increased independence g Uses universal precautions h Implements nutrition plans and feeding strategies i Uses health appraisal procedures and makes referrals as needed Identifies realistic expectations and enforces them for personal and j social behavior in various settings k Modifies the learning environment to manage behavior Uses the least intensive, varied, and effective behavior management l strategies consistent with the needs of the young child V Language and Communication NE NE Uses strategies to support and enhance communication skills of young a children at-risk or with exceptional needs Uses communication strategies and resources to facilitate b understanding of activities and curriculum for young children and their families whose primary language is not the dominant language

148 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 44 Supports and facilitates family and child interactions as the primary c contexts for learning and development VI Collaboration NE NE Establishes and maintains positive collaborative relationships with a families Communicates effectively with families from diverse backgrounds about b curriculum and the young child s progress c Assists families in planning for transitions Maintains confidential communication about individuals with exceptional d learning needs Fosters respectful and beneficial relationships between families and e professionals f Participates in team models in ECSE Collaborates with school personnel and/or community members in h integrating young children with exceptional needs into various settings g Observes, evaluates, and provides feedback to para-educators VII Professional and Ethical Practice NE NE Provides evidence of knowledge and practice of CEC and NAEYC a Code of Ethics Conducts professional activities in compliance with applicable laws and b policies Demonstrates commitment to developing the highest education and c quality of life potential of individuals with exceptional learning needs Demonstrates sensitivity for the culture, language, religion, gender, d disability, socio-economic status, and sexual orientation of individuals e Practices within skill limit and obtains assistance as needed f Uses verbal, non-verbal, and written communication effectively Conducts self-evaluation of instruction and reflects on practice to g improve instruction and guide professional growth Recognizes signs of child abuse and neglect in young children and h demonstrates knowledge of following reporting procedures i Respects family choices and goals Demonstrates application of research and effective practices critically in j early childhood settings FOR THE CANDIDATE: I have had the opportunity to review and discuss this evaluation. I understand a copy will be placed in my credential file. I understand that any rating that is below basic on the FINAL evaluation will result a No Credit (NC) for SPED 489 C/D and I may have to repeat student teaching in its entirety. PRESCHOOL NAME OF CANDIDATE Signature of Candidate and Date SETTING INFANT PRESCHOOL INFANT NAME OF MASTER TEACHER SIGNATURE OF MASTER TEACHER AND DATE SETTING PRESCHOOL INFANT NAME OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR AND DATE SETTING PRESCHOOL INFANT NAME OF CANDIDATE SIGNATURE OF CANDIDATE AND DATE SETTING PRESCHOOL INFANT NAME OF MASTER TEACHER SIGNATURE OF MASTER TEACHER AND DATE SETTING PRESCHOOL INFANT NAME OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR AND DATE SETTING Adapted from: Council for Exceptional Children (2003). CEC knowledge and skill base for all beginning special education teachers of early childhood students. In What every special educator must know: Ethics, standards, and guidelines for special educators, 5 th edition (pp ). Arlington, VA: Author. Recommendations of the Early Childhood Special Education Advisory Board Committee at CSUF (Spring, 2005).

149 APPENDIX I: CSU Exit Survey Data Disaggregated by Question At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 45 Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) As a new teacher, I am... N...to prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for students' class activities % 17% 0% 0%...to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional activities % 21% 1% 0%...to organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 28% 6% 0%...to use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 19% 3% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 28% 6% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 23% 3% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 17% 0% 0%...to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect learning % 17% 0% 0%...to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 18% 1% 0%...to get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 27% 4% 0%...to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the curriculum % 34% 8% 0%...to use computer-based technology for instruction, research, and record keeping % 34% 6% 1%...to monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 30% 1% 0%...to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam scores % 39% 1% 0%...to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 23% 3% 0%...to adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 20% 0% 0%...to use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 17% 3% 0%...to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and families % 42% 4% 0%...to communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of my students % 21% 1% 0%...to work collaboratively on school issues with other teachers in our school % 27% 6% 0%...to think about problems that occur in teaching and to try-out various solutions % 30% 4% 0%...to understand my professional, legal, and ethical obligations % 28% 1% 0%...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that leads to professional growth % 18% 0% 0%...to know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at my grade level(s) % 27% 4% 0%...to teach reading-language arts according to California Content Standards in reading % 29% 4% 0%...to understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 34% 4% 0%...to teach mathematics according to California Content Standards in math % 29% 7% 0% Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0)

150 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 46 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? As a new teacher, I am... N Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0)...to teach science according to California State Content Standards in science % 35% 9% 1%...to teach history and social studies according to California Content Standards % 32% 12% 0%...to teach visual and performing arts according to California Content Standards % 35% 15% 1%...to teach physical education according to the California P. E. Curriculum Framework % 30% 18% 4%...to teach health according to the California Health Curriculum Framework % 37% 9% 4%...to design hands-on classroom activities that suit the attention spans of my students % 20% 3% 0%...to enable my young students to interact with their peers in healthy, productive ways % 21% 3% 0%...to promote the academic skills of pupils at different levels of prior proficiency % 29% 0% 0%...to extend students' concrete thoughts by familiarizing them with more abstract ideas % 31% 1% 0%...to assist students in managing their time and in keeping track of school assignments % 23% 6% 0%...to build on peer friendships, develop group skills, and encourage leadership roles % 23% 3% 0%...to encourage students to take risks in discovery activities and divergent thinking % 23% 4% 0%...to assist students in making sound ethical judgments % 21% 6% 0%...to assist students in decision-making, problem-solving, and critical thinking % 22% 4% 0%...to create an environment that supports language use, analysis, practice and fun % 17% 3% 0%...to use language so pupils at different levels understand oral and written English % 26% 1% 0%...to teach the skills of English writing and to provide appropriate feedback to students % 29% 3% 0%...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading and mathematics % 31% 1% 0%...to know and understand federal and state laws that govern special education % 35% 4% 0%...to develop and implement IEPs with parents, teachers and administrators % 32% 4% 1%...to plan instructional activities in integrated settings for pupils with disabilities % 23% 6% 0%...to develop student assessments that indicate progress toward IEP objectives % 31% 6% 0%...to collaborate with para-educators in meeting students' instructional needs % 24% 6% 0%...to consult with regular-ed. teachers about teaching special education students % 21% 9% 0%...to conduct educational assessments as defined in students' assessment plans % 28% 1% 0%...to use disability-specific teaching strategies and activities, when appropriate % 30% 6% 0%...to teach disability-specific curriculum when applicable to my specialty area % 35% 4% 0%...to develop and implement transition plans for special education students % 31% 9% 1%

151 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 47 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) As a new teacher, I am... N...to prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for students' class activities % 21% 4% 0%...to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional activities % 20% 4% 0%...to organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 24% 4% 3%...to use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 23% 3% 1%...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 33% 6% 1%...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 24% 6% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 19% 3% 0%...to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect learning % 19% 6% 0%...to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 17% 3% 1%...to get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 20% 1% 3%...to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the curriculum % 40% 4% 3%...to use computer-based technology for instruction, research, and record keeping % 33% 3% 3%...to monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 30% 3% 1%...to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam scores % 24% 4% 1%...to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 20% 3% 1%...to adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 20% 3% 0%...to use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 21% 1% 3%...to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and families % 31% 10% 3%...to communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of my students % 24% 3% 1%...to work collaboratively on school issues with other teachers in our school % 30% 4% 0%...to think about problems that occur in teaching and to try-out various solutions % 30% 1% 1%...to understand my professional, legal, and ethical obligations % 24% 6% 0%...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that leads to professional growth % 21% 1% 0%...to know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at my grade level(s) % 27% 6% 3%...to teach reading-language arts according to California Content Standards in reading % 25% 6% 3%...to understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 32% 5% 0%...to teach mathematics according to California Content Standards in math % 24% 3% 8%...to teach science according to California State Content Standards in science % 38% 8% 8%...to teach history and social studies according to California Content Standards % 44% 8% 6% Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0)

152 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 48 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) As a new teacher, I am... N...to teach visual and performing arts according to California Content Standards % 34% 13% 11%...to teach physical education according to the California P. E. Curriculum Framework % 35% 11% 13%...to teach health according to the California Health Curriculum Framework % 30% 14% 11%...to design hands-on classroom activities that suit the attention spans of my students % 22% 3% 2%...to enable my young students to interact with their peers in healthy, productive ways % 21% 3% 2%...to promote the academic skills of pupils at different levels of prior proficiency % 26% 2% 2%...to extend students' concrete thoughts by familiarizing them with more abstract ideas % 29% 2% 5%...to assist students in managing their time and in keeping track of school assignments % 24% 3% 5%...to build on peer friendships, develop group skills, and encourage leadership roles % 21% 5% 2%...to encourage students to take risks in discovery activities and divergent thinking % 21% 2% 3%...to assist students in making sound ethical judgments % 25% 4% 1%...to assist students in decision-making, problem-solving, and critical thinking % 21% 2% 3%...to create an environment that supports language use, analysis, practice and fun % 17% 5% 2%...to use language so pupils at different levels understand oral and written English % 26% 6% 0%...to teach the skills of English writing and to provide appropriate feedback to students % 20% 8% 5%...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading and mathematics % 22% 6% 4%...to know and understand federal and state laws that govern special education % 31% 4% 0%...to develop and implement IEPs with parents, teachers and administrators % 28% 3% 3%...to plan instructional activities in integrated settings for pupils with disabilities % 19% 3% 3%...to develop student assessments that indicate progress toward IEP objectives % 22% 4% 3%...to collaborate with para-educators in meeting students' instructional needs % 19% 4% 3%...to consult with regular-ed. teachers about teaching special education students % 27% 3% 3%...to conduct educational assessments as defined in students' assessment plans % 21% 7% 1%...to use disability-specific teaching strategies and activities, when appropriate % 24% 6% 3%...to teach disability-specific curriculum when applicable to my specialty area % 22% 4% 1%...to develop and implement transition plans for special education students % 28% 6% 0% Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0)

153 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 49 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) As a new teacher, I am... N...to prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for students' class activities % 13% 4% 0%...to organize and manage a class or a group of students for instructional activities % 18% 6% 0%...to organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 28% 7% 0%...to use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 21% 7% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 27% 12% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 25% 9% 0%...to meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 18% 5% 0%...to understand how personal, family and community conditions often affect learning % 22% 4% 0%...to learn about my students' interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 16% 4% 0%...to get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 25% 6% 0%...to use computer-based technology to help students learn subjects of the curriculum % 36% 10% 1%...to use computer-based technology for instruction, research, and record keeping % 27% 12% 0%...to monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 28% 7% 0%...to assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including exam scores % 27% 10% 1%...to adjust my teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 21% 6% 0%...to adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 23% 6% 0%...to use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 21% 6% 0%...to know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students and families % 34% 13% 0%...to communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of my students % 24% 7% 0%...to work collaboratively on school issues with other teachers in our school % 25% 9% 0%...to think about problems that occur in teaching and to try-out various solutions % 25% 9% 0%...to understand my professional, legal, and ethical obligations % 27% 6% 0%...to evaluate and reflect on my own teaching and to seek out assistance that leads to professional growth % 18% 4% 0%...to know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at my grade level(s) % 27% 14% 0%...to teach reading-language arts according to California Content Standards in reading % 33% 6% 0%...to understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 34% 6% 0%...to teach mathematics according to California Content Standards in math % 28% 9% 0%...to teach science according to California State Content Standards in science % 27% 21% 0%...to teach history and social studies according to California Content Standards % 19% 24% 0% Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0)

154 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 50 At the university, how well prepared are you to begin each aspect of a teacher's job? Response Average (0 to 3 Scale) As a new teacher, I am... N...to teach visual and performing arts according to California Content Standards % 27% 27% 3%...to teach physical education according to the California P. E. Curriculum Framework % 30% 27% 2%...to teach health according to the California Health Curriculum Framework % 25% 22% 3%...to design hands-on classroom activities that suit the attention spans of my students % 24% 4% 0%...to enable my young students to interact with their peers in healthy, productive ways % 24% 3% 0%...to promote the academic skills of pupils at different levels of prior proficiency % 27% 4% 0%...to extend students' concrete thoughts by familiarizing them with more abstract ideas % 27% 12% 0%...to assist students in managing their time and in keeping track of school assignments % 23% 13% 0%...to build on peer friendships, develop group skills, and encourage leadership roles % 28% 9% 0%...to encourage students to take risks in discovery activities and divergent thinking % 27% 8% 0%...to assist students in making sound ethical judgments % 22% 14% 0%...to assist students in decision-making, problem-solving, and critical thinking % 19% 10% 0%...to create an environment that supports language use, analysis, practice and fun % 18% 4% 0%...to use language so pupils at different levels understand oral and written English % 27% 6% 0%...to teach the skills of English writing and to provide appropriate feedback to students % 25% 11% 0%...to assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading and mathematics % 26% 6% 0%...to know and understand federal and state laws that govern special education % 30% 7% 0%...to develop and implement IEPs with parents, teachers and administrators % 31% 9% 0%...to plan instructional activities in integrated settings for pupils with disabilities % 17% 5% 0%...to develop student assessments that indicate progress toward IEP objectives % 23% 9% 0%...to collaborate with para-educators in meeting students' instructional needs % 18% 10% 0%...to consult with regular-ed. teachers about teaching special education students % 22% 16% 0%...to conduct educational assessments as defined in students' assessment plans % 21% 10% 0%...to use disability-specific teaching strategies and activities, when appropriate % 22% 9% 0%...to teach disability-specific curriculum when applicable to my specialty area % 27% 7% 0%...to develop and implement transition plans for special education students % 23% 9% 3% Well prepared (3) Adequately prepared (2) Somewhat prepared (1) Not at all prepared (0)

155 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 51 APPENDIX J: CSU Year-Out Survey Data Disaggregated by Question General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Programs During , as Evaluated in 2007 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered by the K-12 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Education Specialist Programs CSU System: Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at her/his grade level % 20% % 20% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 20% % 17% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 40% % 21% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 30% % 21% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 20% % 22% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners. 8 75% 25% % 32% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds. 8 88% 13% % 22% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 20% % 17% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of his/her students % 20% % 17% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 30% % 16% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 20% % 21%

156 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 52 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Programs During , as Evaluated in 2007 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered by the K-12 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Education Specialist Programs CSU System: Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 20% % 22% understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning % 30% % 20% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 0% % 17% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 30% % 21% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects. 9 78% 22% % 24% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records. 9 78% 22% % 22% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 30% % 17% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 30% % 19% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math. 8 88% 13% % 20% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 20% % 20% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 10% % 15% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 30% % 17% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 40% % 25%

157 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 53 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs During , as Evaluated by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates While They Taught in Special Education Evaluation Questions Answered in 2007 by Special Education Teachers Who Finished CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs in 05-06: Once you finished your CSU credential program in 2006, and when you were a special ed. teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Education Specialist Programs CSU System: Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at your grade level(s) % 33% % 32% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 27% % 23% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 20% % 30% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 27% % 16% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 20% % 22% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 36% % 29% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 27% % 21% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 14% % 9% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of your students % 33% % 29% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 27% % 17% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 36% % 24%

158 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 54 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs During , as Evaluated by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates While They Taught in Special Education Evaluation Questions Answered in 2007 by Special Education Teachers Who Completed CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs in 05-06: Once you finished your CSU credential program in 2006, and when you were a special ed. teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Education Specialist Programs CSU System: Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 33% % 25% understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning % 7% % 20% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 20% % 20% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 20% % 24% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 36% % 46% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 29% % 45% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 20% % 19% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 21% % 24% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 31% % 23% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 20% % 17% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 13% % 14% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 20% % 21% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 36% % 43%

159 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 55 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Programs During , as Evaluated in 2008 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered by the K-12 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Education Specialist Programs CSU System: Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at her/his grade level % 8% % 12% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 7% % 12% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 7% % 17% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 7% % 13% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 14% % 17% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 0% % 24% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 8% % 16% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 7% % 9% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of his/her students % 14% % 16% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 7% % 12% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 7% % 16%

160 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 56 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Programs During , as Evaluated in 2008 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered by the K-12 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Education Specialist Programs CSU System: Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 7% % 16% understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning % 7% % 14% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 14% % 14% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 14% % 17% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 8% % 23% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 9% % 17% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 7% % 19% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 7% % 22% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 14% % 14% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 14% % 19% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 0% % 12% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 14% % 13% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 8% % 26%

161 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 57 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs During , as Evaluated by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates While They Taught in Special Education Evaluation Questions Answered in 2008 by Special Education Teachers Who Finished CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs in 06-07: Once you finished your CSU credential program in 2007, and when you were a special ed. teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Education Specialist Programs CSU System: Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at your grade level(s) % 45% % 33% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 31% % 25% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 31% % 29% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 28% % 26% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 38% % 22% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 30% % 28% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 18% % 19% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 24% % 14% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of your students % 38% % 27% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 31% % 21% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 48% % 26%

162 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 58 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs During , as Evaluated by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates While They Taught in Special Education Evaluation Questions Answered in 2008 by Special Education Teachers Who Completed CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs in 05-06: Once you finished your CSU credential program in 2007, and when you were a special ed. teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Education Specialist Programs CSU System: Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 29% % 22% understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning % 17% % 19% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 31% % 24% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 32% % 26% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 50% % 45% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 48% % 44% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 34% % 23% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 38% % 28% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 33% % 25% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 28% % 18% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 25% % 17% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 45% % 24% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 55% % 45%

163 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 59 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Programs During , as Evaluated in 2009 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered by the K-12 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Education Specialist Programs CSU System: Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at her/his grade level % 23% % 12% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 27% % 17% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 27% % 18% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 27% % 14% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 27% % 19% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 32% % 21% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 26% % 16% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 21% % 12% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of his/her students % 21% % 16% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 18% % 10% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 24% % 14%

164 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 60 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Programs During , as Evaluated in 2009 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered by the K-12 Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs: Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to... This CSU Campus: Education Specialist Programs CSU System: Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 24% % 13% understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning % 28% % 15% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 28% % 13% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 31% % 16% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 28% % 23% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 21% % 16% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 28% % 18% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 25% % 16% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 28% % 15% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 28% % 15% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 14% % 10% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 31% % 17% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 35% % 25%

165 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 61 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs During , as Evaluated by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates While They Taught in Special Education Evaluation Questions Answered in 2009 by Special Education Teachers Who Finished CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs in 07-08: Once you finished your CSU credential program in 2008, and when you were a special ed. teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Education Specialist Programs CSU System: Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD 1... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at your grade level(s) % 53% % 36% organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities % 37% % 28% organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily % 32% % 33% prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities % 26% % 24% use an effective mix of teaching strategies and instructional activities % 32% % 25% meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners % 26% % 32% meet the instructional needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds % 16% % 23% meet the instructional needs of students with special learning needs % 21% % 13% communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of your students % 21% % 26% maintain positive rapport and foster students' motivation and excitement % 16% % 18% think about problems that occur in teaching and try out various solutions % 21% % 27%

166 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 62 General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of CSU Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs During , as Evaluated by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates While They Taught in Special Education Evaluation Questions Answered in 2009 by Special Education Teachers Who Completed CSU Education Specialist Credential Programs in 07-08: Once you finished your CSU credential program in 2008, and when you were a special ed. teacher in , how well prepared were you to... This CSU Campus: Education Specialist Programs CSU System: Education Specialist Programs (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD N Well or Adequately Somewhat or Not Mean SD understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools % 21% % 22% understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning % 11% % 20% learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly % 21% % 24% get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior % 37% % 29% use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects % 47% % 46% use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records % 42% % 44% monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods % 32% % 23% assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores % 42% % 31% assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math % 37% % 28% adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn % 21% % 23% adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students % 0% % 17% use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions % 11% % 23% know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families % 47% % 45%

167 APPENDIX K: Level II Transition Points and Performance Measures CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 63 Special Education (SPED) ADV-T Admission to Program Program Continuation Qualifying for Culminating Experience Masters (Conditional standing) Baccalaureate from an accredited institution GPA of 3.0 in last 60 units Level II Credential Level I or Intern credential Employment in SPED position Masters (Classified Standing) Approved study plan prior to completion of 9 units GPA 3.0 (<3.0 = academic probation) Successful completion of SPED 522 and 530 series (B or better) Satisfactory interview (advisor review) Passing score on Literature Review (SPED 530, 531, 532, or 535) [Passing=4 or better; <4 = red flag letter on file] Passing score on Diversity Assignment (SPED 529) [Minimum 75%] (faculty review) Level II Credential GPA 3.0 (<3.0 = academic probation) Masters Approved thesis/project proposal (advisor review) Approved Chapter 1 and 2 (advisor review) IRB approval (if applicable) [IRB review board] Completed data collection (advisor approval) Exit from Program Masters Completion of 30 units with a minimum of 3.0 GPA Grade of B or better in all courses on study plan Approved master s thesis/project (EDEL 597 or 598) [committee review] Level II Credential Completion of 24 units with a minimum of 3.0 GPA Passing score on final portfolio by committee review ( 75 points on program rubric)

168 APPENDIX L: Portfolio Scoring Guide CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Special Education - 64 Final Experience/Portfolio (30 points total) Portfolio to include: (6 points) A. The Consulting Function (Engaging & Supporting ALL Students) 1. Consulting/collaboration (Standard 20) B. The Coordination Function (Creating & Maintaining an Effective Environment for Student Learning) 1. Specific emphasis/staff development 2. Student outcome section (Standards 10, 11, 17, 18, 19) C. Assessing Student Learning D. Professional Development & In-Service Education Function (Planning Instruction & Designing Learning Experiences for All students) 1. Diverse learners section (Standards 16, 19) E. Skills related to the Family Education Function 1. Families/communication section (Standard 16) F. Skills related too Knowledge-Based Outcomes (Developing as a Professional Educator 1. Technology self evaluation. (Standards 13, 16) 2. Other information you feel is important Research/Resource file with sample articles/abstracts Standard 16) (3 points) at least 10 APA citations Write a one page narrative reflecting on why these articles are important Induction plan and verification of completion statement (Standards 10, 11) (2 points) Narrative on how completed induction plan goals Candidate competence forms and verification of completion statements for each of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) (5 points) write a paragraph about each section The form must be included with all signatures! Self evaluation (4 points) Summarize in a two page narrative your overall teaching strengths Documentation of EL standards (5 points) standard 19 journal OR CLAD certificate or proof of EL with general ed credential YOU MUST TURN IN COPIES TO YOUR INSTRUCTOR: (5 points) INDUCTION PLAN WITH ALL SIGNATURES FINAL INDUCTION PORTFOLIO ENTRY AND NARRATIVE Unofficial Transcript

169 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 1 Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report Academic Years 07-08, 08-09, and Institution: College of Education, California State University, Fullerton Date report is submitted: October 15, 2010 Date of last Site Visit: November, 2007 Program documented in this report: Name of Program - Educational Leadership Credential(s) awarded - Preliminary and Professional Administrative Credentials Is this program offered at more than one site? NO Program Contact: Louise Adler, Ph.D. Phone #: (657) [email protected] If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact information for that person below: Name: Teresa Crawford Phone #: [email protected]

170 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 2 SECTION A ADMINISTRATIVE CREDENTIALS PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION I. CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION The Preliminary Administrative Credential Program at California State University, Fullerton prepares teachers and other base-credential holders for careers as leaders for K-12 schools. We also offer the Professional Administrative Program. The organization of coursework and experiences in each of the pathways is designed to meet the varying needs of our credential candidates. Further, these two pathways reflect principles consistent with our Unit s Conceptual Framework and Program Outcomes (Appendix A, p. 21). Administrative Credential Program Pathways Preliminary Administrative Credential Program in combination with the MS (Tier I) The Preliminary Administrative Credential combined with the MS in Education (30 units) with a Concentration in Educational Administration is designed to prepare educators who plan to take on leadership roles in K-12 schools. Candidates who already have a master s degree may opt out of the coursework that applies primarily to the MS (EDAD units; and units). Individuals who are admitted to the program are usually working in K-12 settings as teachers or other professionals such as school nurses who have basic California Credentials. The degree courses are also applied toward the California Preliminary Administrative Credential (Tier I) so that at the end of the program gradates will have both the MS and Preliminary Administrative Credential. The program takes two years (5 terms) including summer session(s). Students usually attend two classes on the same afternoon and evening of the week. Six units are taken each term. Semester 1 Fall Start unit (Project) TBA unit (Fieldwork)TBA units (Inst. Lead.) 6 units 505 Diversity Assignment Semester 2 Spring (Research) (Org.Theory) 6 units 510 Writing Assessment Semester 3 Summer unit units (Gov.) units (Finance) 6 units Classes at 4:00 and 7:00pm 565 Mid Point Zoomerang Assessment Semester 4 Fall unit (Project) TBA units (HR) 4:30pm units (Law) 7:00pm 6 units Semester 5 Spring 597 1units (Project) TBA units (Fieldwork) TBA units (Lead. Pub. Sch.) 4:30pm 6 units 566 MS Exit Survey Spring Start Summer Fall Spring Summer unit (Project) TBA unit (Fieldwork) TBA units (Inst. Lead.) 6 units 505 Diversity Assignment (Research) (Org.Theory) 6 units 510 Writing Assessment unit units (Gov) units (Finance 6 units 565 Mid Point Zoomerang Assessment unit (Project) TBA units (HR) 4:30pm units (Law) 7:00pm 6 units unit (Project) TBA units (Fieldwork) TBA units (Lead. Pub. Sch.) 4:30pm 6 units 566 MS Exit Survey

171 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 3 Professional Administrative Credential Program Evaluation of Mastery (Tier II) This program is offered by the department when a group of 20 or more applications are received in a particular semester. Authorized by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC Coded Correspondence ) Candidates fulfill Professional Credential requirements by demonstrating, "mastery of fieldwork performance standards. Candidates participate in an intensive and comprehensive semester in EDAD 501A, EDAD 501B and EDAD 501C (nine units). Emphasizes a demonstration of competence expectation by requiring a 360 degree assessment of the candidate from multiple perspectives. Managed by the candidate, and supervised by the mentor and university advisor, this assessment is richly informed by data collected from subordinates/staff/faculty, administrator peers, family and personal contacts. Candidates prepare comprehensive assessments of competence for each of the California Standards for Educational Leaders. Candidates demonstrate mastery of fieldwork performance standards by preparing a professional portfolio of work-embedded artifacts, evidence, and documentation. Collaborative review of the candidate's competence by a senior mentor, colleagues in the course, and university advisor. Successful completion of the series of three courses (EDAD 501A, EDAD 501B and EDAD 501C) provides for university-approval and recommendation to the CCTC for the Professional Administrative Services Credential. Professional Administrative Credential Program in combination with the Ed.D. (Tier II) The formal coursework usually takes four semesters and two summer sessions to complete. The Professional Credential Program at CSUF for Ed.D. candidates consists of three components: Work with mentor Professional development provided by the district Doctoral coursework The coursework sequence is some of the courses in the Ed.D. which directly relate to the Professional Credential program. Generally, research methodology courses are not included. EDD 600 Organizational Theory and Challenges for Instructional Leadership EDD 604 Forecasting and Planning for Emerging Instructional EDD 605 Methods of Collection and Analysis of Assessment Data EDD 620 Ethical and Legal Dimensions of Instructional Leadership EDD 621 Leadership of Curricular and Instructional Practices EDD 622 Human Dimensions of Instructional Reform and Change EDD 624 Educational Policy Cycles and Instructional Leadership A mentor-administrator selected collaboratively by the candidate, the district, and the university advisor plays a critical role in the development of the candidate's plan for the Professional Credential program. The formal mentor must not be the employment evaluator of the candidate.

172 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 4 The mentor will confer with the student on a regular basis with respect to expectations, advice, and assessment of the candidate's work in the program. Program Enrollments and Completers Tables 1-3 below provide data on the number of candidates who were enrolled in the credential programs and the number of candidates who subsequently completed all program requirements. The tables have been organized to report numbers by pathway. Enrolled = Students admitted to the credential program this term. Completed = Number of students that enrolled this term who completed by Spring 10. Table 1: Preliminary Administrative Credential Program Enrollment and Completion Numbers Preliminary Administrative Enrolled Completed Still Active Withdrew FALL SPR FALL SPR FALL na SPR na 17 na Table 2: Professional Administrative Credential Evaluation of Mastery Program Enrollment and Completion Numbers Professional Administrative Evaluation of Mastery Enrolled Completed Withdrew FALL SPR 08 5* 5 0 FALL SPR 09 1* 0 1 FALL SPR *Special Admits number to offer full cohort not met Table 3: Professional Administrative Credential with EDD Program Enrollment and Completion Numbers Professional Administrative with the EDD Enrolled Completed Withdrew FALL SPR FALL SPR FALL SPR

173 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 5 Program Changes Since Last Accreditation Visit Fall 2007 Table 4 indicates changes made within the program since Following the fall 2007 accreditation visit, several changes have been made to particular courses within the program. Table 4: Program Changes Since Fall 2007 Year of Program Modification Implementation 2007 Development of a Shadowing Program for the Preliminary Administrative Credential fieldwork component Greatly expanded the web site for students in the Preliminary program to support their fieldwork activities Revised the handbook for fieldwork based on a pilot developed by two faculty members Began collecting pre-post data using the Candidate Inventory of Personal Leadership Competency for the Preliminary Credential students Revised the Student Opinion Questionnaire that is administered at the end of every course in the Preliminary Administrative Credential Program 2010 Faculty are studying changes to the research-project courses in the credential program. II. CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT/PERFORMANCE AND PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS INFORMATION Each credential pathway is unique in how it fits into the overall program and the assessments it uses to determine candidate performance and proficiency for meeting credential requirements. This section presents descriptions of the key assessments used and reports data results within each pathway. Preliminary Administrative Credential Program in Combination with the MS The Preliminary Administrative Credential combined with MS in Education pathway is assessed through the use of the Unit Assessment System. This system is designed for the continuous collection of multiple data sources, both internal and external, to monitor candidate performance and to manage and improve program effectiveness. Data are analyzed to determine if candidates have met the requirements necessary to matriculate through specified program levels are collected at four (4) transition points: Admission to Program Program Continuation Qualifying for the Culminating Experience Exit from Program Post Program Admission to the Program Candidate data collected at the first transition point (Admission) establishes that candidates entering the program have the knowledge and dispositions necessary to be successful in pursuit of their educational objective. As per CTC direction, admission data (Transition Point 1) will not be provided or described for the purposes of this report. California State Fullerton requires that students enter the program with a master's or complete a master's along with the credential. The MS program requires 30 units. Those who already hold an MS and do not want a second degree can complete 25 of the units for the credential.

174 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 6 Program Continuation Data collected at the second and third transition points (Key Continuation Points) provide information on candidates ability to demonstrate deeper understanding of acquired knowledge, growth in implementation of skills, and continued development and display of dispositions outlined in institutional and professional standards. For example, students turn in a Summary of Fieldwork Activities (Form C) each semester they take EDAD567. Progress on development of master s projects is assessed in EDAD510. Exit from the Program The fourth transition point (Exit from Program) provides data for determining whether candidates have acquired the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to be successful as professionals in the field of education. Students must present their Fieldwork Competency Coversheets along with the evidence of their work in a portfolio format. The faculty then conduct an evidence-based evaluation of students portfolios. The completion of a master s project is a second culminating experience for those students who do not already have a master s degree. While not a program transition point, additional data are collected from graduates and their employers as candidates complete the program. These data assist in determining program effectiveness for educating professionals. The full complement of data gathered at each transition point to monitor candidate performance within the program is extensive. The measures are both quantitative and qualitative and reflect the depth of the program. While all requirements at each transition point (Appendix B, p. 22) must be met for candidates to progress through the program successfully, a core set of key assessments have been identified to be collected and analyzed at the unit level for the purpose of noting trends in candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions. The key assessments collected at specific transition points are identified in the following chart. This chart includes only those key assessments collected after candidates have been admitted to the program. Key assessments for Transition Point 1 Admission to Program - have been purposefully omitted. Data Set Transition Point (TP*) Course Level Assignments GPA 2, 3, 4 Including: Unit-wide writing assignment 2 Unit-wide diversity assignment 2, 3 Capstone Assessments (Culminating Experience) 4 Program Surveys Unit-Wide Mid-Point Survey 2, 3 Unit-wide Exit Survey Post Program Program Specific Exit/alumni/employer Surveys Post Program * Each data set has been aligned with program outcomes and NCATE assessment categories (Appendix C, p.23). Key Assessment Data Collected at Transition Points 2, 3, and 4 Course Level Assignments/Grades (TP 2, 3, 4) Course grades are used as a measure of candidate proficiency because of the deliberate alignment

175 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 7 of course assignments with professional standards and program outcomes. All programs adhere to the University standard, as monitored by the Graduate Studies office, that each candidate maintain a GPA of 3.0 (B or better) for all courses listed on individual study plans. Any grade below a C requires the course be repeated. All candidates must maintain a GPA of 3.0 or they are placed on academic probation, requiring that they raise their GPA within two semesters or be subject to program disqualification. Table 5 shows the mean GPA in all required courses for the Preliminary Credential combined with Master s pathway. Table 5: Course Grade Point Averages and Pass Rates (Summer 2007 Spring 2010) EDAD Course Summer 2007 Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Summer 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Summer 2009 Fall 2009 Spring N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 505 N GPA Pass% 97.0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 510 N GPA Pass% 100% 97.5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 561 N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 563 N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 564 N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98.5% 100% 565 N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 566 N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 567 N GPA Pass% 100% 97.9% 100% 100% 97.6% 100% 99.2% 100% 597 N GPA Pass% 98.7% 92.3% 100% 95.8% 95.7% 96.1% 100% 95.6% 100% Overall GPA Average and Pass% Pass Rate 98.2% 94.7% 94.6% 97.9% 93.7% 96.3% 98.3% 91.5% 96.3% Pass % = Pass Rate based on C (1.7) or better)

176 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 8 Unit-Wide Assignment Assessments (TP 2) Writing Assignment The Research Design course (EDAD 510) includes an assignment requiring a review of literature that is used to identify and remediate struggling writers and to assess understanding of content (subject and/or research methods knowledge). All sections of the course use the same assignment and scoring guides to ensure consistency across sections (Appendix D, p. 24). A 6- point rubric is used to evaluate this assignment. Any candidate scoring less than an average score of 4 must meet remediation requirements for successful program continuance. Remediation must be completed prior to completing the program. Table 6 presents the percentage of candidates that scored at a level of 4 or better on the unit-wide writing assignment and includes the average rubric score (on a 6-point scale). Table 6: Writing Assignment Scores by Semester Semester N % 4 Avg Rubric Score Fall % 4.31 Spring % 4.79 Fall % 4.58 Spring % 4.45 Fall % 4.43 Spring % 4.8 Scale: 6 5 Exceeds expectations; 4 3 At Expectation; 2 1 Below Expectation Diversity Assignment The Instructional Leadership course (EDAD 505) includes an assignment that candidates must complete, Analysis of Instructional Leadership Practices Related to Diversity (Appendix E, p. 26). All candidates must pass with a minimum 75% proficiency. Five parts are required for the assignment: Analysis of school and district demographics, Critical analysis of board policies related to the needs of diverse populations, Analysis of specialized and/or supplemental instructional programs and their effectiveness in meeting the instructional needs of diverse students, Statement of personal vision that places student and adult learning at the center of your school s enterprise, and Summary evaluation of the instructional leadership practices related to diversity Table 7 shows the percent of candidates that met expectations for passing the diversity assignment by semester.

177 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 9 Table 7: Diversity Assignment Results by Semester Semester N % 75% Avg. Score (0 100 scale) Fall % 92.6 Spring % 92.0 Fall % 91.1 Spring % 88.7 Fall % 93.2 Spring % 92.7 Capstone Assessments (TP 3, 4) Capstone assessments are culminating experiences that require candidates to demonstrate the cumulative knowledge, skills and dispositions developed over the course of program study and field experiences. Preliminary Credential candidates are required to have verification of a Master s Degree on file or they must complete all requirements for the EDAD MS in Education, including completion of a Master s Project. The project is reviewed according to program guidelines for completion and approved by a faculty committee. An additional capstone assessment is required to receive the credential the Fieldwork Competency evaluation of the portfolio of evidence presented by the candidate. EDAD candidates must complete a set of fieldwork competencies in EDAD 567 (TP 4). Fieldwork competency coversheets with the mentors evaluations and evidence of the work conducted are evaluated by the instructor in EDAD 567 and must receive a rating of exemplary or good. Coversheets for each standard describe how standards are met and include supporting evidence. All credential candidates (100%) who enrolled in and completed the program successfully passed the standards assessment requirements. Pass rates and GPA of the project and field competencies courses are used as evidence that our candidates demonstrate proficiency on capstone assessments. As shown in Table 5, % of candidates passed the project course (EDAD 597) with an average GPA between Candidates completed EDAD 567 with a pass rate of 99% and average GPA range of Unit-Wide Surveys (TP 3, Post Program) Two surveys (used by all Unit advanced programs) are used to collect data on candidate perceptions of their performance and proficiency at two different points in their program (midpoint and exit). The surveys are anonymous and are administered electronically. The link to the survey and survey instructions are provided by the course instructor in a course that is taken midway through the program (EDAD 565) and one at the end of the program (EDAD 566). Both surveys consist of the same questions rated on a 4 point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The surveys were revised after fall 07 with more questions added to provide a more comprehensive data set. Together these surveys allow for valuable comparative analysis on candidate perceptions of their performance and proficiency in regard to their knowledge, skills and dispositions from mid-program to program exit. Tables 8-10 provide the survey results on questions related to student performance and proficiency. The table includes the response rates and percentage of 3 and 4 (agree to strongly agree) ratings on each question by term.

178 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 10 Table 8: Percentages of Agree/Strongly Agree Responses on Unit-Wide Midpoint and Exit Surveys Summer/Fall 2007 Spring/Summer 2008 As a graduate of (graduate student in) this program,... Midpoint N = 64 RR = 63% Exit N = 84 RR = 83% I have improved (am improving) my ability to collaborate with other professionals in school settings. 95.3% 96.4% I have increased (am improving) my ability to use technology to support teaching and learning, or as appropriate to my role in 90.6% 79.8% schools. I am better (becoming better) prepared to make informed decisions about problems I face as a professional. 95.3% 97.6% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to promote equity and diversity. 90.6% 88.1% I strengthened (am strengthening) my understanding of professional and ethical standards. 93.8% 95.2% I am now more (becoming more) able to identify needed change. 96.9% 95.2% I have improved (am improving) my ability to influence decision-making. 87.5% 94.0% I feel more (am beginning to feel) qualified to accept leadership roles. 96.9% 91.7% I continue to be motivated to seek professional growth opportunities. 95.3% 100% I have improved (am improving) my abilities as a reflective practitioner. 98.4% 98.8% Overall Average 94.1% 93.7% RR = Response Rate Note: The midpoint course and survey occurs during summer and fall terms. The exit course and survey occurs during spring and summer terms.

179 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 11 Table 9: Percentages of Agree/Strongly Agree Responses on Unit-Wide Midpoint and Exit Surveys As a graduate of (graduate student in) this program,... Summer/Fall 2008 Midpoint N = 32 RR = 38% Spring/Summer 2009 Exit N = 46 RR = 56% I have improved (am improving) my ability to collaborate with other professionals in school settings. 93.8% 95.7% I have increased (am improving) my ability to use technology to support teaching and learning, or as appropriate to my role in 81.3% 89.1% schools. I am better (becoming better) prepared to make informed decisions about problems I face as a professional. 96.9% 95.7% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to promote equity and diversity. 96.9% 93.5% I apply (am applying) my understanding of professional and ethical standards in my work with colleagues, students, 96.9% 97.8% families, and community. I have increased (am increasing) my knowledge of the foundational research that informs my field of study. 100% 95.7% I have the (am increasing my) knowledge base required to successfully explain the key concepts in my field of study. 100% 95.7% I have become (am becoming) more knowledgeable about professional, state, and institutional content standards that guide 93.8% 95.7% my field of study. I have increased (am increasing) my ability to design and implement instruction for diverse learners. 81.3% 76.1% I have the (am increasing my) ability to design and implement assessments that are aligned with instructional goals and learner 81.3% 80.4% characteristics. I am more (becoming more) able to identify needed change. 96.9% 91.3% I have improved (am improving) my ability to influence decision-making within my professional setting. 90.6% 95.7% I feel more (am beginning to feel) qualified to accept leadership roles. 96.9% 95.7% I continue to be motivated to seek professional growth opportunities. 96.9% 95.7% I have improved (am improving) my abilities as a reflective and ethical practitioner. 96.9% 97.8% I understand (am increasing my understanding of) how policy shapes practice and impacts the context of student learning. 90.6% 95.7% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to foster relationships among schools, families, and community to enhance student learning. 93.8% 95.7% Overall Average 93.2% 93.1% RR = Response Rate Note: The midpoint course and survey occurs during summer and fall terms. The exit course and survey occurs during spring and summer terms.

180 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 12 Table 10: Percentages of Agree/Strongly Agree Responses on Unit Wide Midpoint and Exit Surveys Summer/Fall 2009 Spring/Summer 2010 As a graduate of (graduate student in) this program,... Midpoint N = 15 RR = 18% Exit N = 62* RR = 74% I have improved (am improving) my ability to collaborate with other professionals in school settings. 93.3% 93.5% I have increased (am improving) my ability to use technology to support teaching and learning, or as appropriate to my role in 80.0% 82.3% schools. I am better (becoming better) prepared to make informed decisions about problems I face as a professional. 86.7% 93.5% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to promote equity and diversity. 80.0% 85.5% I apply (am applying) my understanding of professional and ethical standards in my work with colleagues, students, 93.3% 98.4% families, and community. I have increased (am increasing) my knowledge of the foundational research that informs my field of study. 86.7% 96.8% I have the (am increasing my) knowledge base required to successfully explain the key concepts in my field of study. 86.7% 93.5% I have become (am becoming) more knowledgeable about professional, state, and institutional content standards that guide 80.0% 95.2% my field of study. I have increased (am increasing) my ability to design and implement instruction for diverse learners. 80.0% 77.4% I have the (am increasing my) ability to design and implement assessments that are aligned with instructional goals and learner 73.3% 85.5% characteristics. I am more (becoming more) able to identify needed change. 86.7% 96.8% I have improved (am improving) my ability to influence decision-making within my professional setting. 86.7% 93.5% I feel more (am beginning to feel) qualified to accept leadership roles. 86.7% 93.5% I continue to be motivated to seek professional growth opportunities. 100% 91.9% I have improved (am improving) my abilities as a reflective and ethical practitioner. 86.7% 96.8% I understand (am increasing my understanding of) how policy shapes practice and impacts the context of student learning. 86.7% 98.4% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to foster relationships among schools, families, and community to 93.3% 95.2% enhance student learning. Overall Average 86.3% 92.2% RR = Response Rate * Summer 2010 Surveys are still in progress. Note: The midpoint course and survey occurs during summer and fall terms. The exit course and survey occurs during spring and summer terms.

181 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 13 Department-based Assessment Data In addition to the unit-wide assessment data the department collects and reviews these additional types of data. End of course Student Opinion Questionnaires which focus on student assessment of the organization and delivery of every course each term. (Appendix F, p. 28) End of program surveys of students and mentor/employers which are more specifically focused on the program standards for the credential. (Appendix G, p. 30) Feedback from the Council of Educational Leadership Students that meets twice yearly with a faculty member to act as a sounding-board for ideas from the faculty and focus on suggestions and concerns from the cohorts. Each cohort of students has two representatives on the council. (Appendix H, p. 38) Professional Administrative Credential Program Evaluation of Mastery The Evaluation of Mastery program is a fast-track program that can be completed in as little as one semester for candidates with strong administrative experience. All candidates must have at least one year experience as a working administrator and must hold a Master s Degree in Educational Administration and/or completed an accredited Preliminary Credential Program. Data gathered to monitor candidate performance within the program include both quantitative and qualitative measures and provide evidence of candidates demonstration of competence in meeting credential requirements. The key assessments used to measure candidate demonstration of mastery for meeting program and professional standards include: Course GPA in three courses (EDAD 501A, EDAD501B and EDAD501C) 9 units Comprehensive assessments of competence for each of the California Standards for Educational Leaders (CPSELs) Professional Portfolio Assessment. Key Assessment Data Coursework Grades All programs adhere to the University standard, as monitored by the Graduate Studies office, that each candidate maintain a GPA of 3.0 (B or better) for all required courses. Any grade below a C requires the course be repeated. All candidates must maintain a GPA of 3.0 or they are placed on academic probation, requiring that they raise their GPA within two semesters or be subject to program disqualification. All Evaluation of Mastery candidates are required to complete the following courses (9 units) maintaining University GPA standards: EDAD501A Candidate Professional Criteria focuses criteria for demonstration and assessment of competence. It is based on the Candidate s qualifications, professionalism, knowledge, and experience. This first course (in the series) specifically addresses and documents the Professional Criteria of each candidate. EDAD501B Field-based Performance Criteria focuses on criteria for the demonstration and assessment of competence. It is based on the Candidate s demonstrated behaviors, activities, and responsibilities. This second course (in the series) specifically addresses and documents the Field-based Performance of each candidate.

182 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 14 EDAD501C Authentic Performance Criteria focuses criteria for the demonstration and assessment of competence. It is based on the Candidate s demonstrated problem-solving, comprehension, processing, communication and collaboration skills. This third course (in the series) specifically addresses and documents the Authentic Performance of each candidate. These courses are graded Credit/No Credit. To receive a grade of Credit, proficiency must be demonstrated at a level equivalent to the criteria to earn a grade of B (80%). Table 11 shows the percent of candidates that passed required of courses earning a grade of Credit. Table 11: Evaluation of Mastery Course Pass Rates by Term EDAD Course Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Spring A N Pass 97.3% 100% 100% 501B N Pass 100% 100% 100% 501C N Pass 100% 100% 100% Overall Pass Rate Pass % 100% 100% 100% Professional Portfolio Candidates demonstrate mastery of fieldwork performance standards (CPSELs) by preparing a professional portfolio of work-embedded artifacts, evidence, and documentation. Portfolios are reviewed by the candidates mentors and faculty to assure that candidates have demonstrated mastery. All candidates (100%) that enrolled in and completed this program (fall 07) successfully met the criteria for passing the portfolio assessment. Professional Administrative Credential Program in Combination with the Ed.D. Candidates enrolled in the Ed.D. program who do not currently hold a Professional Administrative Credential may choose to complete credential requirements as a part of the Ed.D program. These requirements include the successful completion of a sub-set of Ed.D. courses, development of plans to meet induction goals, and work with a professional mentor to implement induction plan goals. Data gathered to monitor candidate performance within the program include both quantitative and qualitative measures and provide evidence of candidates demonstration of competence in meeting credential requirements. The key assessments used to measure candidate performance and proficiency include: Course GPA for a subset of Ed.D. courses End of Program Mentor Assessment (Induction Plan Implementation) Program Exit Assessment

183 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 15 Key Assessment Data Coursework GPA All programs adhere to the University standard, as monitored by the Graduate Studies office, that each candidate maintain a GPA of 3.0 (B or better) for all required courses. Any grade below a C requires the course be repeated. All candidates must maintain a GPA of 3.0 or they are placed on academic probation, requiring that they raise their GPA within two semesters or be subject to program disqualification. All Professional Administration Certificate candidates in the Ed.D. program are required to complete 21 units. Catalog descriptions are given below: EDD 600 Organizational Theory and Challenges for Instructional Leadership Examines organizational theories and their application to the role of instructional leadership. Also explores theories from leadership and management literatures, which predicate the conceptual development of the role of instructional leadership. Explores implications of these theories for effective performance as instructional leaders. EDD 604 Forecasting and Planning for Emerging Instructional Needs Students investigate theories and methods that promote accurate forecasting of the impact of social, economic, political, cultural, academic and demographic trends as they affect curriculum and instruction. Emphasis is also placed on how these indicators can be used to engage effective planning. EDD 605 Methods of Collection and Analysis of Assessment Data Methods of system-level data collection and analysis of outcomes of instruction are explored. Examines the complexity and efficacy of using various types of data for making judgments at the system level about the effectiveness of instruction across classrooms and schools. EDD 620 Ethical and Legal Dimensions of Instructional Leadership Concepts of ethics (e.g., self-interest, free will, social responsibility, duty) are explored as the basis for legal standards (protection of individual rights, fair treatment, equality of opportunity, duty of care, public trust) using education case that deals with instructional leadership. EDD 621 Leadership of Curricular and Instructional Practices Examines current issues in curriculum design and implementation. Explores forces affecting the curriculum, curriculum continuity and articulation; content trends in the subject areas; appropriate curriculum for students from diverse backgrounds; curriculum censorship; and effective instructional leadership for curriculum improvement. EDD 622 Human Dimensions of Instructional Reform and Change To prepare effective change agents, this course examines issues associated with change. Topics include change as a sociopolitical process; sources and purpose of change; coping with multiple reform efforts; decision-making processes; implementation of reforms; problems of resistance to change in curriculum and instruction; and change as a continuous process. EDD 624 Educational Policy Cycles and Instructional Leadership An in-depth study of topics relevant to instructional leadership and educational policy cycles. Topics include the policy making process, the role of values and interest groups, policy analysis, equality of educational

184 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 16 opportunity, how policy efforts are reshaped, and systemic reform. Policy issues such as highstakes testing, curricular mandates, and accountability are used as exemplars. Table 12 shows the mean GPA of courses taken by candidates enrolled for the Professional Administrative Credential. Table 12: Course Grade Point Averages and Pass Rates (Fall 2007 Spring 2010) Fall Spring Summer Fall Spring Summer Fall EDEL Course Spring N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 604 N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 605 N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 620 N 15 GPA 3.66 Pass% 100% 621 N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 622 N GPA Pass% 100% 100% 624 N GPA Pass% 100% 100% Overall GPA Average and Pass Rate Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Pass % = Pass Rate based on B (2.7) or better) Induction Plan-Implementation of CPSEL elements The candidates professional credential induction plans outline a strategy for building professional competence. This plan builds on each administrator's assessed needs and outlines specific activities for facilitating each administrator's professional development. The Induction Plan development process requires that candidates, mentors, and university advisors think through the needs of the candidate and the many demands on their time so that the degree coursework and research, professional development opportunities, and work with the mentor can be integrated into a plan that will optimize outcomes for the credential candidate and ultimately for the staff and students they serve.

185 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 17 Induction plans must be approved by the candidate s mentor and program advisor. Final evaluation of candidate s proficiency in meeting induction plan goals is part of the overall program assessment completed by the mentor. The mentor determines candidate competency as a Leader; Experienced Leader; or an Accomplished Leader and the mentor also indicates whether they support the candidate s application for a credential (Appendix I, p. 40). To date, all credential candidates (100%), based on mentor s reviews, demonstrated proficiency in meeting induction plan goals. Program Exit Assessment At the end of the program, the program Director evaluates all candidate assessments using the Exit Assessment Form (Appendix J, p. 41). Candidates become eligible to apply for the Professional Administrative Credential upon receiving the Directors signature that all program requirements were successfully met. All candidates (100%) who completed the program met all requirements and were recommended for the Professional Administrative Credential. Department-based Assessment Data In addition to these assessments, the EDD program conducts both mid-point and exit surveys of candidates enrolled in the program. A copy of the instrument and results are included in Appendix K (p. 42). The Executive Board of the EDD that has both faculty and professionals from K-12 districts reviews all assessment data and provides feedback for program improvement. III. ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT DATA The department reviews assessment data at regularly scheduled department meetings as it becomes available each term. Course custodians pay particular attention to assessments that are linked to the courses they oversee working with both full-time and part-time faculty to assure that the assessments are completed and data is reported to the College staff. Course custodians provide orientation and assistance for course instructors, recommend needed changes or revisions in the course, maintain the currency of the resources for the course, and recommend texts. Analysis of Key Preliminary Administrative Credential Assessment Data COURSE LEVEL GRADES (Table 5) Strengths: The grades of the student in the Preliminary Program indicate that the vast majority of the candidates are passing the courses indicating high levels of proficiency for candidates with GPA for courses ranging from on a 4-point scale. The reputation of the program is that the expectations of candidates are rigorous. June 2010, a Graduating Student wrote in her final journal entry: "People who went to CSUF for their master's or credential earned it. This was a rigorous program; but one I would fully recommend to anyone who really wanted to head down the administrative path."

186 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 18 Course syllabi outline the requirements for each course and generally include rubrics to guide candidate work and assessment of assignments. The grading standards for each course are explicitly outlined in the syllabi. Areas for improvement: While it is not obvious from the data presented in this report, it has been noted that a few part-time instructors give a higher percentage of A grades than is usual for the department. These individuals have been counseled about this practice and we have seen adjustments. WRITING ASSIGNMENT (Table 6) Strengths: A fairly high percentage of candidates scored at the level of 4 or better (meaning that they do not need remediation) 84.6%-100% depending on the term. The admission requirements for previous GPA and required writing sample identify applicants to the program who have writing problems so significant that they are not ready to start the program. Faculty members use rubrics for writing assignments that guide candidates to use strong writing conventions such as use of headings and sub-headings to organize their writing. The quality of a candidate s writing becomes critical as they complete their exit competencies and master s project. Areas for improvement: The process is in place to inform candidates who score below 4 on the writing assessment of resources to help them improve their writing. We do not have data on which resources candidates actually use. Candidates must have acceptable writing skills to complete their exit competencies and master s projects. DIVERSITY ASSIGNMENT (Table 7) Strengths: A very high percentage of candidates complete the Diversity Assignment with strong scores ( %) indicating that they understand where to access data about diverse students, how their needs are being met, and assessment of the success of programs at their school site which are designed to meet the needs of diverse students. Candidates usually work in very diverse settings according to the data for our County ( Areas for Improvement: It will be important to track the performance of our candidates over time to determine if there are trends in the data. UNIT-WIDE SURVEYS AT MID-POINT AND END OF PROGRAM (Tables 8-10) Strengths: The response of our candidates to the prompts on the unit-wide survey seems to be in the strongly positive range. For the most part results on the final exit survey seem slightly more positive than the midpoint survey. Additionally, the results from year to year seem fairly stable. However, wide variation in the return rates makes these conclusions speculative. Areas for improvement: Some of the prompts are perhaps more appropriate for programs designed for teachers rather than future administrators. For example, there are prompts about the ability to design and implement instruction for diverse learner and assessments aligned with instructional goals. But the prompts do not focus on the role of the leader in supporting teachers in these skills which should be stressed in a leadership preparation program. It is not clear what the implications of shifts in percentages between the midpoint and exit mean. Also since the number of questions and order of questions has shifted over time, it is difficult to explore longitudinal changes.

187 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 19 Analysis of Key Data for Professional Administrative Credential Evaluation of Mastery (Tier II) COURSEWORK GRADES (Table 11) Strengths: Since the last full cohort in 2007, only a few candidates have completed this program (See Table 2). Those who do enroll in the program are highly motivated to complete the credential since is it required for their continued employment. The few candidates we have enrolled have requested our help in meeting their needs. Areas for improvement: This program could easily be adapted to an on-line environment, which could attract a higher number of candidates to the program. While financial and development support are available, there is a need to dedicate time for faculty to work on this project. It is unknown how State policy changes and an online environment may impact demand. PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO Strengths: The candidates do outstanding work with their mentors to address their individual needs. Areas for improvement: We have not aggregated the data from the various individual portfolio assessments. Analysis of Key Data for Professional Administrative Credential Program in Combination with the EDD Tier II COURSEWORK GRADES (Table 12) Strengths: Since candidates cannot get a GPA of under 3.0 for more than one semester, it is understandable that the average GPA for courses in the EDD is strong (See Table 12). Areas for improvement: None noted. INDUCTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION OF CPSEL ELEMENTS Strengths: A retired school principal is paid a stipend to work with the EDD candidates and their mentors. She assures that all candidates have induction plans that meet their individual needs and that candidates are making steady progress toward their professional goals. The work of this individual gives consistence to the oversight of the program. Areas for improvement: We need to develop a process to aggregate data across the portfolios in a meaningful way. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT Strengths: The end of program assessment of the portfolio assures that mentor evaluation of the candidate is a part of the consideration in recommending candidates for the Professional Credential. Areas for improvement: In many cases the mentor for the credential program is also the Outside Expert on the candidate s dissertation committee. If that is the case, then there are formal meetings on campus with the mentor. We need to ensure a closer coordination with all of the mentors.

188 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 20 III. Goal Grades Writing Diversity assignment Evaluation of Mastery program Mentors in the Professional program in the EDD USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE Planned activities to meet the goal 1. Continue to review GPA results by type of course with all faculty 2. Discuss the issue with the Council of Educational Leadership Students 3. Write an article for the Preliminary Credential newsletter about the issue 4. Contact the candidates to find out which resources they used and assess the effectiveness of the assistance. 5. Track the progress of these candidates to find out if they have difficulty later in the program. 6. Identify additional resources to support candidates. 7. Explore ways to record data so that the parts of the assignment can be analyzed over time. 8. Explore the potential for program expansion 9. Explore development of an on-line program. 10. Explore ways to involve mentors in program activities of the EDD in addition to the work they do with individual candidates. In addition to these Goals which are based on the Unit-Wide Assessments, the department intends to apply for the Preliminary Administrative Services Internship Credential. We believe this will be in high demand once the economic outlook shifts, retirements increase and district begin to employ more assistant principals and principals. A project underway at this time includes revising and updating fieldwork in the Preliminary Administrative Credential program. The goal is to eventually have all of the paperwork done electronically on a portfolio, web-based portfolio so that students, mentors, and faculty can manage the development and assessment of portfolios.

189 APPENDIX A: Unit Conceptual Framework and Program Outcomes CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 21 Education Unit Conceptual Framework a transformational journey toward educational advancement and achievement Core Values We are a community of educators, educational partners, and students. Seven core values undergird our professional community. We value learning as a life long process, professional literature that guides and informs our practice, responsibility to self and to the group, diversity as enriching the whole, multiple pathways to learning including the use of technology, critical inquiry that promotes positive student outcomes, and authentic and reflective assessment. We aspire to adhere to and model these in all our professional interactions. Through experiencing these core values in their educational journey, we believe our students will embrace and in turn, model them in their professional lives. Based on our core values, our mission is as follows: Mission Statement Our mission is to teach, to serve, and to engage in scholarship. We teach our students to be critical thinkers and lifelong learners. We prepare professionals who improve student learning, promote diversity, make informed decisions, engage in collaborative endeavors, maintain professional and ethical standards, and become change agents in their workplaces. We engage in scholarly work that informs the profession and serve the educational community by providing applied scholarship. Student Outcomes and Indicators After succ essful completion of a program of study, our credential recipients and program graduates are: Outcome 1: Knowledgeable and Competent Specialists demonstrate strong foundation in subject matter or field of study demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field demonstrate ability to use technology as a resource Outcome 2: Reflective and Responsive Practitioners promote diversity make informed decisions engage in collaborative endeavors think critically Outcome 3: Committed and Caring Professionals become change agents maintain professional and ethical standards become life long learners

190 APPENDIX B: EDAD Transition Points and Performance Measures CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 22 Education Leadership Doctorate (EDD) Admission program Program Continuation Qualifying for Culminating Experience All Candidates Baccalaureate and master s degree from accredited institutions GPA of 3.0 in upper division and graduate study Submission of Graduate Requirement Exam (GRE) scores within last 5 years Three letters of recommendation (faculty review) Statement of purpose (faculty review) Professional resume (faculty review) Writing sample (faculty review) Employer statement of support or candidate plan for success (faculty review) Interview (faculty review) All Candidates GPA of 3.0 (< 3.0 = academic probation) Passing qualifying exam oral and written (EDD 670C) [Rubric scored (P/NP)-- blind scored by 2 faculty; 1 NP = 3 rd faculty review] All Candidates Proposal defense approval (EDD 670F) [dissertation committee review and consensus] IRB approval if required (IRB board review) Tier 2 Credential Candidates Approval of Induction Plan (P/NP; reviewed by Program Director) Passing score on Mentor Assessment (rated on 3pt. scale; passing = 2 or better) Exit from Program All Candidates Completion of 60 units with a minimum 3.0 GPA Completed dissertation Dissertation defense approval (dissertation committee review and consensus) Recommended conferral of degree (committee vote) Educational Leadership (EDAD) Baccalaureate degree from accredited institution GPA of 3.0 in last 60 units Three years successful teaching experience Hold a base teaching credential Verification of passing Basic Skills Test (CBEST) Professional resume (faculty review) Three letters of recommendation (faculty review) Superintendent form Writing sample (faculty review) Approved study plan on file prior to completion of 9 units Passing score on Literature Review (EDAD 510) [Passing=4 or better; <4 = red flag letter on file] Passing score on Diversity Assignment (EDAD 510) [Minimum 75%] (faculty review) GPA 3.0 (<3.0 = academic probation) Verification of progress toward competency Form B (EDAD 567 instructor & mentor) [ 50% satisfactory; 40-49% remediation plan required; <40% advisor intervention] Successful completion of all project requirements to date (faculty review) Approval of project research instruments (faculty review) Masters Completion of 30 units with a minimum 3.0 GPA (Masters only) Rating of satisfactory or better on all competencies (EDAD 566) [faculty instructor] Satisfactory completion of Master s Project (EDAD 597) [committee approval] Credential Verification of Master s degree on file or successful completion of EDAD master s program requirements Completion of competency coversheets and ratings of satisfactory or better for all standards [faculty review]

191 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 23 APPENDIX C: Alignment of Key Assessments with Program Outcomes and NCATE Standard 1 Categories [TP =Transition Point at which data are collected] Preliminary Administrative Credential Key Assessment Alignment CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Outcome 1 Indicators: a) Demonstrate strong foundation in subject matter or field of study PROFESSIONAL & PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions d) Think critically DISPOSITIONS Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions c) Engage in collaborative Endeavors d) Think critically Outcome 3 Indicators: a) Become change agents b) Maintain professional and ethical standards c) Become life-long learners STUDENT LEARNING Outcome 1 Indicators: b) Demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions GPA in content coursework [1,2,3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Capstone Assessments [TP 4] COE Mid/exit Survey Data (select items) Program Survey Data (select items) Alumni/Employer Survey Data (select items) Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Capstone Assessments [TP 4] Clinical competencies [TP 4] COE Mid/exit Survey Data (select items) Program Survey Data (select items) Alumni/Employer Survey Data (select items) Application Process (selected elements) [TP 1] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Clinical competencies [TP 4] COE Mid/exit Survey Data (select items) Program Survey Data (select items) Alumni/Employer Survey Data (select items) Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] COE Mid/exit Survey Data (select items) Program Survey Data (select items) Alumni/Employer Survey Data (select items)

192 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 24 APPENDIX D: Writing Assignment Policy, Procedure, and Assessment Rubric Educational Leadership Writing Assessment Policy Purpose: The two purposes of the EDAD Writing Assessment are to Promote the develop proficient writers Provide data for the purposes of program evaluation and improvement. A similar writing assessment is required of all graduate programs in the College of Education. Process: The initial graded Chapter Two (Literature Review) completed by students at the conclusion of the EDAD510 (Introduction to Educational Research) class has been identified as the assignment used to assess student writing proficiency. Grading will be done using the College of Education Writing Assessment Rubric The rubric includes a 6-point scale (5-6 = Exceeds Expectations, 4 = Meets Expectations, 1-3 = Below Expectations), with a total score of 24. Four categories of traits are assessed: o Completeness of Response & Quality/Clarity of Thought o Organization, Sequence of Ideas/Focus o Accuracy of Content/Vocabulary o Resources/Support/Examples An additional assessment of content and format is also conducted as part of the assessment for EDAD510 course requirements. This additional assessment is not part of the EDAD/COE Writing Assessment process. Determination of Proficiency: Candidates scoring a 4 or greater will be identified as proficient. Candidates scoring less than 4 will be identified as non-proficient. Responsibilities of Candidates Determined to be Non-Proficient Writers: Students who demonstrate less than satisfactory writing skills (i.e., below 4 on the writing rubric) o Will be notified in writing and a letter will be included in the candidate s file. o Will be advised of resources available to assist the student in improving skills related to writing. o Students' writing related to the Master s project will be monitored during subsequent EDAD597 (Project Supervision) courses. The Master s Project will not receive final approval until the quality of the writing meets department and College of Education expectations. Reporting Scores: Individual candidate writing assessment scores will be reported as a total average score (range 6-1). Scores will be reported each semester by the course instructors to the College of Education Assessment Director. Data will be used for program evaluation and improvement. Student names and CWIDs will be confidential.

193 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 25 Writing Assignment Assessment Rubric Student Name Student CWID Content, Structure, & Style Exceeds Expectation (5-6) At Expectation (4) Below Expectation (1-3) Completeness of Response & Quality/Clarity of Thought Addresses the topic clearly and responds effectively to all aspects of the task; ideas are welldeveloped; explores the issues thoughtfully and in depth. Addresses the topic clearly, but may respond to some aspects of the task more effectively than others; shows some depth and clarity of thought. May treat the topic casually, simplistically or repetitively; lacks focus, or demonstrates confused or simplistic thinking; often fails to communicate ideas; distorts or neglects aspects of the task; presenting generalizations without adequate and appropriate support Organization, Sequence of Ideas/Focus Organization is excellent in terms of bridges and transitions; paper remains focused with no wandering to unrelated topics; minor points are related to the thesis; ideas flow in sensible sequence; discussion of area is complete before transitioning to another. Generally good presentation with either bridges or headings but not all the time; paper is generally focused with text following the order presented in the introduction; relationship of ideas made evident Few clues are used so that text organization is a challenge to reader; relationship of ideas to thesis is vague; text jumps from topic to topic in shotgun approach; reader must work to keep up with flow of ideas. Accuracy of Content/Vocabulary Information is accurate and attributed to correct resources; pragmatic suggestions are appropriate to question; appropriate reading terms are employed and well defined. Information is accurate in description but some resources or definitions are weak. Errors are present in either content and/or resources and examples; response contains poorly defined terms; definitions are faulty; information attributed to incorrect sources Resources/Support/ Examples Authorities are thoughtfully selected from a wide array of sources and applied appropriately to content; examples are given and well developed for the topic Ideas generally supported by professionally sound resources however, only general resources repeatedly cited; too few or too many examples are provided Few resources presented or resources cited limited to class texts; examples are given but no definitions or explanations are provided

194 APPENDIX E: Diversity Assignment Policy and Procedure CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 26 Educational Leadership Diversity Assignment Policy Purpose: The EDAD Diversity Assignment is established To assure candidates have the opportunity to work with schools and/or school districts that serve students that are ethnically/culturally/linguistically/gender/social-economic/sexual orientation and ability-wise diverse from themselves. To generate data for the purposes of program evaluation and improvement. Process: The diversity assignment is part of the EDAD 505 course assignments. A common assignment and rubric will be used in each section of this course. For purposes of grading, the grade given to the final draft of the diversity assignment is the grade reported. The grade will be reported as a percent of the total possible points on the assignment. A passing grade will be 75% of the total possible points. Collecting and Reporting scores: Scores will be determined by the instructor of the EDAD505 class. Scores will be reported as a percentage (points earned/points possible). Scores for all sections will be forwarded to the Assessment Director by the end of finals week each semester. Assignment Written Paper: Analysis of Instructional Leadership Practices At Your School Site (7 x 5 =35 points) Each student is required to write a page paper that analyzes the instructional leadership practices at his or her school including: I. An analysis of your school and district profile reflecting current demographics and student diversity. II. An identification of the board of education policies in your district (cite the Board Policy Number for each policy) and a critical analysis of each board policy indicating the extent to which the instructional needs of diverse populations are being met. III. An analysis of each of the specialized and/or supplemental instructional programs being implemented in your school and the extent to which they are effective (e.g. English language learner programs, special education programs, gifted and talented programs, after school programs, etc) in meeting the instructional needs of students identified for service in these programs. IV. Your personal vision of instructional leadership and how you would develop, articulate, and implement your vision for improving instruction that places student and adult learning at the center of your school s enterprise. V. A summary evaluation of the instructional leadership practices at your school organized by what s working and what s not according to McEwan s 7 indicators of

195 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 27 instructional leadership (reference the Instructional Leadership Checklist on page ). VI. Your personal recommendations for improving the overall instructional program at your school to promote the success of all students. Write your recommendations from a prospective principal s point of view and not from a teacher s point of view. Formulate short term goals and long term goals that would set high expectations for improving student achievement. VII. Photocopy Resource B: Instructional Leadership Checklist Response Form (pp ) found at the back of the McEwan text. Complete the checklist and attach it to your paper. Assessment Rubric For The Instructional Analysis Paper Your paper conforms to the style guidelines for written work. A cover sheet with your name, the name of the course and course number, the date, the name of your professor, and the university is included on the cover page. You use 12 point text, double-space, use New Times Roman font, use subheadings to indicate the main sections, and cite references in APA style (5 th edition citation format). (5 points) Your introduction includes an analysis of your school and district profile reflecting current demographics. You describe using numbers and percentages the diversity of the population found in the school and in the district where you are employed or by the school or district where you live if you are not currently employed. You compare your school population with the district population. You use charts or graphs to illustrate the information visually. (5 points) Your paper provides a copy of your district s policies related to meeting the needs of diverse student populations in an addendum. Your paper analyzes your district s diversity policy (or policies); if no policies are on record note this and recommend what policy or policies should be developed to close the gap. (5 points) Your paper describes briefly the special and/or supplemental instructional programs being implemented in your school and the extent to which you think these programs are effective for raising the achievement of subgroups of students (e.g. English language learner programs, special education programs, gifted and talented programs, after school programs, etc). (5 points) Your paper communicates your personal vision (reflective of experience, philosophy, and course readings) of instructional leadership and discusses how you would propose to implement your vision to ensure that student and adult learning are placed at the center of schooling. (5 points) Your paper analyzes the instructional leadership practices at your site according to McEwan s 7 Steps. You provide sound, rational recommendations for making instructional improvements, where necessary, using the advance organizer below as a guideline. (5 points)

196 APPENDIX F: Student Opinion Questionnaire CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 28

197 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 29

198 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 30 APPENDIX G: End of Program Student Survey Preliminary Credential (Example: Spring 2010) 1. Do you believe that the program at CSUF acheives its mission to prepare credential candidates to be educational leaders? Yes 15 88% No 2 12% Total % 2. Have you ever recommended a colleague or family member enroll in the Educational Leadership program at CSUF? Yes 10 59% No 7 41% Total % 3. Do you believe that the program at CSUF is committed to high standards for students and faculty? Yes 14 82% No 3 18% Total % 4. Overall, do you believe your experience in the Educational Leadership program was beneficial to you? Yes 16 94% No 1 6% Total % 5. Have you already applied for an administrative position? Yes 6 35% No 11 65% Total %

199 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership Have you arealy assumend an administrative position? Yes 4 24% No 13 76% Total % 7. When do you plan to seek a position requiring an administrative credential? next year 3 20% in 2-3 years 8 53% in 4-5 years 3 20% after 5 years 1 7% not interested in being an administrator 1 7% 8. Which of the following is your ultimate goal in education? remain a teacher 3 18% assistant principal 7 41% principal 3 18% superintendent/assistant superintendent 1 6% other district level administrator 11 65% 9. How do you rate the program on the quality of full-time faculty Weak 0 0% Acceptable 6 35% Strong 8 47% Outstanding 3 18% Total % 10. How do you rate the quality of the part-time faculty? Weak 2 12% Acceptable 4 24% Strong 10 59%

200 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 32 Outstanding 1 6% Total % 11. How do you rate the availablity of program information such as requirements, schedules, procedures? Weak 0 0% Acceptable 5 29% Strong 9 53% Outstanding 3 18% Total % 12. How do you rate advisement about professional placement as an administrator? Weak 4 24% Acceptable 5 29% Strong 6 35% Outstanding 2 12% Total % 13. How do you rate advisement about the academic program? Weak 1 6% Acceptable 5 31% Strong 6 38% Outstanding 4 25% Total % 14. How do you rate the program on helping you build connections with professionals and associations? Weak 4 25% Accptable 6 38% Strong 5 31% Weak 1 6% Total % 15. How do you rate the guidance, assistance and feeback on fieldwork? Weak 3 19%

201 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 33 Accptable 8 50% Strong 3 19% Outstanding 2 12% Total % 16. How do you rate the use of cohorts to build a support network? Weak 0 0% Accptable 4 25% Strong 5 31% Outstanding 7 44% Total % ITEMS LIST CCTC STANDARDS. WITH THE PERSPECTIVE YOU HAVE GAINED ABOUT THE PROGRAM HOW DO YOU RATE THE QUALITY OF PREPARATION REGARDING THE FOLLOWING CCTC STANDARDS? 17. VISION OF LEARNING: Each candidate is able to promote the success of all students by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the school community. Weak 0 0% Acceptable 5 29% Strong 5 29% Outstanding 7 41% Total % 18. STUDENT LEARNING AND PROFESSIONAL GROWTH: Each candidate is able to promote the success of all students by advocating, nurturing, and sustaining a school culture and instructional program conducive to student learning and staff professional growth. Weak 0 0% Acceptable 5 29% Strong 3 18% Outstanding 9 53% Total % 19. ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT FOR STUDENT LEARNING: Each candidate promotes the success of all students by ensuring management of the organization, operations, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. Weak 0 0% Accpetable 5 29% Strong 7 41% Outstanding 5 29%

202 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 34 Total % 20. WORKING WITH DIVERSE FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES: Each candidate promotes the success of all students by collaborating with families and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources. Weak 0 0% Acceptable 7 44% Strong 6 38% Outstanding 3 19% Total % 21. PERSONAL ETHICS AND LEADERSHIP CAPACITY: Each candidate promotes the success of all students by modeling a personal code of ethics and developing professional leadership capacity. Weak 0 0% Acceptable 6 35% Strong 5 29% Outstanding 6 35% Total % 22. POLITICAL, SOCIAL ECONOMIC, LEGAL AND CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING: Each candidate promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context. Weak 2 12% Acceptable 4 24% Strong 6 35% Outstanding 5 29% Total % WHILE YOU WERE ENROLLED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CREDENTIAL PROGRAM AT CSUF, HOW TRUE WAS EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE PROGRAM? 23. The program provided an appropriate mix of theoretical ideas and practical strategies, and I learned about the links between them. TRUE 5 29% mostly true 7 41% somewhat true 5 29% not true 0 0% Total %

203 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership Over time, the credential program and its curriculum met my needs as I prepared myself to become a good educational leader. TRUE 6 35% mostly true 6 35% somewhat true 4 24% not true 1 6% Total % 25. The program held me accountable for performing significant leadership/administrative activities for my fieldwork. TRUE 8 47% mostly true 4 24% somewhat true 5 29% not true 0 0% Total % 26. The program gathered evidence that I worked with a fieldwork mentor at my work site. TRUE 12 71% mostly true 2 12% somewhat true 3 18% not true 0 0% Total % 27. The program stressed the importance of fieldwork in my preparation for educational leadership. TRUE 11 65% mostly true 2 12% somewhat true 4 24% not true 0 0% Total % PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS IF YOU ARE GETTING A MASTER'S DEGREE IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION FROM CSUF. SKIP TO NUMBER 32 IF YOUR ARE NOT GETTING AN MS.

204 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership Completing my project was a significant milestone for me. TRUE 14 88% mostly true 1 6% somewhat true 1 6% not true 0 0% Total % 29. My research project helped me to become more analytical in how I approach issues in my school/district. TRUE 6 38% mostly true 6 38% somewhat true 2 12% not true 2 12% Total % 30. I improved my writing skills while completing my project. TRUE 9 56% mostly true 3 19% somewhat true 4 25% not true 0 0% Total % 31. My project addressed a real world problem in my school/district. TRUE 11 69% mostly true 3 19% somewhat true 2 12% not true 0 0% Total % FINALLY, PLEASE GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ABOUT YOU!

205 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership Your gender? male 6 35% female 11 65% 33. How many years have you been a teacher? 3-5 years 5 29% 6-10 years 5 29% years 7 41% 16+ years 0 0% 34. What grade level is the site where you work? elementary 8 47% middle/jr.high 4 24% high school 5 29% 35. With which ethnic group do you identify your ethnicity? American indian 0 0% Black 0 0% Chicano 2 12% Other Hispanic 3 18% Asian 1 6% Pacific Islander 0 0% Filipino 0 0% White 11 65% Unknown 0 0%

206 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 38 APPENDIX H Educational Leadership Council Meeting March 13, 2010 PRESENT: Dr. Barton, Jennifer Espalin-Castillo and Michelle Baker (Cohort 7 FVSD); Kim Corbin (Cohort 3 Fullerton); Emily Gantes and Carol Leitch (Cohort 50 - Corona- Norco): Bill McConnel and Bindi Crawford (Cohort 4 - CSUF); David Nieto and Chris Pepes (Cohort 33 Placentia-Yorba Linda); Mary Ellen Park and Stella Plunkett (Cohort 88 Irvine); Allan Edpao and Yvonne Ponce (Cohort 5 CSUF) ABSENT: Alma Umisky (Cohort 80 Capistrano); Christopher Wren (Cohort 3 FJUHSD). Information shared with the entire group: Surveys Required Online: ( go to current students, then master Students, then click on the name of the survey Diversity Survey (new cohort) READ instructions carefully FIRST Midpoint Students and Exit Survey Print THANK YOU Page and submit to your current instructor Commencement: May 22, Video, ticket info, regalia, pamphlet, soloist and speaker CONTACT: Kimberly Naujokas, Assistant to Dean Cavallaro [ ] Summer School Dates: June 1 July 23, 2010 What s Working & Kudos Class flexibility (every other week, double class, etc.) Flexibility in scheduling and of professors (we even met at a professor s home) Relevant assignments from professors who actually had experience in the field Ability to work closely with professors (Oliver, Stichter, etc.) Timelines presented in advance Most book selections were useful (love the 566 book) Crystal Barnett always keeps us in the loop; she is the heartbeat of the department Human Resource class was meaningful and informative Like most of the professors; they are fairly flexible Meeting other professionals in our cohort Sharing ideas, experiences, and perspectives Learning from first hand professionals in the field (Giokaris, Wolf) What s Working & Kudos Areas of Improvement Summer school is very intense 4.0 grading scale was difficult to figure out and didn t make sense; prefer the 100% scale Two project classes Clear project guidelines too much inconsistency Consistency within project different instructors advise and emphasize different issues Inconsistency in 1 st semester project and 2 nd semester research class (no alignment of expectations) Fieldwork Form B at the beginning when we knew nothing Saturday Joint Cohort Project Meetings were a waste since we were all at different levels Concern about doctoral program if dissertation handled like the project [I explained the research support seminar structure] I still don t know how to read school budget spreadsheets Areas of Improvement

207 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 39 Learned some new teaching techniques Made a few life-long friendships and certainly a professional network Real application of administrative work Flexibility within classes on assignments and class needs Sensitivity to reality if full time jobs in addition to graduate work Leadership Council helps new cohorts, very supportive aspect Crystal Barnett is very helpful and supportive Meeting place and time are convenient for the group Really enjoying new research professor (Solomon) and the class Excellent group of educators placed in the cohort offer a lot of thought provoking discussions and good teamwork Crystal Barnett very helpful and timely Great support: Crystal, tutoring resources, professors availability Soli8citation of feedback feel like your voice is heard; program adjusted to help you or make better Last semester helps wrap up loose ends This is a very practical program We like the council and opportunity to share concerns Request for Dr. Billings again Consistent meeting sites Tie class assignments to be used for fieldwork; currently only 1 assignment per standard is allowed Can we move 1 unit of fieldwork to a different semester other than summer? Starting time rigidity can t we move to 4:40 rather than 4:00 since many of us cannot be on time and that impacts our grade How long is a leave of absence? If students get RIF notices, can they continue in program? Individualized help with project Dr. Oliver and Dr. Adler each stopped by our meeting and answered questions; feel free to share their answers with your cohort peers.

208 APPENDIX I: Induction Plan Mentor Review Form CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 40

209 APPENDIX J: Program Exit Director Review Form CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 41

210 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 42 APPENDIX K: EDD Exit Student Survey (Example: Spring 2010) 1. When did you start the program? Fall % Fall % Fall % Fall % Fall % Total 8 100% 2. When was your dissertation turned in to the Book Store? Spring % Summer % Fall % Sping % Summer % Fall % Spring % Summer % Total 8 100% 3. How long did it take you to complete the program? Spring of 3rd year 6 75% Summer of 3rd year 2 25% Fall of 4th year 0 0% Spring of 4th year 0 0% Summer of 4th year 0 0% Other, please specify 0 0% 4. In which specialization are you enrolled? Community College Leadership 0 0% PreK-12 Leadership 8 100% Total 8 100%

211 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership Please identify your gender. Male 1 12% Female 7 88% Total 8 100% 6. Please check the ethnic category that best describes you. These categories are used by the CSU Chancellor's Office for reporting purposes. African American 0 0% American Indian 0 0% Asian American 0 0% Filipino 0 0% Mexican American/Chicano(a) 0 0% Other Hispanic/Latino(a) 0 0% Pacific Islander 0 0% White (non-latino) 8 100% Other 0 0% Decline to State 0 0% Total 8 100% 7. Please identify the employment location that best describes where you work at this time. Pre-K school 0 0% Elementary school 1 12% Middle school 0 0% High school 3 38% School district office 1 12% Community college campus 0 0% Community college district office 0 0% 4-year public college/university 0 0% 4-year private college/university 0 0% Other, please specify 3 38% Total 8 100% 8. Please identify the employment category that best describes you now.

212 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 44 PreK-12 teacher 2 25% Site administrator PreK % District office administrator PreK % Community college staff 0 0% Community college administrator 0 0% Community college faculty 0 0% Community college district administrator 0 0% 4-year college/university faculty, administrator, or staff 0 0% Other, please specify 2 25% Total 8 100% Please give your assessment of the EDD program in answering the questions in this section. 9. Across the classes you have taken, how common is it to have assignments that were based on analysis of problems of practice? Always 2 25% Usually 6 75% Sometimes 0 0% A few times 0 0% Not at all 0 0% Total 8 100% 10. How common was it that you used data from the site where you work in courses? Always 1 12% Usually 4 50% Sometimes 1 12% A few times 2 25% Not at all 0 0% Total 8 100% 11. How common was it that you had opportunities to focus your course assignments to meet both course requirements and professional needs? Always 1 12% Usually 4 50% Sometimes 2 25% A few times 0 0%

213 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 45 Not at all 1 12% Total 8 100% 12. How often were theoretical constructs used across courses. Always 0 0% Usually 5 62% Sometimes 3 38% A few times 0 0% Not at all 0 0% Total 8 100% 13. Please identify a theoretical construct that comes to your mind easily. It could be one you have used already or that you could see yourself using in the future. 7 Responses 14. Course assignments required you to link theory to practice. Always 2 25% Usually 5 62% Sometimes 1 12% A few times 0 0% Not at all 0 0% Total 8 100% Views About Leadership 15. How have your views about leading change been impacted by your participation in the Ed.D. program? I have the same veiws about leading change as I did when I started the program. 0 0% I have changed some of my views about leading change since I entered the program % Total 8 100% 16. What are your views about leadership now? (Check all that apply.)

214 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 46 I don't believe it is my job to lead change in education. 0 0% I see myself as being responsible for leading change in education % Leading change is a simple process. 0 0% Leading change is a complex process 7 88% 17. What types of educational changes have you provided leadership for while in the EDD program? Multicultural issues 4 50% Instructional or curricular 8 100% Organizational or systems 6 75% Staff development 6 75% Public policy 1 12% Student services 4 50% Co-curricular 1 12% Technology 1 12% Planning, budget, finance 3 38% Other, please specify 2 25% 18. Are you using research skills (such as: finding scholarship on a topic, analyzing the literature on a topic, data gathering techniques, methods of analysis) learned in the EDD program to support educational reforms? Frequently 5 62% Sometimes 2 25% A few times 1 12% Not at all 0 0% Total 8 100% 19. Please give an example of where you have used your research skills in working on a reform in educational practice. 8 Responses The Dissertation Process 20. How helpful was your participation in courses in moving you along in the process of developing your understating of the dissertation research proposal and completing your research?

215 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 47 Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option. Very helpful Helpful Somewhat helpful Not helpful 670A-fall semester--linking Research to Problems of Practice 670B-spring semester--connecting Research Questions to Scholarship in the Discipline 670C-first summer--written Qualifying Examination 670D-2nd fall semester--refining Research Questions 670E-2nd spring semester--scholarly Defense of a Proposal 670F-2nd summer--irb Approval and Proposal Defense 698-Dissertation research % 12% 62% 0% % 38% 38% 0% % 50% 50% 0% % 12% 25% 0% % 25% 12% 0% % 25% 12% 0% % 12% 0% 0% 21. What impact do you think your dissertation may have? (Check all that apply.) It will inform my practice as an educational leader % It will be used by others in my district. 2 25% I plan to share the results at a professional conference. 4 50% I plan to write about the results for a professional publication. 5 62% How do you plan to disseminate the results of your research? 5 62% 22. How useful were the written guidelines for dissertation drafts that you were provided by the program? Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option. Very useful Useful Somewhat useful Not helpful Manuscript Guidelines for the Proposal (chapters 1-3) End of Program Guidelines (chapters 4-5) University Dissertation Manual % 38% 0% 0% % 50% 12% 0% % 38% 0% 0% 23. Please rate your dissertation chair on these characteristics

216 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 48 Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option. Excellent Strong Acceptable Weak Very poor Available when I needed her/his time. Gave specific advice about how to improve my drafts. Knowledgeable about my topic and methodology. Gave sound advice about how to prepare for my defense. Pushed me to improve the clarity and organization of my work. Able to help me with technical issues about my drafts. Got along with the other members of the committee and kept them informed. Focused on the timeline to move me to completion in 3 years. Helped me focus on connections between theory and practice. Helped me to think more critically about my research. Pushed me to go beyond simple reporting of facts and focus on analysis and synthesis % 38% 0% 0% 0% % 12% 12% 0% 0% % 25% 0% 0% 0% % 12% 0% 0% 0% % 12% 12% 0% 0% % 12% 12% 0% 0% % 25% 12% 0% 0% % 38% 12% 0% 0% % 38% 12% 0% 0% % 25% 0% 0% 0% % 0% 12% 0% 0% 24. What overall grade would you give your dissertation chair? A 7 88% B 1 12% C 0 0% D 0 0% F 0 0% Total 8 100% 25. When considering the whole process to plan, research, write, and defend your dissertation, how would you describe your experience? (Check all that apply.) Challenging 8 100% Stressful 3 38% Supported 6 75% Fair 5 62% Unfair 0 0% Too hard 0 0% Other, please specify 4 50%

217 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership When considering your own contributions to the dissertation process, which of these statements best describes your work? (Check all that apply.) I always worked consistently to stay on task. 7 88% Sometimes I was not able to do the work necessary to stay on task. 1 12% A some points my chair had to push me to complete tasks. 1 12% I always knew I could finish the dissertation. 6 75% There were times when I doubted that I could finish the dissertation. 2 25% I worked very hard to complete my dissertation % I could have worked harder at some points in the process. 2 25% Other, please specify: 5 62% 27. What grade would you give yourself for your effort and commitment to the dissertation process? A -- Excellent 4 50% B -- Consistent, but no perfect 4 50% C -- Just enough to get it done 0 0% Total 8 100% IMPRESSIONS OF THE PROGRAM 28. How were you affected by the pace and requirements of the entire program? I found it too difficult 0 0% I was challenged to work at the upper level of my ability 7 88% I found it easy complete the work 0 0% I found the work too easy 0 0% Other, please specify 1 12% Total 8 100% 29. The program has seven goals. How well did the program assist you to be: Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option. Strong Acceptable Needs improvement

218 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Educational Leadership - 50 An expert in educational leadership A professional whose practice is informed by scholarly literature A reflective practitioner A critical thinker A change agent A self-aware and ethical professional A professional who values diversity % 0% 0% % 0% 0% % 25% 0% % 12% 0% % 25% 0% % 0% 0% % 38% 0% 30. Given your experiences in the EDD program, what is your impression of the overall quality of the program? It is a high quality program. 6 75% Overall, it is a quality program. 2 25% There are some elements of quality in the program. 0 0% The program lacks the necessary elements of quality. 0 0% Total 8 100% 31. Would you recommend this program to a qualified friend or colleague? Yes 6 75% Maybe 2 25% No 0 0% Total 8 100%

219 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 1 Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report Academic Years 07-08, 08-09, and Institution: College of Education, California State University, Fullerton Date report is submitted: October 15, 2010 Date of last Site Visit: November 2007 Program documented in this report: Name of Program - Reading Credential(s) awarded - California Reading Certificate / California Reading/Language Arts Specialist Credential Is this program offered at more than one site? No If yes, list all sites at which the program is offered: Program Contact: Ula Manzo Phone # / [email protected] If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact information for that person below: Name: Teresa Crawford Phone #: [email protected]

220 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 2 SECTION A CALIFORNIA READING CERTIFICATE AND CALIFORNIA READING/LANGUAGE ARTS SPECIALIST CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION I. CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION The Reading Department offers the Master of Science in Education with a Concentration in Reading. Six courses (16 units) in this 30-unit Master s degree program are designed to simultaneously meet the standards for the California Reading Certificate. The 30-unit Master s degree program and an additional two courses (5 units) are designed to meet the standards for the California Reading/Language Arts Specialist Credential. The organization of coursework and experiences in these programs reflects principles consistent with our Unit s Conceptual Framework (Appendix A, p. 21) and are aligned with the Unit and Program Outcomes and the CTC Standards (Appendix B, p. 22). The California Reading Certificate 16 graduate units In the first one-unit course in the program, candidates are introduced to role of the reading specialist, the professional standards in the field, and the California standards for the Credential and the Certificate. This course also meets the university graduate writing requirement. Two courses taken early in the graduate programs provide up-to-date research-based theory and practice in teaching beginning, intermediate, and advanced reading, including approaches to intervention in cases of reading disability. Additional courses include: the interface between linguistics and reading; the sociocultural context of literacy and learning; and diagnosticprescriptive reading assessment tools and practices. Three required fieldwork experiences ensure that students work with beginning readers, English language learners, and students with reading difficulties. The California Reading/Language Arts Specialist Credential 31 graduate units The Specialist Credential authorizes the holder to develop and coordinate reading programs at the school, district, or county level. At Cal State Fullerton, candidates for the Specialist Credential complete five courses (15 units) in addition to the coursework required for the Reading Certificate (16 units, above). These courses are designed to prepare candidates for leadership roles in the field. In the course on educational research, candidates develop knowledge and skills in research design and methodology, and conduct and write a formal review of the research in a reading-related topic of their choice. In another course the focus is on applications of emerging technologies for enhancing the teaching and assessment of reading. In the semester-long reading clinic experience, candidates are paired with students with severe reading disabilities for in-depth diagnosis and intensive remedial instruction. Two final courses focus on the leadership roles of the reading specialist. In a course on developing reading programs, candidates apply current research to analyze and evaluate examples of reading curricula, materials, instruction, and assessment to identify program strengths and needs. In a

221 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 3 course on professional leadership, candidates interact with guest speakers who hold various leadership roles, review current research on effective professional development, and plan and present a professional development program. Program Enrollments and Completers Table 1 provides data on the number of candidates that enrolled and completed objective requirements Spring Table 1 also identifies the number of candidates still active and on track to complete in future semesters. The chart is arranged by semester rather than academic year because candidates may begin a program in fall or spring. Table 1: Program Enrollment and Completion Total number of students admitted this term Number of students completing the MS degree by Spring 2010 Number of students completing the Certificate requirements by Spring 2010 Number of students completing the Specialist Credential requirements by Spring 2010 Number of students active in the program through Spring 2010 Semester F S F S F S Program Changes Since Last Accreditation Visit Fall 2007 Table 2 indicates changes made within the Reading Program since Following the fall 2007 accreditation visit, several changes have been made to particular courses within the program, as well as in overall program design. Table 2: Program Changes Since Fall 2007 Year of Implementation Program Modification Implemented a new curriculum alignment, with specific IRA and CTC standards for particular focus in specific courses, and Key Assignments for evaluation of candidates mastery of professional standards Implemented a revised Department Exam, previously administered as a pretest in an entry level course, READ 508, and from this point also administered in the final comprehensive exam course, READ 595, to permit pre-post program comparisons Department proposal approved to offer READ 507 and READ 520 as web courses Implemented the Unit s Assessment System, including a Diversity Assignment, a Graduate Writing Assignment, a Midpoint Survey and an Exit Survey Department proposals approved to offer READ 570 as a web course Implemented a course unit change, changing the assessment course, READ 516 from 4 units to 3 units beginning Fall 2009, and the clinic course, READ 581 from 4 units to 5 units beginning Spring 2010.

222 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 4 Year of Implementation Program Modification Department proposals approved to offer all remaining courses in the Reading MS degree as web courses (Reading MS 100% online). II. CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT/PERFORMANCE AND PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS INFORMATION Each credential pathway is unique in how it fits into the overall program and the assessments it uses to determine candidate performance and proficiency for meeting credential requirements. This section presents descriptions of the key assessments used and reports data results within each pathway. The Reading/Language Arts Specialist Credential and the Reading Certificate pathways are assessed through the use of the Unit Assessment System. This system is designed for the continuous collection of multiple data sources, both internal and external, to monitor candidate performance and to manage and improve program effectiveness. Data are analyzed to determine if candidates have met the requirements necessary to matriculate through specified program levels are collected at four (4) transition points: Admission to Program Program Continuation Qualifying for the Culminating Experience Exit from Program Post Program Candidate data collected at the first transition point (Admission) establishes that candidates entering the program have the knowledge and dispositions necessary to be successful in pursuit of their educational objective. Data collected at the second and third transition points (Key Continuation Points) provide information on candidates ability to demonstrate deeper understanding of acquired knowledge, growth in implementation of skills, and continued development and display of dispositions outlined in institutional and professional standards. The fourth transition point (Exit from Program) provides data for determining whether candidates have acquired the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to be successful as professionals in the field of education. While not a program transition point, additional data are collected from graduates to monitor program effectiveness at midpoint and exit (Post Program). These data assist in determining program effectiveness for educating professionals that positively impact P- 12 student learning. As per CTC direction, admission data (Transition Point 1) will not be provided or described for the purposes of this report. The full complement of data gathered at each transition point to monitor candidate performance within the program is extensive. The measures are both quantitative and qualitative and reflect the depth of the program. While all requirements at each transition point (Appendix C, p. 23) must be met for candidates to progress through the program successfully, a core set of key assessments have been identified to be collected and analyzed at the unit level for the purpose of noting trends in candidate knowledge, skills, and dispositions, and for predictive analysis of candidate success. Additional assessments are collected and analyzed at the program level by appropriate faculty and stakeholder groups that also measure candidate proficiencies toward meeting program outcomes and professional standards.

223 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 5 The key assessments collected at specific transition points are identified in the following chart. This chart includes only those key assessments collected after candidates have been admitted to the program. Key assessments for Transition Point 1 Admission to Program - have been purposefully omitted. Data Set Transition Point (TP*) Course Level Assignments GPA 2, 3, 4 Including: Unit-wide writing assignment* (credential only) Unit-wide diversity assignment 2 2 Capstone Assessments 3, 4 Program Surveys Unit-Wide Mid-Point Survey Unit-wide Exit Survey*credential only) 2, 3 Post Program Graduate Program Survey (program specific) Post Program * Each data set has been aligned with program outcomes and NCATE assessment categories (Appendix D, p. 24). Key Assessment Data Collected at Transition Points 2, 3, and 4 Course Level Assignments/Grades (TP 2, 3, 4) While not an indicator of knowledge, skill and disposition proficiency in and of themselves, the deliberate alignment of courses and assignments with professional standards and program outcomes allow course grades to be a viable measure of candidate proficiency. All programs adhere to the University standard, as monitored by the Graduate Studies office, that each candidate maintain a GPA of 3.0 (B or better) for all courses listed on individual study plans. Any grade below a C requires the course be repeated. All candidates must maintain a GPA of 3.0 or they are placed on academic probation, requiring that they raise their GPA within two semesters or be subject to program disqualification. The Reading Certificate candidates complete 16 units of advanced coursework. Reading/ Language Arts Specialist Credential candidates, complete those 16 units plus an additional 15 units. The coursework (31 units) for the Reading/Language Arts Specialist Credential includes all required courses for the Master s in Reading, plus two additional courses. Table 3 shows the mean GPA in all required courses for both the Reading/Language Arts Credential and the Reading Certificate.

224 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 6 Table 3: Course Grade Point Averages and Pass Rates (Summer 2007 Spring 2010) Spring Spring READ Course Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall N Spring 2010 Self-Assess of Prof Comp GPA Pass% 98.0% 100% 95.7% 100% 100% 93.3% N Rdg/Thkg in Content Areas GPA Teach Read/LA Elem School Pass% 96.2% 96.4% 100% 96.6% 96.8% 94.2% N GPA Pass% 95.7% 95.0% 95.8% 100% 97.3% 100% N Linguistics and Reading GPA Pass% 96.6% 95.3% 92.9% 100% 100% 100% N Diagnostic Prescriptv Rdg GPA Pass% 95.1% 95.3% 93.8% 100% 100% 92.6% 520 N Technology in Reading/LA GPA Pass% 97.7% 100% 97.7% 100% 91.7% 90.5% N Socioculture of Literacy GPA Pass% 100% 100% 97.4% 100% 100% 100% 570 N Leadership in Reading GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 581 N Remediation Reading Diff GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 585 N Prof Devt Rdg Lang Arts GPA Pass% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% EDEL N Survey Educ Research GPA Overall Average and Pass Rate Pass% 100% 94.9% 100% 100% 93.9% 100% GPA Pass% 97.6% 97.3% 97.1% 99.2% 97.7% 96.9% Pass % = Pass Rate based on C (1.7) or better Note: All courses listed are required for the California Reading/Language Arts Specialist Credential 1. California Reading Certificate courses. 2. EDEL 511 Summer grades are combined with Spring of the same year.

225 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 7 Unit-Wide Assignment Assessments (TP 2) Writing Assignment The Survey of Educational Research course (EDEL 511) includes an assignment requiring a review of literature that is used to identify and remediate struggling writers and to assess understanding of content (subject and/or research methods knowledge). All sections of the course use the same assignment and scoring guides to ensure consistency across sections (Appendix E, p. 25). A 6-point rubric is used to evaluate this assignment. Any candidate scoring less than an average score of 4 must meet remediation requirements for successful program continuance. Remediation must be completed prior to TP 4. Table 4 presents the percentage of candidates that scored at a level of 4 or better on the unit-wide writing assignment and includes the average rubric score (on a 6-point scale). The EDEL 511 course is required of all credential candidates. Candidates completing courses for the certificate only are not required to take the course and so do not appear in the overall N as listed. READ 501 satisfies the university writing requirement for certificate candidates. Table 4: Writing Assignment Scores by Semester Term N % 4 Avg Rubric Score *Summer % 4.78 Fall % 4.75 *Spring % 4.60 Summer % 3.94 Fall % 5.38 *Spring % 4.00 Summer % **Fall 09 Spring % 5.25 *Scores missing from one course section **Scores not available Diversity Assignment The Sociocultural Context of Literacy and Learning course (READ 560) includes a qualitative case study assignment that candidates must complete in an educational setting with a population that is ethnically/culturally/linguistically/ability-wise different from them. For this assignment candidates assess, observe and interview 2 nd language learners, analyze findings, and draw conclusions and implications for instruction. Consistency is provided across all course sections as all instructors use the same policy and procedure for administering this assignment, including purpose, description of assignment, scoring guide, and criteria for passing (Appendix F, 27). All candidates must pass with a minimum 75% proficiency. The READ 560 course and diversity assignment is required for all credential and certificate candidates. Table 5 shows the percent of candidates that met expectations for passing the diversity assignment by semester.

226 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 8 Table 5: Diversity Assignment Results by Semester Avg. Score Term N % 75% (0 100% scale) **Fall 07 **Spring 08 *Fall % 92% Spring % 91% Fall % 91.4% **Spring 10 *Scores missing from one course section. **Scores not available. Capstone Assessments (TP 3, 4) Capstone assessments are culminating experiences that require candidates to demonstrate the cumulative knowledge, skills and dispositions developed over the course of program study and field experiences. Capstone assessments differ for credential and certificate candidates. Reading Certificate Capstone Assessment (TP 3): The Diagnostic-Prescriptive Report is the key assignment in READ 516 (last course in the Reading Certificate sequence) and serves as the capstone assessment for Reading Certificate candidates. This assignment provides opportunities for each candidate to participate in the ongoing assessment and evaluation of students reading and writing, including speakers of English and English language learners. Each candidate masters the planning and delivery of appropriate reading and writing instruction, based on formal and informal assessment and evaluation results, to meet the reading and writing needs of all students. Consistency of candidate proficiency evaluation is maintained across all course sections as instructors use the same assignment requirements, scoring guide and criteria for passing (Appendix G, p. 29). Currently, pass rates and GPA of the READ 516 course are used as evidence of that our candidates demonstrate proficiency on this assessment. As shown in Table 3, % of candidates passed the Diagnostic-Prescriptive Reading course (READ 516) with an average GPA between We are currently developing a system for the collection key assignment scores by course section via Googledocs to produce more informative key assignment data separate from the course as a whole. Reading/Language Arts Specialist Credential Capstone Assessment (TP 4): The Case Report is the key assignment in READ 581 and serves as the capstone assessment for credential candidates. This assignment provides the opportunity for candidates to work with a remedial reader to assess, diagnose and correct reading deficiencies. Using assessment data candidates must identify strengths and needs, and develop goals for remediation. This assignment culminates with the preparation of a final Report for the instructor, parents/care-givers and next clinician to work with the reader. Consistency of candidate proficiency evaluation is maintained across all course sections as instructors use the same assignment requirements, scoring guide and criteria for passing (Appendix H, p. 31). Currently, pass rates and GPA of the READ 581 course are used as evidence of that our candidates demonstrate proficiency on this assessment. As shown in Table 3, 100% of candidates passed the Remediation of Reading Difficulties course (READ 581) with an average GPA between We are currently developing a system for the collection key assignment scores by course section via Googledocs to produce more informative key assignment data separate from the course as a whole.

227 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 9 Unit-Wide Surveys (TP 3, Post Program) Two surveys (used by all Unit advanced programs) are used to collect data on candidate perceptions of their performance and proficiency at two different points in the program. The surveys are anonymous and are administered electronically. The link to the survey and survey instructions are provided by the course instructor. Both surveys consist of the same questions rated on a 4 point scale disagree (1-strongly disagree; 2-disagree; 3-agree; 4-strongly agree). The surveys were revised after fall 07 with more questions added to provide a more comprehensive data set. Credential candidates complete both surveys one in a course that is taken mid-way through the program (Mid-point survey -READ 516) and one at the end of the program (Exit Survey-READ 581). Together these surveys allow for valuable comparative analysis on candidate perceptions of their performance and proficiency in regard to their knowledge, skills and dispositions from mid-program to program exit. Certificate only candidates complete only the midpoint survey administered in READ 516, which is last required course in the certificate sequence. For these candidates the midpoint survey serves as the exit evaluation. Tables 6-11 provide the survey results on questions related to student performance and proficiency. The table includes the response rates and percentage of 3 and 4 (agree to strongly agree) ratings on each question by term. Additional Program Specific Exit Survey In addition to the unit-wide midpoint and exit survey, the Reading Department collects and analyzes data from a program specific Graduate Program Exit Survey. All data from this survey are collected, analyzed and stored at the program level. For the purposes of this report Tables provide the average rating of each question from those sections of the survey measuring program impact on candidates development of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Each question is rated on a 5 point scale (1-poor; 2-fair; 3-good; 4-very good; 5-excellent). Survey results are presented by term and location where classes were held.

228 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 10 Table 6: Percentages of Agree/Strongly Agree Responses on Unit-Wide Midpoint and Exit Surveys for Fall 2007 As a graduate of (graduate student in) this program,... Midpoint N = 32 RR = 76% Fall 2007 Exit N = 35 RR = 85% I have improved (am improving) my ability to collaborate with other professionals in school settings. 96.9% 100% I have increased (am improving) my ability to use technology to support teaching and learning, or as appropriate to my role in schools. 90.6% 88.9% I am better (becoming better) prepared to make informed decisions about problems I face as a professional. 96.9% 97.2% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to promote equity and diversity. 93.8% 97.2% I strengthened (am strengthening) my understanding of professional and ethical standards. 96.9% 100% I am now more (becoming more) able to identify needed change. 100% 100% I have improved (am improving) my ability to influence decision-making. 93.8% 97.2% I feel more (am beginning to feel) qualified to accept leadership roles. 96.9% 97.2% I continue to be motivated to seek professional growth opportunities. 96.9% 100% I have improved (am improving) my abilities as a reflective practitioner. 96.9% 100% Overall Average 95.9% 97.8% RR = Response Rate Table 7: Percentages of Agree/Strongly Agree Responses on Unit-Wide Midpoint and Exit Surveys for Spring 2008 As a graduate of (graduate student in) this program,... Midpoint N = 9 RR = 21% Spring 2008 Exit N = 16 RR = 100% I have improved (am improving) my ability to collaborate with other professionals in school settings. 100% 87.5% I have increased (am improving) my ability to use technology to support teaching and learning, or as appropriate to my role in schools. 100% 81.3% I am better (becoming better) prepared to make informed decisions about problems I face as a professional. 100% 100% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to promote equity and diversity. 100% 100% I strengthened (am strengthening) my understanding of professional and ethical standards. 100% 87.5% I am now more (becoming more) able to identify needed change. 100% 100% I have improved (am improving) my ability to influence decision-making. 100% 93.8% I feel more (am beginning to feel) qualified to accept leadership roles. 88.9% 93.8% I continue to be motivated to seek professional growth opportunities. 77.8% 93.8% I have improved (am improving) my abilities as a reflective practitioner. 100% 100% Overall Average 96.7% 93.8% RR = Response Rate

229 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 11 Table 8: Percentages of Agree/Strongly Agree Responses on Unit-Wide Midpoint and Exit Surveys for Fall 2008 As a graduate of (graduate student in) this program,... Midpoint N = 39 RR = 78% Fall 2008 Exit N = 30 RR = 88% I have improved (am improving) my ability to collaborate with other professionals in school settings. 100% 100% I have increased (am improving) my ability to use technology to support teaching and learning, or as appropriate to my role in schools. 89.7% 86.7% I am better (becoming better) prepared to make informed decisions about problems I face as a professional. 100% 100% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to promote equity and diversity. 97.4% 90.0% I apply (am applying) my understanding of professional and ethical standards in my work with colleagues, students, families, and community. 97.4% 100% I have increased (am increasing) my knowledge of the foundational research that informs my field of study. 100% 100% I have the (am increasing my) knowledge base required to successfully explain the key concepts in my field of study. 100% 96.7% I have become (am becoming) more knowledgeable about professional, state, and institutional content standards that guide my field of study. 97.4% 100% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to design and implement instruction for diverse learners. 100% 100% I have the (am increasing my) ability to design and implement assessments that are aligned with instructional goals and learner characteristics. 100% 100% I am more (becoming more) able to identify needed change. 97.4% 100% I have improved (am improving) my ability to influence decision-making within my professional setting. 89.7% 100% I feel more (am beginning to feel) qualified to accept leadership roles. 87.2% 100% I continue to be motivated to seek professional growth opportunities. 97.4% 100% I have improved (am improving) my abilities as a reflective and ethical practitioner. I understand (am increasing my understanding of) how policy shapes practice and impacts the context of student learning. I have increased (am increasing) my ability to foster relationships among schools, families, and community to enhance student learning. 97.4% 100% 97.4% 90.0% 89.7% 96.7% Overall Average 96.4% 97.6% RR = Response Rate

230 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 12 Table 9: Percentages of Agree/Strongly Agree Responses on Unit-Wide Midpoint and Exit Surveys for Spring 2009 As a graduate of (graduate student in) this program,... Midpoint N = 13 RR = 57% Spring 2009 Exit N = 34 RR = 100% I have improved (am improving) my ability to collaborate with other professionals in school settings. 92.3% 97.1% I have increased (am improving) my ability to use technology to support teaching and learning, or as appropriate to my role in schools. 76.9% 91.2% I am better (becoming better) prepared to make informed decisions about problems I face as a professional. 92.3% 100% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to promote equity and diversity. 100% 100% I apply (am applying) my understanding of professional and ethical standards in my work with colleagues, students, families, and community. 100% 100% I have increased (am increasing) my knowledge of the foundational research that informs my field of study. 100% 100% I have the (am increasing my) knowledge base required to successfully explain the key concepts in my field of study. 100% 100% I have become (am becoming) more knowledgeable about professional, state, and institutional content standards that guide my field of study. 92.3% 100% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to design and implement instruction for diverse learners. 100% 100% I have the (am increasing my) ability to design and implement assessments that are aligned with instructional goals and learner characteristics. 100% 100% I am more (becoming more) able to identify needed change. 100% 97.1% I have improved (am improving) my ability to influence decision-making within my professional setting. 100% 97.1% I feel more (am beginning to feel) qualified to accept leadership roles. 100% 97.1% I continue to be motivated to seek professional growth opportunities. 100% 97.1% I have improved (am improving) my abilities as a reflective and ethical practitioner. I understand (am increasing my understanding of) how policy shapes practice and impacts the context of student learning. I have increased (am increasing) my ability to foster relationships among schools, families, and community to enhance student learning. 100% 100% 92.3% 97.1% 100% 94.1% Overall Average 96.8% 98.1% RR = Response Rate

231 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 13 Table 10: Percentages of Agree/Strongly Agree Responses on Unit-Wide Midpoint and Exit Surveys for Fall 2009 Fall 2009 As a graduate of (graduate student in) this program,... Midpoint N = 42 RR = 71% Exit N = 26 RR = 81% I have improved (am improving) my ability to collaborate with other professionals in school settings. 95.2% 92.3% I have increased (am improving) my ability to use technology to support teaching and learning, or as appropriate to my role in schools. 88.1% 84.6% I am better (becoming better) prepared to make informed decisions about problems I face as a professional. 97.6% 96.2% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to promote equity and diversity. 92.9% 96.2% I apply (am applying) my understanding of professional and ethical standards in my work with colleagues, students, families, and community. 97.6% 96.2% I have increased (am increasing) my knowledge of the foundational research that informs my field of study. 95.2% 96.2% I have the (am increasing my) knowledge base required to successfully explain the key concepts in my field of study. 100% 96.2% I have become (am becoming) more knowledgeable about professional, state, and institutional content standards that guide my field of study. 88.1% 96.2% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to design and implement instruction for diverse learners. 100% 96.2% I have the (am increasing my) ability to design and implement assessments that are aligned with instructional goals and learner characteristics. 95.2% 96.2% I am more (becoming more) able to identify needed change. 97.6% 96.2% I have improved (am improving) my ability to influence decision-making within my professional setting. 90.5% 96.2% I feel more (am beginning to feel) qualified to accept leadership roles. 90.5% 96.2% I continue to be motivated to seek professional growth opportunities. 95.2% 96.2% I have improved (am improving) my abilities as a reflective and ethical practitioner. I understand (am increasing my understanding of) how policy shapes practice and impacts the context of student learning. I have increased (am increasing) my ability to foster relationships among schools, families, and community to enhance student learning. 95.2% 96.2% 90.5% 92.3% 95.2% 96.2% Overall Average 94.4% 95.0% RR = Response Rate

232 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 14 Table 11: Percentages of Agree/Strongly Agree Responses on Unit-Wide Midpoint and Exit Surveys for Spring 2010 Spring 2010 As a graduate of (graduate student in) this program,... Midpoint N = 3 RR = 11% Exit N = 19 RR = 100% I have improved (am improving) my ability to collaborate with other professionals in school settings. 100% 100% I have increased (am improving) my ability to use technology to support teaching and learning, or as appropriate to my role in schools. 66.7% 89.5% I am better (becoming better) prepared to make informed decisions about problems I face as a professional. 100% 94.7% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to promote equity and diversity. 100% 100% I apply (am applying) my understanding of professional and ethical standards in my work with colleagues, students, families, and community. 100% 100% I have increased (am increasing) my knowledge of the foundational research that informs my field of study. 100% 100% I have the (am increasing my) knowledge base required to successfully explain the key concepts in my field of study. 100% 94.7% I have become (am becoming) more knowledgeable about professional, state, and institutional content standards that guide my field of study. 66.7% 94.7% I have increased (am increasing) my ability to design and implement instruction for diverse learners. 100% 100% I have the (am increasing my) ability to design and implement assessments that are aligned with instructional goals and learner characteristics. 100% 100% I am more (becoming more) able to identify needed change. 100% 100% I have improved (am improving) my ability to influence decision-making within my professional setting. 100% 100% I feel more (am beginning to feel) qualified to accept leadership roles. 66.7% 94.7% I continue to be motivated to seek professional growth opportunities. 100% 100% I have improved (am improving) my abilities as a reflective and ethical practitioner. I understand (am increasing my understanding of) how policy shapes practice and impacts the context of student learning. I have increased (am increasing) my ability to foster relationships among schools, families, and community to enhance student learning. 100% 100% 100% 94.7% 100% 100% Overall Average 94.1% 97.8% RR = Response Rate

233 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 15 Table 12: Graduate Program Exit Survey Results Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 COURSE SEQUENCE INSTRUCTIONAL FALL 07 SPR 08 Please evaluate the extent to which your course sequence has MAIN Irvine PYL MAIN Irvine provided you with the: (13) (4) (19) (7) (9) 1. Ability to select, administer and interpret assessment instruments for varied ability level students inc. at-risk, gifted, struggling and developmental Ability to deliver appropriate intervention strategies for struggling readers Ability to create and deliver instruction for whole classroom/small group/individual and classroom /special reading settings Ability to select&utilize appropriate inst l resources Knowledge of the relationship of theory and research to practice Ability to analyze & evaluate inst l experiences Ability to provide a balanced reading program Ability to deliver appropriate instruction to improve phonemic awareness word attack comprehension oral language writing speaking listening vocabulary spelling thinking skills Ability to utilize technology in testing & teaching COURSE SEQUENCE INTERPERSONAL FALL 07 SPR 08 Please evaluate the extent to which your course sequence has MAIN Irvine PYL MAIN Irvine provided you with the: (13) (4) (19) (7) (9) 1. Knowledge of cultural differences among students Understanding of the language needs of all students, including English Language Learners Ability to meet instructional needs of all students in terms of language differences Understanding of individual differences of students in terms of cultural, physical, ethnic, gender, linguistic and socio-economic characteristics Ability to work with families to promote better school performance COURSE SEQUENCE LEADERSHIP FALL 07 SPR 08 Please evaluate the extent to which your course sequence has MAIN Irvine PYL MAIN Irvine provided you with the: (13) (4) (19) (7) (9) 1. Ability to create and implement a whole school curriculum program including design, implementation & evaluation Ability to communicate effectively with administrators, colleagues, parents and children regarding assessment, instruction & educational goals Possess and utilize consultation and interpersonal communication skills Ability to fulfill leadership roles at both the school site and district levels Ability to develop appropriate curriculum for all learners in both reading and content areas. 6. Ability to provide staff development opportunities for colleagues Ability to model effective teaching strategies Interest in remaining current in the profession, being involved in professional organizations, and professional learning opportunities Note: Locations where classes are held: MAIN = CSUF s main campus, Irvine = Irvine campus, PYL = Placentia Yorba Linda School District < 3.5 > 4.5

234 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 16 Table 13: Graduate Program Exit Survey Results Fall 2008 and Spring 2009 COURSE SEQUENCE INSTRUCTIONAL Please evaluate the extent to which your course sequence has provided FALL 08 MAIN Irvine/NM SPR 09 MAIN Fullerton/BP you with the: 13) (19) (11) (17) 1. Ability to select, administer,&interpret assessment instruments for varied ability level students inc. at-risk, gifted, struggling and developmental Ability to deliver appropriate intervention strategies for struggling readers Ability to create and deliver instruction for whole classroom/small group/individual and classroom /special reading settings Ability to select&utilize appropriate inst l resources Knowledge of the relationship of theory and research to practice Ability to analyze & evaluate inst l experiences Ability to provide a balanced reading program Ability to deliver appropriate instruction to improve phonemic awareness word attack comprehension oral language writing speaking listening vocabulary spelling thinking skills Ability to utilize technology in testing & teaching COURSE SEQUENCE INTERPERSONAL Please evaluate the extent to which your course sequence has provided FALL 08 MAIN Irvine/NM SPR 09 MAIN Fullerton/BP you with the: (13) (19) (11) (17) 1. Knowledge of cultural differences among students Understanding of the language needs of all students, including English Language Learners Ability to meet instructional needs of all students in terms of language differences Understanding of individual differences of students in terms of cultural, physical, ethnic, gender, linguistic and socio-economic characteristics Ability to work with families to promote better school performance COURSE SEQUENCE LEADERSHIP Please evaluate the extent to which your course sequence has provided FALL 08 SPR 09 you with the: MAIN Irvine/NM MAIN Fullerton/BP (13) (19) (11) (17) 1. Ability to create and implement a whole school curriculum program including design, implementation & evaluation. 2. Ability to communicate effectively with administrators, colleagues, parents and children regarding assessment, instruction & educational goals. 3. Possess and utilize consultation and interpersonal communication skills Ability to fulfill leadership roles at both the school site and district levels Ability to develop appropriate curriculum for all learners in both reading and content areas. 6. Ability to provide staff development opportunities for colleagues Ability to model effective teaching strategies Interest in remaining current in the profession, being involved in professional organizations, and professional learning opportunities Note: Locations where classes are held: MAIN = CSUF s main campus, Irvine = Irvine campus, NM = Newport Mesa School District; Fullerton= Fullerton School District, BP =Buena Park School District < 3.5 > 4.5

235 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 17 Table 14: Graduate Program Exit Survey Results Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 COURSE SEQUENCE INSTRUCTIONAL Please evaluate the extent to which your course sequence has provided FALL 09 MAIN Capo SPR 10 MAIN you with the: (10) (8) (17) 1. Ability to select, administer,&interpret assessment instruments for varied ability level students inc. at-risk, gifted, struggling and developmental Ability to deliver appropriate intervention strategies for struggling readers Ability to create and deliver instruction for whole classroom/small group/individual and classroom /special reading settings Ability to select&utilize appropriate inst l resources Knowledge of the relationship of theory and research to practice Ability to analyze & evaluate inst l experiences Ability to provide a balanced reading program Ability to deliver appropriate instruction to improve phonemic awareness word attack comprehension oral language writing speaking listening vocabulary spelling thinking skills Ability to utilize technology in testing & teaching COURSE SEQUENCE INTERPERSONAL Please evaluate the extent to which your course sequence has provided FALL 09 MAIN Capo SPR 10 MAIN you with the: (10) (8) (17) 1. Knowledge of cultural differences among students Understanding of the language needs of all students, including English Language Learners Ability to meet instructional needs of all students in terms of language differences Understanding of individual differences of students in terms of cultural, physical, ethnic, gender, linguistic and socio-economic characteristics Ability to work with families to promote better school performance COURSE SEQUENCE LEADERSHIP Please evaluate the extent to which your course sequence has provided you with the: FALL 09 MAIN Capo (10) (8) SPR 10 MAIN (17) 1. Ability to create and implement a whole school curriculum program including design, implementation & evaluation Ability to communicate effectively with administrators, colleagues, parents and children regarding assessment, instruction & educational goals Possess and utilize consultation and interpersonal communication skills Ability to fulfill leadership roles at both the school site and district levels Ability to develop appropriate curriculum for all learners in both reading and content areas. 6. Ability to provide staff development opportunities for colleagues Ability to model effective teaching strategies Interest in remaining current in the profession, being involved in professional organizations, and professional learning opportunities Note: Locations where classes are held: MAIN = CSUF s main campus, Capo = San Juan Capistrano School District

236 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 18 III. ANALYSIS OF CANDIDATE ASSESSMENT DATA When new assessment data are available, these are reviewed in monthly department meetings and beginning-of-semester retreats. CTC/NCATE approved the department assessment system in fall, No major changes have been made in that system in the three subsequent years. Analysis of Key Assessment Data Results Presented in Section II COURSE LEVEL ASSIGNMENTS/GRADES (Table 3) Program and Candidate Strengths: The overall pass rate for graduate courses is 96.9%, indicating high levels of proficiency for nearly all of our candidates. This high level of candidate success is viewed as related to the strength of program design. The general design offers foundational courses early in the program and aligns methods courses with field experience courses to provide opportunities to put knowledge and skills into practice. Course pass rates indicate that a high majority of our candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to meet program and professional standards as aligned with course objectives. While the pass rate data range from 96.9% to 99.2%, these data include withdrawals and incompletes: none represent failing grades. Areas for Improvement: The highest overall GPA s are in the courses 570, 585, and 581. It is somewhat of a concern that these data may indicate a lack of academic rigor in these courses. READ 570 and 585 are the two courses taken in addition to the Masters degree for the Specialist Credential, taught by part-time lecturers. One explanation for the higher GPA in these courses may be that often, candidates are returning to take these courses through Extended Education after additional teaching experience. READ 581, the clinic course, was a greater concern. This course was re-assigned in spring 2010 to a different tenure track faculty member. Assignments and evaluation procedures were revised, and the GPA for this most recent semester is more in line with the other graduate courses. WRITING ASSIGNMENT (Table 4) Program and Candidate Strengths: The research course, EDEL 511, is required for the Specialist Credential (but not for the Reading Certificate). It is intended as a flag to identify students needing to improve their academic writing before program completion. Since this assessment was identified for tracking, few candidates have fallen below the criterion of a rating of 4 on a 6-point scale. There has been a 100% pass rate in 6 out of 8 semesters for which these data are available. Areas for Improvement: The high pass rate on this assignment may indicate a need to identify a different assignment to identify students needing improvement in academic writing. EDEL 511 is a course taken early in the EDEL program, but later in the Reading program; thus, there may be a variance in expectations for student writing proficiency. There have been several discussions in Reading Department meetings regarding the advisability of identifying a different course assignment for this assessment. UNIT-WIDE MIDPOINT AND EXIT SURVEYS (Tables 6-11) Program and Candidate Strengths: Nine of the twelve Overall Average ratings of percentages

237 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 19 of agree/strongly agree responses on the Unit-Wide Midpoint and Exit Surveys were 95% or higher. The spring 2008 Exit Survey Overall Average was 93.8; the fall 2009 Midpoint Survey Overall Average was 94.4; and the spring 2010 Midpoint Survey Overall Average was One item that has consistently received high ratings on these surveys is, I strengthened (am strengthening) my understanding of professional and ethical standards edited from fall 2008 onward to, I apply (am applying) my understanding of professional and ethical standards in my work with colleagues, students, families, and community. Ratings also were consistently high on two items added to the Survey in fall 2008: I have increased (am increasing) my ability o design and implement instruction for diverse learners; and I have the (am increasing my) ability to design and implement assessments that are aligned with instructional goals and learner characteristics. Areas for Improvement: One item that was not consistently high on these surveys was, I have increased (am improving) my ability to use technology to support teaching and learning or as appropriate to my role in schools. This item was below 90% agree/strongly agree on nine of the twelve surveys. This lower rating has been discussed in department meetings. The course, READ 520, Technology in Reading, typically is taken in the candidates first semester, and it appears that courses in subsequent semesters may need to more explicitly incorporate uses of instructional technology to support and enhance reading instruction. GRADUATE PROGRAM EXIT SURVEY (Tables 12-14) Program and Candidate Strengths: Ratings on all categories of the department s Graduate Program Exit Survey have maintained or increased from to In the category of Course Sequence: Instruction, average ratings on a scale of one (low) to five (high) ranged from 3.9 to 4.2 in ; from 3.8 to 4.1 in ; and, from 4.3 to 4.5 in In the category of Course Sequence: Interpersonal, average ratings ranged from 3.8 to 4.3 in ; from 3.8 to 4.4 in ; and from 4.3 to 4.5 in Average ratings for the category of Course Sequence: Leadership, average candidate ratings ranged from 3.8 to 4.2 in , from 3.8 to 4.1 in ; and from 4.2 to 4.5 in In the category of Course Sequence: Instruction, item number eight asks candidates to rate their ability to deliver appropriate instruction to improve ten reading and reading-related skills. In , the five candidate groups gave ratings of 3.5 or lower to a total of 5 of these skills; in , the four candidate groups gave ratings of 3.5 or lower to a total of 2 skills; in , the three candidate groups no skills were rated 3.5 or lower. On this same item, in , the five candidate groups gave ratings of 4.5 or higher to a total of 7 skills; in , the four candidate groups gave ratings of 4.5 or higher to a total of 1 skill; and in , the three candidate groups gave ratings of 4.5 or higher to 9 skills. Areas for Improvement: The only item that consistently is rated lower than others on the Graduate Program Exit Survey is, ability to use technology in testing and teaching. This aligns with a lower rating on a similar item on the Midpoint and Exit Surveys. As noted in that section, above, the department has discussed the need to incorporate uses of instructional technology across the graduate program curriculum.

238 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 20 IV. USE OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS TO IMPROVE CANDIDATE AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE The following chart outlines steps that department faculty have taken, and plan to take, to address the areas for improvement identified in Section III of this report. Goal Ensure the academic rigor of all courses in the program Replace the EDEL 511 Lit Review as the Unit-wide Writing Assignment with a department course assignment Better prepare candidates to use instructional technologies Remediation Activities 1. READ 581, the clinic course, was assigned to a different faculty member to serve as instructor and course custodian. 2. The new course custodian revised the key assignment for the course, the Case Report, and implemented more rigorous standards for evaluating student work throughout the course. 3. The chair will meet with all course custodians to discuss the need for balance between course rigor and student success. 4. The department will continue to monitor GPA in all program courses. 1. The department will review the first-semester writing assignments in READ 501, and steps to be taken when there is a concern with a candidate s academic writing at this early stage of the candidate s program. 2. Faculty will continue department meeting discussion of the purpose of the Unit-Wide Writing Assignment, and steps to be taken when a candidate scores below the criterion score. 3. Faculty will continue department meeting discussion of the best point in the program for the Unit-Wide Writing Assignment 4. By the end of Spring, 2011, revise department assessment system and curriculum documents to reflect a department course assignment to be used as the Unit-wide Writing Assignment. 1. The department has discussed the data indicating that candidates completing the program consistently respond with ratings of less than excellent as to their preparation to use instructional technologies, and the need to incorporate this throughout the program curriculum, in addition to the first-semester course, READ 510, Technology in Reading. 2. In order to develop web course proposals in Spring 2010, faculty attended numerous hands-on training workshops on instructional technologies such as uses of wikis, blogs, SoftChalk, and a website designed for video-based evaluation of instruction. 3. A standing agenda item for department meetings is faculty sharing of ways they use instructional technology in their delivery of course material and integrate its use into assignments. 4. By the beginning of Spring, 2011, incorporate key instructional technologies into all course syllabi.

239 APPENDIX A: Unit Conceptual Framework and Program Outcomes Education Unit Conceptual Framework CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 21 a transformational journey toward educational advancement and achievement Core Values We are a community of educators, educational partners, and students. Seven core values undergird our professional community. We value learning as a life long process, professional literature that guides and informs our practice, responsibility to self and to the group, diversity as enriching the whole, multiple pathways to learning including the use of technology, critical inquiry that promotes positive student outcomes, and authentic and reflective assessment. We aspire to adhere to and model these in all our professional interactions. Through experiencing these core values in their educational journey, we believe our students will embrace and in turn, model them in their professional lives. Based on our core values, our mission is as follows: Mission Statement Our mission is to teach, to serve, and to engage in scholarship. We teach our students to be critical thinkers and lifelong learners. We prepare professionals who improve student learning, promote diversity, make informed decisions, engage in collaborative endeavors, maintain professional and ethical standards, and become change agents in their workplaces. We engage in scholarly work that informs the profession and serve the educational community by providing applied scholarship. Student Outcomes and Indicators After succ essful completion of a program of study, our credential recipients and program graduates are: Outcome 1: Knowledgeable and Competent Specialists demonstrate strong foundation in subject matter or field of study demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field demonstrate ability to use technology as a resource Outcome 2: Reflective and Responsive Practitioners promote diversity make informed decisions engage in collaborative endeavors think critically Outcome 3: Committed and Caring Professionals become change agents maintain professional and ethical standards become life long learners

240 APPENDIX B: Program Outcomes and Professional Standards Alignment Conceptual Framework Program Outcomes 1. KNOWLEDGEABLE & COMPETENT EDUCATORS a) Demonstrate a strong foundation in subject matter knowledge or field of study b) Demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field c) Demonstrate ability to use Knowledge, Skills, Dispositions CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 22 Reading (READ) Certificate, Credential & Masters California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) and International Reading Association (IRA) Certificate CCTC IRA Credential & MS CCTC IRA K 2,3, 6 C1 14,19 M1 S 7 C2 12 M2 S 7 C2 12 M2 technology as a resource 2. REFLECTIVE & RESPONSIVE PRACTITIONERS a) Promote diversity K, S, D 9,10 C4 15,20 M4 b) Make informed decisions K, S, D 4,5,11 C3 16,18 M3 c) Engage in collaborative D 9,10 C4 15,20 M4 endeavors d) Think critically K, S, D 9,10 C4 15,20 M4 3. COMMITTED & CARING PROFESSIONALS a) Become change agents D 8 C5 13,17 M5 b) Maintain professional and D 8 C5 13,17 M5 ethical standards c) Become life-long learners D 8 C5 13,17 M5

241 APPENDIX C: READ Transition Points and Performance Measures CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 23 Reading (READ) Admission to Program Program Continuation Qualifying for Culminating Experience All Programs Baccalaureate from an accredited institution GPA of 3.0 on last 60 units All Programs Approved study plan prior to completion of 9 units GPA 3.0 (<3.0 = academic probation) Passing score on EDEL 511 Literature Review [Passing=4 or better; <4 = red flag letter on file] Passing score on Diversity Assignment (READ 560) [Minimum 75%] (faculty review) Masters/Credential GPA of 3.0 prior to entry to READ % or higher on READ 516 Midpoint Portfolio (Committee Review) Certificate only GPA of 3.0 prior to entry to READ 516 Exit from Program Masters only Completion of 30 specified units with a minimum 3.0 GPA Passing score on Comprehensive exam (READ 595) [ 4 on program rubric (committee review) OR READ 597-Project OR READ 598-Thesis (committee review) Masters/Credential 80% or higher on READ 581 Final Portfolio (committee Review) 80% or higher on READ 581 Content Exit Exam Credential only Completion of 30 specified units with a minimum 3.0 GPA Certificate only Completion of 16 specified units with a minimum 3.0 GPA 80% or higher on READ 516 Portfolio (committee Review) Certificate/Credential only Verification of three years successful teaching experience (department form) Verification of Current Multiple Subject or Single Subject credential (documentation on file)

242 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 24 APPENDIX D: Alignment of Key Assessments with Program Outcomes and NCATE Standard 1 Categories [TP =Transition Point at which data are collected] Reading Key Assessment Alignment CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Outcome 1 Indicators: a) Demonstrate strong foundation in subject matter or field of study PROFESSIONAL & PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions d) Think critically DISPOSITIONS Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions c) Engage in collaborative Endeavors d) Think critically Outcome 3 Indicators: a) Become change agents b) Maintain professional and ethical standards c) Become life-long learners STUDENT LEARNING Outcome 1 Indicators: b) Demonstrate strong understanding and implementation of pedagogical skills or skills in their field Outcome 2 Indicators: a) Promote diversity b) Make informed decisions GPA in content coursework [2,3,4] Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) including Writing and Diversity Assignment [TP 2,3,4] Capstone Assessments [TP 4] COE Mid/exit Survey Data (select items) Program Survey Data (select items) Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] Capstone Assessments [TP 3, 4] COE Mid/exit Survey Data (select items) Program Survey Data (select items) Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) including Writing and Diversity Assignment [TP 2,3,4] COE Mid/exit Survey Data (select items) Program Survey Data (select items) Course Level Assignments (aligned with outcomes, standards) [TP 2,3,4] COE Mid/exit Survey Data (select items) Program Survey Data (select items)

243 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 25 APPENDIX E: Writing Assignment Policy, Procedure, and Assessment Rubric Writing Assessment Policy Purpose: The two purposes of the Reading Education Writing Assessment are to: develop proficient writers through assessment and support, and provide data for the purposes of program evaluation and improvement. A similar writing assessment is required of all graduate programs in the College of Education. Process: The Literature Review Assignment in EDEL 511, Survey of Educational Research, has been identified as the graduate student writing assessment for Graduate Reading Programs. The final draft of the writing assignment is assessed. The same assignment will be assessed for all course sections. The rubric used to evaluate the Literature Review Assignment is common across the College of Education. The rubric is based on a 6-point scale (5-6 = Exceeds Expectations, 4 = Meets Expectations, 1-3 = Below Expectations). Four categories of traits are assessed: o Completeness of Response & Quality/Clarity of Thought o Organization, Sequence of Ideas/Focus o Accuracy of Content/Vocabulary o Resources/Support/Examples An additional assessment of content is also conducted. The EDEL Instructor will forward a form letter to the Reading Department Graduate Program Coordinator for each student scoring below 4 on the Literature Review Assignment. Students scoring below 4 on the Literature Review Assignment will be required to meet with the Reading Department Graduate Program Coordinator to obtain a plan for writing improvement. Responsibilities of Candidates Determined to be Non-Proficient Writers: Students scoring below 4 on the Literature Review Assignment: o will receive a copy of the letter that will be placed in their file o will be required to meet with the Reading Department Graduate Program Coordinator to identify ways to improve Plans for the candidate to ensure writing improvement may require that the candidate: o arrange for and document tutorial help at he University Learning Center or other support center tutorial help at the University Learning Center o enroll in and complete a composition course, e.g., English 301 o demonstrate improvement by completing a supervised writing sample assignment Reporting Scores: Individual candidate writing assessment scores will be reported as a total average score (range 6-1). Scores will be reported each semester by the course instructors to the College of Education Assessment Director by the Graduate Program Coordinator. Data will be used for program evaluation and improvement. Student names and CWIDs will be confidential.

244 Rubric for Scoring Master s Students Literature Review Assignment CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 26 Student Name Student CWID Content, Structure, & Style Exceeds Expectation (5-6) At Expectation (4) Below Expectation (1-3) Completeness of Response & Quality/Clarity of Thought Addresses the topic clearly and responds effectively to all aspects of the task; ideas are well-developed; explores the issues thoughtfully and in depth. Addresses the topic clearly, but may respond to some aspects of the task more effectively than others; shows some depth and clarity of thought. May treat the topic casually, simplistically or repetitively; lacks focus, or demonstrates confused or simplistic thinking; often fails to communicate ideas; distorts or neglects aspects of the task; presenting generalizations without adequate and appropriate support Organization, Sequence of Ideas/Focus Organization is excellent in terms of bridges and transitions; paper remains focused with no wandering to unrelated topics; minor points are related to the thesis; ideas flow in sensible sequence; discussion of area is complete before transitioning to another. Generally good presentation with either bridges or headings but not all the time; paper is generally focused with text following the order presented in the introduction; relationship of ideas made evident Few clues are used so that text organization is a challenge to reader; relationship of ideas to thesis is vague; text jumps from topic to topic in shotgun approach; reader must work to keep up with flow of ideas. Accuracy of Content/Vocabulary Information is accurate and attributed to correct resources; pragmatic suggestions are appropriate to question; appropriate reading terms are employed and well defined. Information is accurate in description but some resources or definitions are weak. Errors are present in either content and/or resources and examples; response contains poorly defined terms; definitions are faulty; information attributed to incorrect sources Resources/Support/ Examples Authorities are thoughtfully selected from a wide array of sources and applied appropriately to content; examples are given and well developed for the topic Ideas generally supported by professionally sound resources however, only general resources repeatedly cited; too few or too many examples are provided Few resources presented or resources cited limited to class texts; examples are given but no definitions or explanations are provided

245 APPENDIX F: Diversity Assignment Policy and Procedure CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 27 Diversity Assignment Policy Purpose: The two purposes of the Reading Education Diversity Assignment are: to ensure that candidates have the opportunity to work with prek-12 students who are ethnically/culturally/linguistically/ability-wise different from themselves; and to to provide data for the purposes of program evaluation and improvement. A similar diversity assignment is required in all graduate programs in the College of Education. Process: READ 560, The Sociocultural Context of Literacy and Learning, has been identified as the course in which students complete a diversity assignment. This is done via the Case Study project, which is required in all sections of READ 560. The assignment is assessed on a scoring guide that is common across all sections of READ 560. Score Reporting: Diversity assignment scores will be reported as percents (points earned/points possible). Scores will be reported each semester by the course instructors to the College of Education Assessment Director via the Department Chair and Graduate Program Coordinator. Data will be used for program evaluation and improvement. Student names and CWIDs will be confidential. READ Diversity Assignment: An English Language Learner Case Study: The major project for this course is a small-scale case study that you will develop and carry out in an educational setting. This mini qualitative research project requires that you assess, observe, interview and conduct 1:1 sessions with one student - who has been designated a second language learner - throughout the semester. The basic purpose of this case study is to allow each student in our class to pursue in-depth an issue in cross-cultural teaching in the area of language arts/reading that is of particular interest. When selecting the student for this case study, please remember that the student must be culturally or linguistically different from you as their teacher. It is my hope that whatever area of literacy individual class members choose to focus on with their case study, it will help us as a group better understand certain key issues of the class, and more broadly, help us to make effective decisions about the classroom, the student and the work in the field. This project is on-going and will culminate in a final paper (10-12 page, typed, double-spaced pages, one inch margins, APA, 12 font). Guidelines will be handed out and discussed in the third week of class. To help you complete your project in a timely manner, I ve set aside six times throughout the semester to work on your case studies in class and to receive feedback from me and your assigned partner: Case Study Question: On [date] please bring to class a brief (no more than a paragraph or so) account of a burning question and area of literacy you are thinking of exploring and why it s important to you. Consider why you chose this student and explain what lead you to select this student and question. Research Plan: Your case study should be guided by a plan. You will have time on [date] to work with your partner to develop your research agenda. On [date] please bring to class a brief description of your research plan including (a) your burning question, (b) any sub-questions you want to answer about the student, (c) the area of literacy or component of reading you wish to explore, (c) the settings and behaviors you intend to observe, (c) the type of information you would like to obtain via the interviews with the student and his/her parent, (d) how you intend to use your 1:1 sessions, (e) assessments you will be using, and (f) additional information you will need to obtain to help "answer" your question. Assessments: On [date] you will have time in class to develop an assessment plan for your student. Fieldnotes: On [date] please bring to class a sample of the fieldnotes you are collecting and be prepared to share emerging themes/patterns about your case study. Work Sample: On [date] please bring a work sample from any section of your paper you wish to have reviewed. Informal presentations: [date] DEADLINE: On [date] your case study, including fieldnotes and all supporting documentation, are due.

246 Assessment HEADINGS A. Introduction B. Review of the Literature C. Methodology D. Summary of Findings E. Discussion F. Conclusions G. References H. Appendix GUMS SUBHEADINGS & CONTENT Introduce topic Offer a clear direction for the paper What does the research say about your topic? Develops major points logically Demonstrates a scholarly writing style Uses appropriate attributions and citations. CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 28 Cites a minimum of eight (8) sources. (A limit of three from 560 course packet & Opitz text.) C-1 Purpose and Research Question: What did you do and why? C-2 Site Selection: Name of district, school, grade level, description of surrounding community and school demographics. C-3 Participant Selection: Why did you choose this student? How is the student culturally or linguistically different than you? Describe the student and provide specific examples of the cognitive and academic skills and/or oral and written communication skills of the student before you started tutoring. Include both strengths and weaknesses. Include CELDT scores and ELD standards chosen for this student. C-4 Data Collection: How did you carry out the research? When and where were your observation/tutorials/assessments carried out (length, time of day, etc.) How did these procedures allow you to begin to answer your research question? C-5 Methodological Dilemmas: What were some of the problems and how did you resolve them? C-6 Researcher s Role: Discuss your initial assumptions, expectations, biases and dispositions, relationship to the case study student, etc. C-7 Data Analysis: How did you analyze the data? (Content analysis of field notes, student work products, documents and records. Data analysis of interviews, observations, assessments and instruction.) How did CELDT scores and other assessments inform instruction? How did parent and student interviews inform your instruction? What trends and patterns emerged from the data that you collected? Include a description (vignettes) of relevant aspects from one observation, both parent and student interviews, one tutorial/instructional session and one assessment. Use exact quotes whenever possible. Describe any observed behaviors, interactions, events, etc., that relate to, or shed light on, your research question. Sociocultural Factors: How did the six sociocultural dimensions affect the results? (Linguistic, cognitive, social, cultural, institutional, and historical.) Include appropriate research to support your conclusions and analysis What did you learn from conducting this action research? What new information helped change your thinking about language, literacy, and culture? In what ways were your initial assumptions confirmed or questioned? What are the implications for ELL reading and language arts instruction? What are the implications for the other teachers at your school? What are the implications for the general schooling of linguistically and/or culturally diverse students? What conclusions can be made from your action research study and why? How do your findings support these conclusions? To what extent were you able to answer the research question that was posed at the beginning of this course? What new questions do you have now? A minimum of eight (8) entries: three must come from own search and three must come from assigned readings APA bibliographic citation format. Field notes, student work samples, assessments, other documentation (Copies only, please!) Headings: Bold-faced & centered; Subheadings: Italics & left flush Spacing: Double spaced; Font: Times New Roman; Type Size: 12 point G.U.M.S.: Ask someone to check your Grammar, Usage, Mechanics & Spelling Title Page: Include the research question!!! Points Possible Points Possible 5 points 15 points 15 points 20 points 5 points 5 points None 25 points 5 points 95 points

247 APPENDIX G: READ 516 Capstone Assessment Guidelines and Rubric CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 29 Tests to be administered for the Diagnostic-Prescriptive Report

248 Rubric for the Diagnostic-Prescriptive Report CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 30

249 APPENDIX H: Read 581 Capstone Assessment and Rubric CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 31 CASE REPORT Components: Assignment 5: Assessment 20 points You will work with a remedial reader twice a week to assess, diagnose and correct reading deficiencies. During the first 2 weeks of tutoring, use multiple measures of assessment (formal and informal) to determine your client s 3-4 most important areas of need. Areas to consider include: Deficiencies: Phonemic Awareness, Word Identification, Vocabulary, Comprehension, Metacognitive Strategies, Fluency Disruptions: Affective and Emotional Issues, Motivation Differences: Cultural, Environmental, Background Knowledge Disorders: Vision, Hearing Assessment tools may include: BPST; Johnston Spelling; CORE; sight word lists; QRI-4; assessments from the course textbooks or course packet; or online assessments. Assignment 6: Diagnosis 30 points Using your assessment data, identify strengths and needs, and develop goals (long range goals) for remediation. 1. Identify your client s specific strengths and specific needs (10 points). Include the affective domain as well as the reading components: phonemic awareness, decoding, vocabulary, comprehension and fluency. 2. State your prioritized, realistic goals for the 24 tutoring sessions (20 points). Justify how you chose each goal (assessments, observation, information gained from other sources). Specify how you will determine if each goal has been met (state the necessary score on a given assessment, inventory or observation). For example: Given a word game containing high frequency words worked on this summer, Billy will be able to pronounce the words instantly 75% of the time while playing the game. Assignment 7: Case Report 40 points Prepare a final Case Report for the instructor, parents/care-givers and next clinician. An example of this report is provided in READ 516/581 course packet. This report serves as a resource for parents and the next clinician. It must provide accurate information that can be readily understood by parents and professionals. It must include your interpretation of the student s reading profile from assessment data to communicate the results to the student, parents/caregivers, colleagues, and/or administrators. Matches goals, daily study plan and instructional evaluations Tactful presentation of deficits Recommendations provided (release form or referral for further tutoring) Include specified areas as listed: client s name; grade level; independent reading level; instructional reading level; frustration reading level; teacher s name; school; background information; special needs; list of assessments/tests administered; scores; description of tests; narrative summary of results; specific instructional activity; progress-made; parent recommendations; summary.

250 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading - 32 Case Study Report Rubric Organization, Spelling, and Grammar Background Information Assessments Analysis and Diagnosis: Strengths and Weaknesses Goals of Intervention and Summary of Progress The case study report is not well organized and/or has many spelling and grammar errors. Inadequate background information is included and there are errors The number and variety of tests completed is insufficient and/or the assessments have several errors. In addition, the description of the assessment and the narrative of the students performance aren t clear. General overview of strengths and weaknesses Goals do not match assessment results and needs of student. Summary of progress is not clear. The case study report is well organized; however, several components are missing or incomplete. The report has errors in spelling and grammar. Brief background information is included without errors. The report provides few test results with some relevant tests omitted and contains errors. In addition, the description of the assessment and/or the narrative of the students performance aren t clear. Some of the strengths and weaknesses of the student are specific and some are general. Not all components of reading are addressed. Few goals are listed- more should be addressed based on data or goals are unrealistic. Summary of progress is adequate. The case study report is organized but may have missing components. In addition, there are a few errors in spelling and grammar. Background information is complete and without errors. Some information specifically details clients needs. The report provides complete test results. Some relevant tests are missing, but there are no errors. In addition, the description of the assessment and/or the narrative of the students performance are vague. The strengths and weaknesses are all very specific. Most of the components of reading are addressed. Goals are addressed, match assessment data and are realistic. Summary of progress is clear. The case study report is well organized and contains all important information. The report is free of errors and follows the formatting guidelines. Background information is complete and specifically details most of the clients strengths and needs. The report provides complete test results and many relevant assessments are included. All the information is correct. In addition, the description of the assessment and the narrative of the students performance are clear. The strengths and weaknesses are well thought out and may be supported with data. Most components of reading are addressed. Goals are clear, match assessment data and are realistic. Summary of progress is clear and supported by data. The entire case study report is well written and contains no errors. The candidate has made an effort to include all pertinent information. The format/organization of the report is exceptional. Background information is complete and provides a clear picture of the client s history. In addition, all sections are specific to clients strengths and needs. The report contains complete test results and all assessments are relevant. The information is correct and clearly presented. In addition, the description of the assessment and the narrative of the students performance are exceptionally written. The strengths and weaknesses are specific and are supported with data. Each component of reading is addressed very clearly. Goals are wellwritten, match data, and are realistic. Summary of progress is exceptionally clear and supported by data.

251 Prescriptive Recommendations School based recommendations, Instructional activities, Activities for the home Recommendations are unrelated to student need. The instructional activities are not clear and do not match recommendations. They fail to address, specific skills, or groupings. Too many technical terms are used. CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Reading A few Some Many recommendations recommendations recommendations are provided to are provided and are provided and target student directly target directly target need. student need. student needs. Few instructional activities are clear and match recommendations. They fail to address specific skills or groupings and lack specific details. A few technical terms are used. The instructional activities match recommendations. Some activities address specific skills, or groupings, have details, and/or are clear and are free of technical terms. The instructional activities match recommendations and are detailed. Some activities are specific, fun, and address all areas of specific skills. Groupings are included. No technical terms are used. All recommendations are complete and address all areas of student need. The information is clear and precise. Detailed instructional activities match recommendations and are specific, fun, and address all areas of specific skills. Groupings are provided. No technical terms are used.

252 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 1 Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report Academic Years and Institution California State University, Fullerton Date report is submitted October 2010 Date of last Site Visit _Fall, 2007_ Program documented in this report: Name of Program: Communicative Disorders Credential awarded Speech-Language Pathology Services Credential Is this program offered at more than one site? No If yes, list all sites at which the program is offered: Program Contact: Terry I. Saenz, Ph.D. Phone # (657) [email protected] If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact information for that person below: Name: Phone # [Type text]

253 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 2 SECTION A PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION I Contextual Information California State University, Fullerton, is the largest university in the California State University system. It is located in suburban Orange County and is among the most culturally diverse universities in the country, with large numbers of Asian American, European American, and Latino students. The Communicative Disorders program of CSU Fullerton is also known for its focus on diversity. Over half of its tenure-track faculty are culturally diverse, and much of the faculty s research involves culturally diverse topics and/or subjects. Year Table 1 Demographic Data for Spring 2010 Demographics Spring 2010 N = 61 candidates Gender Female Male Race African American Asian American European American Latino Number completed w/in expected time frame 61 (100%) 0 (0%) 3 (5%) 14 (23%) 37 (61%) 7 (11%) Table 2 Completion Rates for Candidates Number completed later than expected Number not completing Percentage completing 2007/ % 2008/ % Changes have been made to the Communicative Disorders program in response to the transition to new standards established for the credential. These have included the following changes: Information provided to candidates on communicating with teachers and other personnel Candidate participation in the planning and/or implementation of transitional life experience(s) and transition planning goals using case studies or actual situations Candidates demonstrating proficiency in using interpreters/translators in assessment and intervention using case studies and/or actual assessment Candidates writing, presenting, and implementing an IEP/IFSP The inclusion of HCOM 564, Seminar in Autism Spectrum Disorders, as a required course [Type text]

254 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 3 SECTION A PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION II Candidate Assessment/Performance Information RESPONSE The chart below displays the various assessments the Communicative Disorders program uses to evaluate candidate progress/performance and program effectiveness. The chart below lists all the assessments, followed by a report on the four highlighted assessments, then a report on the remainder of the assessments. Table 3 Assessments of the Communicative Disorders Program Assessment tool Description Data collected Knowledge and Skills Assessment (KASA) Exams Student Practicum Evaluations Diversity Assignment Collaborative/Consultation Assignment Writing Assignment Ten comprehensive exams administered during graduate school Rating scales filled out by the clinical supervisor or master clinician Diagnostic report prepared by candidate of a culturally/linguistically diverse child Therapy report detailing collaborative goals/objectives and procedures Rubric used to score research papers Percentage of KASA exams passed Mean grades of candidates in each practicum with the exception of HCOM 485, Aural Rehabilitation Practicum, and HCOM 489A, Public School Practicum in Communicative Disorders, which are graded credit / noncredit Mean grades of candidates on the diversity assignment Mean grades of candidates on the collaborative/consultation assignment Percentage of candidates who score 4 or higher on a 6-point writing rubric [Type text]

255 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 4 Ethics Exam Praxis Exam in Speech- Language Pathology Graduate and Employer Evaluations of Graduates Examination on the ethics of the American Speech- Language-Hearing Association Culminating exam required for California licensure and credentialing in speechlanguage pathology Evaluations that assess graduates and employers perspectives on graduates skill levels Percentage of candidates with a passing score of 80% or higher on the exam Percentage of candidates who pass the examination Mean scores on a 0-4-point scale [Type text]

256 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 5 a) Data Summaries for Four Evaluation Tools Knowledge and Skills Assessment (KASA) Exams Ten 2 ½-hour comprehensive exams cover the following areas: 1) hearing; 2) receptive and expressive acquired language; 3) swallowing; 4) fluency; 5) voice and resonance; 6) articulation; 7) modalities of communication; 8) receptive and expressive developmental language; 9) social aspects of communication; and 10) cognitive aspects of communication. Data Collected The data collected is the percentage of exams passed each semester. Candidates are considered to have passed an exam if they pass all of the essay questions on the exam. Collection Process All but the exams on social and cognitive aspects of communication are given in the fourteenth week of the semester in the corresponding classes. A first reader reads the exams blind. Questions failed by the first reader, along with other, passing questions are read blind by a second reader. If the second reader passes the question, the first and second readers review the question and come to an agreement about it being passed or failed. The credential coordinator compiles the percentage of exams passed during a given semester. Data Summary The summary chart displays the percentage of exams passed. Table 4 Percentage of KASA Exams Passed Semester and year Percentage of KASA exams passed Fall % Spring % Fall % Spring % [Type text]

257 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 6 Student Practicum Evaluations Eight practica are potentially included in a candidate s graduate program. The following are the required practica for the Speech-Language Pathology Services Credential. HCOM 458 Clinical Practicum: Speech and Language Disorders in Children (3 units) HCOM 468 Audiology Practicum (1 unit) HCOM 485 Aural Rehabilitation Practicum (1 unit) HCOM 489A Public School Practicum in Communicative Disorders (4 units) HCOM 558A Clinical Practicum: Speech and Language Disorders in Adults (3 units) HCOM 558C Clinical Practicum: Communicative Disorders in Bilingual/Multicultural Individuals (3 units) HCOM 559A Advanced Clinical Practicum: Communicative Disorders (3 units) One additional practicum is optional for those obtaining the credential: HCOM 559B Advanced Clinical Practicum: Communicative Disorders (1-3 units) Data Collected Grades are based on the accumulation of a minimum number of clinical clock hours and the results of a Practicum Evaluation Ratings Summary Form, which includes 52 clinical skills that are rated using a 7-point scale. The following table indicates the rating guidelines, based on the mean rating the candidate earns on the 52 clinical skills. Table 5 Rubric for Grading Clinical Practica Grade Upper limit Lower limit A A A B B B C C C D D D F Candidates who earn less than a B or no credit in a practicum must repeat the practicum. All practica use the same Practicum Evaluation Ratings Summary with the exception of HCOM 468, Audiology Practicum, which uses another version of the form. In addition, two practica, HCOM [Type text]

258 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders , Aural Rehabilitation Practicum, and HCOM 489A, Public School Practicum in Communicative Disorders, are graded credit / noncredit. To obtain credit, in the practica, candidates must have a minimum of 25 clinical skills with ratings of 5 or more and no ratings less than 4. Collection Process The Practicum Evaluation Ratings Summary Form is used to provide a midterm evaluation, which does not contribute to the final grade, and the final evaluation. The candidate and the clinical supervisor or master clinician discuss the evaluation. In the cases of in-house clinics, such as HCOM 458, 558A, and 558C, the clinical supervisors are on campus. In the cases of external practica, such as HCOM 468, 485, 489A, and 559A and B, the master clinicians off campus perform the evaluations, and the candidates submit the evaluations to the on-campus coordinators. Mean grades and percentages of candidates earning a B or higher or credit in each clinical practica are provided by the university and are compiled by the credential coordinator. Data Summary The follow chart displays the mean grades or percentage that received credit for clinical practica. Table 6 Mean Grades of Candidates in Clinical Practica Practicum F 08 Sp 09 Su 09 F 09 Sp 10 HCOM 458 Clinical Practicum: Speech and Language Disorders in Children HCOM 468 Audiology Practicum N.A HCOM 485 Aural Rehabilitation Practicum 100% credit 100% credit N.A. 100% credit 100% credit HCOM 489A Public School Practicum in Communicative Disorders 100% credit 100% credit N.A. 100% credit 100% credit HCOM 558A Clinical Practicum: Speech and Language Disorders in Adults HCOM 558C Clinical Practicum: N.A Communicative Disorders in Bilingual/Multicultural Individuals HCOM 559A Advanced Clinical Practicum: Communicative Disorders HCOM 559B Advanced Clinical Practicum: N.A. N.A Communicative Disorders Mean Grade for Semester [Type text]

259 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 8 Praxis Exam in Speech-Language Pathology The Praxis Exam in Speech-Language Pathology is required for the Speech-Language Pathology Services Credential as well as for California licensure and the Certificate of Clinical Competence from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. It is typically taken either during graduate school or within a year of graduation. Data Collected The exam includes a variety of questions that cover all aspects of speech-language pathology. Collection Process The Educational Testing Service forwards information on candidate and graduate pass rates to the Communicative Disorders program. Data Summary The following are the pass rates for the Praxis Exam in Speech-Language Pathology. Table 7 Pass Rate for Praxis Exam Year Pass rate for Praxis Exams /25 candidates=92% /21 candidates=90% The following are the median scores on the Praxis Exam (out of a possible score of 840), the range of scores, and the average performance range for the Communicative Disorders program and for all candidates who took the test nationally. Table 8 Median Scores on the Praxis Exam in Comparison with Candidates Nationally CSU Fullerton candidates All candidates nationally CSU Fullerton candidates All candidates nationally Median score Range of scores Average range [Type text]

260 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 9 The following are the percentage correct on the Praxis Exam for specific content areas. Table 9 Mean Percentage of Answers Correct in Content Areas for the Praxis Exam in Comparison with State and National Averages Content area Basic human communication processes Phonological and 2007/08 CSUF %age correct 2007/08 state average %age correct 2007/08 national average %age correct 2008/09 CSUF %age correct 2008/09 state average %age correct 2008/09 national average %age correct 55% 57% 56% 56% 61% 59% 78% 80% 78% 74% 81% 78% language disorders Speech disorders 77% 74% 73% 69% 75% 73% Neurogenic disorders 70% 71% 70% 60% 70% 68% Audiology/hearing 69% 72% 69% 61% 72% 69% Clinical management 64% 65% 64% 63% 66% 65% Professional issues/psychometrics/ research 71% 75% 75% 75% 76% 75% [Type text]

261 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 10 Graduate and Employer Evaluation of Graduates Each year, recent graduates and their employers are asked to fill out a Survey of Graduates and Employers. Data Collected The survey contains the following: 7 questions about basic knowledge and skills; 48 questions about the 10 areas encompassed by the KASA exams; 10 questions about other knowledge and/or skills; and 7 questions specifically related to issues related to the credential. There is a 4-point rating scale 4 = Strongly agree 3 = Moderately agree 2 = Neutral 1 = Moderately disagree 0 = Strongly disagree Collection Process Surveys are distributed by the Communicative Disorders program coordinator to recent graduates and employers and results are compiled by her. Data Summary Data for the recent graduates and their employers are included below. Table 10 Survey of Graduates and Employers Survey of graduates and employers 2008 graduates N=8 Basic Knowledge and Skills I left the program with strong oral communication skills I left the program with strong written communication skills I left the program with a strong understanding of the following: 2008 employers N= graduates N= employers N=1 [Type text]

262 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 11 The biological, neurological, and acoustic aspects of human communication and swallowing processes. The psychological, developmental, and linguistic foundations of human communication and swallowing processes. The cultural foundations of human communication processes. Fundamental bases of speech, language, and hearing Basic knowledge of communicative disorders Clinical Knowledge and Skills Articulation (e.g., developmental articulation disorders, phonological disorders, dysarthria, and apraxia): I received a strong education and/or training with regard to. Knowledge of etiologies and characteristics Knowledge of the principles and practices of assessment and diagnosis Knowledge of the principles and practices of management Clinical skills in assessment and diagnosis Clinical skills in management Cognitive aspects of communication (e.g., the cognitive effects associated with right hemisphere syndrome, traumatic brain injury, dementia, etc.): I received a strong education and /or training with regard to. Knowledge of etiologies and characteristics Knowledge of the principles and practices of assessment and diagnosis Knowledge of the principles and practices of management Clinical skills in assessment and diagnosis Clinical skills in management [Type text]

263 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 12 Modalities of communication (i.e., the use of non-oral or assisted communication): I received a strong education and/or training with regard to. Knowledge of etiologies and characteristics Knowledge of the principles and practices of assessment and diagnosis Knowledge of the principles and practices of management Clinical skills in assessment and diagnosis Clinical skills in management Disorders of fluency: I received a strong education and/or training with regard to. Knowledge of etiologies and characteristics Knowledge of the principles and practices of assessment and diagnosis Knowledge of the principles and practices of management Clinical skills in assessment and diagnosis Clinical skills in management Hearing: I received a strong education and/or training with regard to. Knowledge of etiologies and characteristics Knowledge of the principles and practices of screening Knowledge of the principles and practices of management of communication in persons with hearing impairment Receptive and expressive languageacquired disorders: I received a strong education and/or training with regard to. Knowledge of etiologies and characteristics [Type text]

264 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 13 Knowledge of the principles and practices of assessment and diagnosis Knowledge of the principles and practices of management Clinical skills in assessment and diagnosis Clinical skills in management Receptive and expressive languagedevelopmental disorders: I received a strong education and/or training with regard to. Knowledge of etiologies and characteristics Knowledge of the principles and practices of assessment and diagnosis Knowledge of the principles and practices of management Clinical skills in assessment and diagnosis Clinical skills in management Social aspects of communication (e.g., the pragmatic deficits associated with right hemisphere syndrome, traumatic brain injury, autism, or developmental language disorders): I received a strong education and/or training with regard to. Knowledge of etiologies and characteristics Knowledge of the principles and practices of assessment and diagnosis Knowledge of the principles and practices of management Clinical skills in assessment and diagnosis Clinical skills in management Swallowing: I received a strong education and/or training with regard to. Knowledge of etiologies and characteristics [Type text]

265 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 14 Knowledge of the principles and practices of assessment and diagnosis Knowledge of the principles and practices of management Clinical skills in assessment and diagnosis Clinical skills in management Voice and resonance: I received a strong education and/or training with regard to. Knowledge of etiologies and characteristics Knowledge of the principles and practices of assessment and diagnosis Knowledge of the principles and practices of management Clinical skills in assessment and diagnosis Clinical skills in management Other Knowledge and/or Skills Ability to write effectively Ability to communicate with clients, families, and other professionals Ability to apply research findings to clinical needs Current principles, procedures, and instruments used in assessing speech and language, including persons from diverse language or cultural backgrounds Advanced principles and procedures for individual or group therapy Knowledge of relevant legal, professional, and ethical mandates Ability to manage the behaviors of diverse learners in different therapy settings Ability to collaborate and communicate with individuals with disabilities and with their families, school personnel, and with community resources Knowledge of second language acquisition and linguistic dialectical variation [Type text]

266 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 15 Ability to appropriately assess, select, and develop augmentative/alternative communication systems and to train clients in their use Continue with the next items only if you are working in a public school system under the Speech- Language Pathology Services Credential I received a strong education and/or training with regard to. Knowledge of childhood growth and development Evaluation and reporting outcomes of direct clinical-educational management programs to parents and pupils (including efficient record keeping) Development and effective use of individualized objectives for exceptional individuals with speechlanguage-hearing disorders Designing and utilizing pupil performance criteria to evaluate pupil attainment and behaviors Ability to design and manage effective speech, language, and hearing programs Description of the roles and relationships of the speech, language, and hearing specialist and audiologist in public education Knowledge of history and theory of education [Type text]

267 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 16 b) Additional Information About Candidate and Program Completer Performance Diversity Assignment The diversity assignment is an assignment used to document a candidate s experience with culturally diverse students. Data Collected The diversity assignment is an assignment in HCOM 490, Seminar: Speech and Hearing Services in Schools. It is a diagnostic report of a culturally diverse student with possible speech-language disorders. It includes background information, tests and informal assessments, a summary of strengths and weaknesses, and recommendations that include goals and objectives. Collection Process The instructor of HCOM 490 collects and grades the diversity assignment, then averages the grades on the assignment. Data Summary The following are the mean grades on the diversity assignment. Table 11 Mean Grades on the Diversity Assignment Semester Mean grade Fall Spring Fall Spring [Type text]

268 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 17 Collaborative/Consultation Assignment The collaborative/consultation assignment is used to document the use of collaborative/consultative procedures. Data Collected The collaborative/consultation assignment is an assignment in HCOM 490, Seminar: Speech and Hearing Services in Schools. It is a report of collaboration or consultation involving a culturally diverse student with speech-language deficits. It includes background information, collaborative or consultative goals and objectives and procedures, and progress toward the objectives. Collection Process The instructor of HCOM 490 collects and grades the collaborative/consultative assignment, then averages the grades on the assignment. Data Summary The following are the mean grades on the collaborative/consultative assignment. Table 12 Mean Grades on the Collaborative/Consultation Assignment Semester Mean grade Fall Spring Fall Spring [Type text]

269 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 18 Writing Assignment The writing assignment is an assessment of a candidate s writing abilities. Data Collected The writing assignment is an assignment in HCOM 500, Research in Speech Communication. It includes literature review and methods sections of a paper. Collection Process The instructor of HCOM 500 collects and grades the writing assignment, then determines the percentage of candidates that earn a score of 4 or higher on a 6-point writing rubric. Data Summary The following are the percentage of students who earned a score of 4 or higher on the writing assignment. Table 13 Percentage of Candidates Who Scored at 4 or Higher on Writing Assignment Rubric Semester Percentage who scored at 4 or higher Fall % Spring % Fall 09 N.A. Spring % [Type text]

270 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 19 Ethics Exam The ethics exam is an assessment of a candidate s understanding of professional ethics. Data Collected The ethics exam is a test of the professional ethics of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association in HCOM 501, Seminar in Speech-Language Pathology. Collection Process The instructor of HCOM 501 collects and grades the ethics exam, then determines the percentage of candidates that pass it. Data Summary The following are the percentage of students who passed the ethics exam by getting a percentage of 80% or higher correct. Table 14 Percentage of Candidates Who Passed the Ethics Exam Semester Percentage who passed the exam Fall % Spring 09 80% Fall % Spring 10 N.A. [Type text]

271 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 20 SECTION A PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION III Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data A brief analysis of the data presented for the four evaluation tools in section II are presented below. Analysis of Knowledge and Skills Assessment (KASA) Exams Refer to Table 4 on page 6. KASA exam pass rates remained fairly consistent, staying between 74% and 82% of the ten exams administered each semester and averaging 77.5%. A pass was given when a candidate successfully answered all of the questions adequately on an exam. Given the fact that 100% correct was the criterion for passing each exam, the pass rate was not excessively low, although it could be improved. Analysis of Student Practicum Evaluations Refer to Table 6 on page 8. The mean grades in clinical practica and percentages of candidates who passed credit / no credit practica were very high, averaging The mean grades of clinical practica that were graded was 3.80 or above, and 100% of the candidates who completed HCOM 468 and HCOM 489A received credit. By both the standards of the on-campus clinical supervisors and master clinicians out in the field, the candidates were clinically successful. Analysis of Praxis Exam in Speech-Language Pathology Refer to Tables 7, 8, and 9 on page 9 to 10. The mean percentage of candidates who passed the Praxis Exam in Speech-Language Pathology was 91%. On the surface, this was an area of strength for the program. However, the median score for California State University, Fullerton candidates, with a mean score of 650, averaged 30 points below the national median. For specific content areas, CSU Fullerton in 2007 to 2008 averaged 1.25 percentage points correct below other university programs in California and.13 percentage points correct below the mean percentage correct nationally. In 2007 to 2008, CSU Fullerton averaged 5.38 percentage points correct below other university programs in California and 3.75 percentage points correct below the mean percentage correct nationally. The mean percentages correct for CSU Fullerton for at least one of the two academic years were at least 3 percentage points below those of the means for the state or nation for each content area. One possible explanation for the discrepancy between California State University, Fullerton s scores and state and national scores is the fact that some of the candidates who had the greatest difficulty with the test were individuals with English as a second language. In some cases, candidates with English as a second language have failed their first attempt at passing the exam and then have petitioned to retake the exam with the provision of additional time. [Type text]

272 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 21 Analysis of Graduate and Employer Evaluation of Graduates Refer to Table 10 on pages 11 through 16. The results of the Graduate and Employer Evaluation of Graduates demonstrated a strong positive trend, although it must be noted that results were based on a very limited sample of graduates and employers. Results indicated that there were wide discrepancies between areas assessed in the evaluation, discrepancies between the graduate and employer evaluations, and discrepancies between surveyed years. There was one area in which the mean for both graduates and employers was below 3.0, that of clinical management in voice and resonance disorders. Employers but not graduates also rated all abilities in the area of swallowing below 3.0 as well as clinical skills in assessment and diagnosis of voice and resonance disorders and the ability to assess and select augmentative/alternative communication systems. Clinical management was perceived as a relative weakness for some disorders. The low scores in swallowing given by employers could have in part been due to the fact that many graduates had not been involved in and currently were not involved in providing services involving swallowing disorders. Similarly, many candidates could have had limited contact with clients who had voice disorders in their clinical training and in their workplace. Diversity Assignment Refer to Table 11 on page 17. The high mean grade point average of 3.87 of candidates performance on the diversity assignment varied relatively little across semesters and was indicative of strength in the area of evaluation of culturally diverse students. Collaborative/Consultation Assignment Refer to Table 12 on page 18. The high mean grade point average of 3.85 of candidates performance on the collaborative/consultation assignment also varied relatively little across semesters and was indicative of strength in the area of collaborative/consultation procedures with culturally diverse students. Writing Assignment Refer to Table 13 on page 19. The high mean percentage, 100%, of candidates who performed at 4 or above on a five-point rubric for the writing assignment did not vary across semesters and was indicative of strength in the area of writing. [Type text]

273 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 22 Ethics Exam Refer to Table 14 on page 20. The percentage of candidates who passed the ethics exam averaged 97% but it varied across semesters, although the instructor and the course have remained largely the same. However, after a decrease to 80% in Spring 09, it once again climbed to 100%. Analysis of Overall Evaluation of Candidate and Program Effectiveness The overall strengths of the California State University, Fullerton Communicative Disorders program are its extensive self-assessment, emphasis on diversity, and high completion rate. There are a wide variety of subjective as well as objective measures that are used to assess the candidates competence in terms of knowledge and skills. Much of the data of these assessment measures are reviewed and discussed by the faculty as a whole. In addition, data from a number of measures and the culturally diverse faculty and candidates highlight diversity as an area of strength. Finally, the program is successful at supporting its students in successfully completing the program. The main weaknesses are that Praxis Exam scores remain below those at the national and state level and theoretical background is not always translated into strengths in clinical management by graduates of certain low incidence disorders. While CSU Fullerton, with a highly culturally diverse group of candidates, has high passing rates for the Praxis, the passing rates could be improved. In addition, the areas of clinical weakness cited in surveys of graduates and employers usually have been disorders that graduates have had less experience in treating. [Type text]

274 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 23 SECTION A PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION IV Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance Programs indicate how they use the data from assessments and analysis of that data to improve candidate performance and the program. If proposed changes are being made, please link the proposed changes to the data that support that modification as related to the appropriate Program and/or Common Standard(s). As a result of the data presented and analyzed in previous sections, the California State University, Fullerton Communicative Disorders program has set several objectives to be accomplished in the next year. The following chart exhibits the objectives and the implementation course to accomplish these objectives. Specific Objective Strategies/Tasks Person Responsible Improve passage rate Compile data of KASA exams SLP Standards 2-5, 8 Maintain high percentage of candidates who perform very well in clinical practica SLP Standards 4-7, 8 Maintain and improve high percentage of passage rate for Praxis Exam in Speech- Language Pathology SLP Standards 1-6, Monitor and discuss passage rate Increase coordination and collaboration between faculty in similar content areas Provide ongoing revision of KASA exams Update course content based on KASA outcomes that are weak Compile and monitor percentage of candidates who meet criteria Monitor and discuss passage rate Document English language proficiency of candidates from surveys in HCOM 501, Seminar in Speech-Language Pathology Inform candidates that they can request extra time for the Praxis if they have English as a second language Credential Coordinator Communicative Disorders Faculty Communicative Disorders Faculty Communicative Disorders Faculty Communicative Disorders Faculty Credential Coordinator Program Coordinator and Communicative Disorders Faculty Credential Coordinator Teacher of HCOM 501, Seminar in Speech-Language Pathology Date Ongoing Spring Spring Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Spring Fall Fall 2010 [Type text]

275 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Communicative Disorders - 24 Specific Objective Strategies/Tasks Person Responsible Improve areas of Compile data from Graduate and Employer weakness in Graduate Evaluation of Graduates and Employer Evaluation of Discuss survey findings Graduates SLP Standards Take steps to provide more clinical information in courses and increase insight of candidates into clinical processes Have new tenure-track faculty member, who is expert in phonology, teach HCOM 574, Seminar in Phonological Disorders Program Coordinator Communicative Disorders Faculty Communicative Disorders Faculty New tenure-track faculty member Date Ongoing Spring Fall Fall 2010 [Type text]

276 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 1 Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report Academic Years and Institution California State University, Fullerton, School of Nursing Date report is submitted October 15, 2010_ Date of last Site Visit 2007 Program documented in this report: School Nursing Program Name of Program California State University, Fullerton, School of Nursing, School Nursing Program Credentials awarded School Nurse Services Credential Special Teaching Authorization in Health Is this program offered at more than one site? No Program Contact: Mary Ann Kelly, RN, MS, PNP Phone # _ [email protected] If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact information for that person below: Name: Penny Weismuller, RN, DrPH Phone # [email protected]

277 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 2 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FULLERTON School of Nursing, School Nursing Program Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Biennial Report Academic Years and SECTION A CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION I. Contextual Information The school nursing program is an integral part of the School of Nursing s (SON) overall program offerings. The SON is one of five major academic units of the College of Health and Human Development (formerly the College of Human Development and Community Service). The organizational structures for each level of the university are clearly articulated and allow for the effective and efficient operations of all academic programs on campus. Because the school nursing program is part of an established academic unit, it receives the same admission, progression, advisement and evaluative processes as all other programs in the School. The purposed of the program is to offer a school nurse credential program to baccalaureate nurse graduates interested in a career as a school nurse. The program allows graduates to obtain both a School Nurse Services and a STAH credential as well as apply their studies towards a Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) degree with a school nursing concentration. The program will provide nurses with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for the performance of their professional nursing role at advanced levels of expertise and with the characteristics of a broadly educated and socially responsive person. It prepares graduates who can function independently and interdependently in a variety of settings and with a diverse population of clients. The only change in the program since the Commission approved the current program document has been the recent designation of the Department of Nursing to a School of Nursing to recognize its complexity of program offerings and to enhance assessment and development efforts with the SON. The typical enrollee in the School Nursing program is a baccalaureate prepared nurse, currently employed by a school district, who is returning to school to complete the School Nurse Services credential. Most students participate in a part-time basis in the credential course work. Some then continue on to complete the STAH and the MSN. Program Participants, Credential and MSN Completers All Program Participants School Nurse Services Credential Completer STAH Credential Completer 5 11 MSN Graduate 3 6

278 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 3 II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information a. What are the primary candidate assessment(s) the program used up to and through recommending the candidate for a credential? Table 1 shows a comparison of course input to program standards for both the School Nurse Services Credential and for the Special Teaching Authorization in Health credential. Table 2 demonstrates the mean grades in each credential course, as well as the CBEST performance score range and mean for the STAH credential completers in each year. Students in the School Nurse Program must maintain a B average overall, with a minimum grade of a B (83%) in each course, to be recommended for a credential or to be recommended for a MSN in School Nursing Services. Assessments are conducted in the practica for each credential at midterm and end of the practica experience. These assessments are performed by the school nurse specialist preceptor for the SNS credential practicum and by the mentor teacher for the STAH practicum. Table 3 displays the midterm and final assessment scores of students in the School Nurse Specialist Practicum, Table 4 displays the midterm results of students in the STAH Practicum and Table 5 displays the final assessment results of students in the STAH Practicum. The final recommendation for credential is based on the preceptor, master teacher and faculty evaluation of each candidate. This recommendation includes a final interview by Mary Ann Kelly, RN, MSN, PNP, the concentration lead of the school nurse credential programs in the SON. b. What additional information about candidate and program completer performance of program effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision making? An additional assessment is requested by the employer of the school nurse in his/her school nurse services practicum, using the competency statements outlined by the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Health Services: School Nurse Credential Programs (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2007). Table 6 demonstrates the results, using earlier school nursing competency statements used in our initial program accreditation, and Table 7 displays the results, using the new 2007 school nursing competencies. An end of program survey is sent to students completing the credential programs. Table 8 displays the results. Additionally, qualitative comments from all of the assessment tools are compiled and reviewed to determine if changes are needed in the program.

279 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 4 Table 1 Comparison of Course Input to Program Standards Course Number HCOM 461 NURS 524 NURS 526 EDSC 550 COUN 511 NURS 530 SPED 462 NURS 532 NURS 533L HESC 455 NURS 529L NURS 534L Audiology Course Name PS 1 Program Design Health Assessment Health Care of the Young Family Instructional Strategies Pre-Practicum School Nurse Specialist I Practices and Procedures School Nurse Specialist II School Nurse Specialist Practicum Health Curriculum Development STAH Observation STAH Practicum School Nurse Services Credential PS 2 Program Collaboration PS 3 Theory, Practice, and Research PS 4 Student Health and Wellness PS 5 Sociocultural Context of School Nursing PS 6 Legal and Ethical Aspects of School Nursing PS 7 Health Management Responsi bilities X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PS 8 Field Work PS 9 Assessment of Candidate Competency Special Teaching Authorization in Health PS 10 Curricular And Instructional Skills X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PS 11 Classroom Teaching Field Experience PS 12 Candidate Competency in Academic Instruction X X X

280 Table 2 Mean Grades in Credential Coursework CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 5 SCHOOL NURSES SERVICES CREDENTIAL COURSES Course Number HCOM 461 NURS 524 NURS 526 EDSC 550 COUN 511 NURS 530 SPED 462 NURS 532 NURS 533L Course Name Audiology Mean Grades N=16 4.0=A Mean Grades N=27 4.0=A Health Assessment Health Care of the Young Family Instructional Strategies Pre- Practicum School Nurse Specialist I Practices and Procedures School Nurse Specialist II School Nurse Specialist Practicum Course Number EDSC 550 HESC 455 NURS 529L NURS 534L CBEST SPECIAL TEACHING AUTHORIZATION IN HEALTH COURSES Course Name Instructional Strategies Health Curriculum Development STAH Observation STAH Practicum N/A Mean Grades N=5 4.0=A Mean Grades N=11 4.0=A Score Range Mean Score 166 Score Range Mean Score 158.7

281 Table 3 School Nurse Services Practicum Evaluation Analysis of Factors: 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 Comparison CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing / /2010 Mid-Term Final Mid-Term Final N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean Part 1: Communication skills and application of the nursing process in the school setting Factor A: Uses communication skills to enhance interpersonal relationships Factor B: Uses the nursing process (Assess, Diagnose, Identify Outcomes, Plan, Implement, Evaluate) Part 2: Role and function of the registered/credentialed nurse in the school setting Factor C: Function in the role of the credentialed school nurse CONSISTENTLY always meets this objective (Credit) 2. OFTEN meets this objective most of the time (Credit) 3. SOMETIMES meets this objective about half the time (No Credit) 4. OCCASIONALLY meets this objective infrequently (No Credit) 5. SELDOM / NEVER does not meet this objective (No Credit)

282 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 7 Table 4 Midterm Evaluation of STAH Student Teaching Performance For Evaluation: N = 7 (5 students some with evaluations by additional Master Teachers) For Evaluation: N = 25 (12 students with multiple Master Teachers) 4 Distinguished 3 Skilled 2 Basic NA Not Applicable Mean A. INSTRUCTION 1 Uses instructional strategies that are varied appropriately to maintain attention, interest and motivation 57% 36% 43% 56% 0% 8% 0% 0% Uses methods of instruction appropriate to meet learning objectives 71% 48% 29% 48% 0% 4% 0% 0% Sequences instruction in a clear, logical progression 71% 52% 29% 40% 0% 8% 0% 0% Uses a pace that is appropriate for the content and environment 57% 44% 43% 48% 0% 8% 0% 0% ? Uses instructional aides/materials to enhance interest. 71% 68% 29% 28% 0% 4% 0% 0% B. ASSESSING STUDENT LEARNING 5 Monitors Student Learning During Instruction 57% 48% 43% 48% 0% 4% 0% 0% Appropriately uses and Interprets Assessment tools 0% 52% 43% 44% 14% 4% 43% 0% C. ENGAGING AND SUPPORTING STUDENTS IN LEARNING 7 Interacts appropriately with students 100% 72% 0% 24% 0% 4% 0% 0% Explanations to the learners are clear and easily understandable 71% 56% 29% 36% 0% 8% 0% 0% Uses methods of instruction that are developmentally appropriate 71% 60% 29% 32% 0% 8% 0% 0% Adapts lessons for special student populations (i.e. special ed, English learners, advanced students) 57% 52% 29% 36% 14% 8% 0% 4% Uses a pace that is appropriate for the learner 71% 52% 29% 44% 0% 8% 0% 0% D. PLANNING INSTRUCTION /DESIGNING LEARNING EXPERIENCES 12 Instructional Planning prepares and discusses lesson plan with Master teacher 86% 52% 14% 40% 0% 8% 0% 0% E. CREATING/MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTS 13 Methods of instruction are appropriate for learning environment 86% 60% 14% 32% 0% 8% 0% 0% Maintains control of the classroom environment 43% 44% 57% 40% 0% 16% 0% 0% Student learning Activities are appropriate for the learning environment 86% 60% 14% 32% 0% 8% 0% 0% F. DEVELOPING AS A PROFESSIONAL EDUCATOR 16 Demonstrates effective speech qualities, i.e. volume, enunciation, rate grammar, tone, inflection. 57% 56% 43% 32% 0% 8% 0% 0% Avoids use of distracting mannerisms 86% 68% 14% 28% 0% 4% 0% 0%

283 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing N=5 Met Not Met Table 5 Final Master Teacher Evaluation Special Teaching Authorization in Health N=12 Met Not Met Standard 10: Curricular and Instructional Skills: The Special Teaching Authorization in Health Program provides authentic opportunities for candidates to (1) learn to assess students academic skills and (2) develop, implement, and evaluate a variety of pedagogical approaches to teaching health, including the development and implementation of unit and lesson plans that provide equitable access for all students to the health curriculum. 100% 0% 1. Planned a unit of instruction with clearly-stated goals, consisting of a series of lessons in which at least one 100% 0% concept, skill or topic is taught and sequences effectively. 100% 0% 2. Develop clearly-state lesson plans in which the instructional objectives, teaching strategies, classroom 100% 0% materials, and assessment plans are coordinated, consistent with each other and related to health. 100% 0% 3. Used a variety of developmentally appropriate pedagogical approached in the teaching of health. 92% 8% 100% 0% 4. Appropriately adapted the health curriculum to meet the learning needs of students with varying abilities, 91% 9% interests and backgrounds. 100% 0% 5. Facilitated the development of students cognitive skills while considering students diverse cultural, linguistic, 91% 9% ethnic, and socio-economic backgrounds. 100% 0% 6. Used ongoing assessment information to select and modify instructional strategies, activities, and materials in 100% 0% order that they appealed to and challenged the diverse abilities and interests of students. Standard 11: Classroom Teaching Field Experience: Each candidate has a variety of field experiences, including supervised teaching experiences in in health education that provide multiple opportunities to apply theory in practice. 100% 0% 1. Participated in a variety of experiences including observations, related to that age range authorized by the 100% 0% credential, such as preschools, elementary, middle, and secondary schools, and/or adult settings. 100% 0% 2. Had experiences with different instructional strategies used in schools, such as individual, small group, and/or 100% 0% large group instruction, and received prompt feedback and guided practice from supervisors. 100% 0% 3. Engaged in a planned sequence of activities that provided opportunities for candidates to observe, apply, and 92% 8% evaluate educational theories and pedagogical principles taught in coursework. 100% 0% 4. Used a variety of pedagogical approached to teaching health and in building academic basic skills in public schools. 92% 8%

284 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing N=5 Table 5 Final Evaluation (Continued) N=12 Met Not Special Teaching Authorization in Health Not Met Met Met Standard 12: Academic Instruction--Each candidate demonstrates competency in the application of curriculum and instructional skills described in Standard 30, and in the academic instruction of students in health. 100% 0% 1. Planned, implemented, and evaluated a health education curriculum within the context of a comprehensive school health model. 100% 0% 100% 0% 2. Facilitated positive health decision-making and health behaviors among students based on current principles of health education. 100% 0% 100% 0% 3. Demonstrated the ability to teach personal health, and promote physical activity and lifelong well being. 100% 0% 100% 0% A. Demonstrated the ability to teach basic principles of human nutrition and dietary practices for health and well-being throughout the life cycle. 100% 0% 100% 0% B. Demonstrated the ability to teach the basic principles of growth and development. Family life and human sexuality. 100% 0% 100% 0% C. Demonstrated the ability to teach basic principles of injury and violence prevention, and safety promotion 100% 0% 100% 0% D. Demonstrated the ability to teach students how to safeguard their health from the physical, mental, and social effects of alcohol, tobacco, anabolic steroids, and other drugs. 91% 9% 100% 0% E. Demonstrated the ability to teach the basic elements of a health crisis and access to appropriate intervention and resources. 100% 0% 100% 0% F. Demonstrated the ability to teach self, family and community health appraisal, and identification and utilization of community resources. 100% 0% 100% 0% G. Demonstrated the ability to teach the basic principles of disease prevention, risk reduction and health promotion. 100% 0% 100% 0% H. Demonstrated the ability to teach the basic principles of consumer health, including the impact of culture, media, technology, and other factors o consumer health attitudes, knowledge, practices and skills. 100% 0% 100% 0% I. Demonstrated the ability to teach health content as identified in state and national guidelines. 100% 0%

285 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 10 Table Employer Evaluation of School Nurse Competencies N= 30 COMPETENCY MET UNMET 1. Examines school district's philosophy of education, basic curricular structures and programs. 100% 0% 2. Evaluates the parameters of the nursing role in a school district. 100% 0% 3. Examines a school district's philosophy of health services. 100% 0% 4. Makes a home visit. 100% 0% 5. Refers pupil or family to appropriate community agency. 100% 0% 6. Identifies the ethnic and racial makeup of a school and a school district. 100% 0% 7. Explores cultural considerations in the delivery of nursing and educational services in a school and a school district. 100% 0% 8. Evaluates the management of injuries in a school. 100% 0% 9. Records and documents health and health-related data. 100% 0% 10. Counsels with pupils, parents, and staff. 100% 0% 11. Identifies the pupil and family at risk for child abuse or other family violence. 100% 0% 12. Observes the functioning of a Board of Education. 100% 0% 13. Observes programs and approaches for the education of the severely handicapped child. Arrange with program 100% coordinator. 0% 14. Examines role of school nurse in inter- disciplinary and inter-agency communication and networking. 100% 0% 15. Visits a local health department and consults with a PHN. 100% 0% 16. Examines preceptor's (or own) 100% organization and planning of the school year to meet nursing responsibilities. 0% 17. Observes the role of the nurse regarding health instruction in the classroom and the health education program in the 100% school. 0% 18. Develops, presents and evaluates a health teaching unit for elementary age children (exclusive of family life/sex 100% education). 0% 19. Evaluates district health education curriculum including sex education/family life and drug education curriculum. 100% 0% 20. Observes or presents a family life education unit. 100% 0% 21. Identifies the common health problems of school age youth or pupils in a school or schools. 100% 0% 22. Identifies some common developmental or learning problems of school age youth or pupils in a school or schools 100% 0% 23. Obtains experience with one or more of the contemporary problems of youth: substance use/abuse; depression; suicidal 100% threats; eating disorders. 0% 24. Performs vision screening including assessment of near and far point acuity, binocular function, and color perception. 100% 0% 25. Initiates and completes a vision screening referral and provides appropriate follow-up. 100% 0% 26. Observes and evaluates the hearing screening program. 100% 0% 27. Initiates and completes a hearing screening referral and provides appropriate follow-up. 100% 0%

286 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 11 COMPETENCY MET UNMET 28. Counsels a pupil who is pregnant or suspects pregnancy. 100% 0% 29. Uses the otoscope to examine the middle ear. 100% 0% 30. Performs a dental assessment. 100% 0% 31. Performs a nutritional assessment on a young child. 100% 0% 32. Performs a nutritional assessment on an adolescent (clinical). 100% 0% 33. Examines a pupil for possible infectious/communicable disease. 100% 0% 34. Reviews and/or provides appropriate follow-up for possible and/or confirmed infectious/communicable disease. 100% 0% 35. Obtains experience with the identification and management of sexually transmitted disease. 100% 0% 36. Obtains experience with pediatric dermatology. 100% 0% 37. Conducts immunization review and documentation. 100% 0% 38. Performs minimal first aid/emergency care in school setting. 100% 0% 39. Intervenes with the adolescent who has a physical health problem. 100% 0% 40. Intervenes with child whose low socio-economic status contributes to poor health. 100% 0% 41. Observes programs and approaches for the education of the handicapped child mainstreamed into the regular classroom. 100% 0% 42. Identifies community programs and services for the chronically ill and handicapped child and his family. 100% 0% 43. Intervenes with the child with a chronic illness by providing counseling to the child and/or family. Provides education for 100% the classroom teacher and for the pupil's classmates, if appropriate. 0% 44. Participates in an Individual Education Program (IEP) assessment and placement by: 100% a. Collaborating with other team members in IEP assessment and placement. 0% b. Obtaining a health and developmental history prior to IEP placement. 100% 0% c. Performing a nursing assessment of a pupil prior to IEP placement including developmental assessment. 100% 0% d. Contributing nursing findings at an IEP meeting. 100% 0% e. Writing nursing objectives for a pupil as part of IEP meeting. 100% 0% 44. Evaluates district policies, procedures or processes relative to: 100% a. Communicable/infectious disease control. 0% b. Emergency care/first aid management. 100% 0% c. Medication disbursement and administration. 100% 0% d. Environmental health and safety issues. 100% 0% e. Nutritious meals and snack foods. 100% 0% 45. Identifies sources of funding for nursing and health services. 100% 0% 46. Reviews and evaluates district formulas for assigning nurse staff time to schools and programs. 100% 0% 47. Explores the process of health policy development within the district. 100% 0% 48. Examines the budgetary process for nursing and health services. 100% 0% 49. Evaluates nursing performance evaluation procedures. 100% 0% 52. Reviews the process of the development of nursing vacancy announcement and job description. 100% 0%

287 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 12 COMPETENCY MET UNMET 53. Reviews the hiring process of new nursing personnel. 100% 0% 54. Explores the supervision of volunteers by nurses. 100% 0% 55. Explores the supervision of paraprofessionals by school nurses. 100% 0% 56. Discusses school district procedures for the resolution of ethical conflicts. 100% 0% 57. Examines procedures for the documentation, recording or reporting of confidential data. 100% 0% 58. Examines and evaluates district policies, procedures or process relative to: 100% a. Child abuse and neglect. 0% b. The child from a poor or low income family. 100% 0% c. The pregnant or sexually active adolescent. 100% 0% 59. Evaluates the district's support for professional development. 100% 0% 60. Examines the professionalism of the nurse(s) in a school district. 100% 0% 61. Shares research or research related activities with peers, school nurse(s) and other health team members. 100% 0% 62. Applies research findings to school nursing practice. 100% 0% 63. Explores school district policy and/or procedures relating to responsible standards of research in investigative studies and the mechanisms for protection of human subjects. 100% 0%

288 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 13 Table Employer Evaluation of School Nurse Competency N=12 I. School Nurse Competencies Competency 1: Providing health and wellness services (Primary Level Intervention) MET UNMET Child abuse and neglect 100% 0% Community health resources and connections 100% 0% Mental health services 100% 0% Nutrition 100% 0% Substance use and abuse 100% 0% School health program 100% 0% Competency 2: Providing direct client care services (Secondary and Tertiary Level Intervention) Acute and chronic health care management 100% 0% Care of the medically fragile (e.g. Spina Bifida, Cerebral Palsy) 100% 0% Case management in the school setting 100% 0% Health screenings 100% 0% Acute injury assessment/intervention 100% 0% Crisis intervention 100% 0% Competency 3: Demonstrating Professional Management Skills Data collection 100% 0% Documentation and record keeping 100% 0% Collaboration 100% 0% Advocacy (student, family, community, professional) 100% 0% Professional organizations 100% 0% Demonstrates culturally responsive leadership 100% 0%

289 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 14 Table Employer Evaluation of School Nurse Competency (continued) N=12 Competency 3: Demonstrating Professional Management Skills (continued) School nursing services are theory-driven and research based; nursing care is based on clearly delineated research-based evidence 100% 0% Develop nursing care plans based on the principles of public health including primary, secondary, and tertiary care 100% 0% Appropriately identify and apply local, state, and federal regulations that apply to the school setting when providing school nursing services 100% 0% Understand and apply ethical decision-making and standards 100% 0% Promoting school safety, including disaster preparedness 100% 0% Delivering first aid and emergency care 100% 0% Identifying and accessing local community and public health resources 100% 0% Addressing public health issues in the community that may affect schools 100% 0% Addressing student, family, and community mental health and wellness 100% 0% Promoting nutrition and fitness 100% 0% Addressing specialized healthcare needs of students, including special education students 100% 0% Understanding adolescent growth and development 100% 0% Promoting staff wellness 100% 0% Addressing issues of community and family violence and substance use and abuse 100% 0% Addressing acute and chronic diseases within the student population 100% 0% Understand the sociocultural context of school nursing practice and appropriately address social and cultural community issues that affect school health and student s ability to learn 100% 0%

290 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 15 Table 8 School Nurse Services Credential End of Program Survey Adequate Advisement Timely Plan for Graduation Supportive, Conscientious Faculty Knowledgeable Faculty Classes available when needed to work as School Nurse Helpful Department Staff Recommend Program to Others Strongly Disagree 0% 2009 Completers N=22 Neither Disagree Agree Strongly Agree nor Agree Disagree 0% 0% 13.6% 86.4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9.1% 90.9% 27.3% 72.7% 9.1% 90.9% 4.5% 4.5% 36.4% 28.6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 23.8% 76.2% 13.6% 86.4% 0% 100% 2010 Completers N=14 Neither Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree nor Agree Disagree 0% 0% 0% 7.1% 92.9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15.4% 84.6% 14.3% 85.7% 0% 100% 14.3% 7.1% 28.6% 50.0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14.3% 78.6% 14.3% 78.6% 0% 100%

291 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 16 III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data Students participate in an integrated curriculum leading to either a School Nurse Services Credential (SNSC) or a Special Teaching Authorization in Health (STAH) credential. Students are required to meet a minimum grade of B (3.0) or 83% in each credential course. As displayed in Table 2, students in both credential programs exceed the minimum grade expectation, with a range of GPA in SNSC courses from 3.5 to 4.0 and a range of GPA in STAH courses from 3.8 to 4.0. In Table 3, the midterm and final evaluation of students in the School Nurse Services Practicum course demonstrates strong student performance at the midterm, with a range of scores by performance factor from 1.15 to A score of 1.0 (Consistent) indicates that each objective is met all of the time. The midterm performance is high because school nurses enrolled in the credential program come with several years of experience in school nursing prior to credential matriculation. The range of scores improves at the end of the School Nurses Services Practicum to a range 1.02 to 1.09, indicating additional consistency in achieving the performance factors. A score of 1.0 CONSISTENT always meets this objective or 2.0 OFTEN meets this objective most of the time is required for students to successfully pass the practicum. The final mean indicates strong success in achieving consistent performance in meeting the objectives of the school nurse role. Students STAH teaching performance is rated at the midterm (Table 4) and again at the end of the STAH teaching practicum (Table 5). The midterm performance is rated as basic (2.0), skilled (3.0) or distinguished (4.0). Mean scores range from 2.75 to 4.00 for students and from 3.28 to 3.68 for students; most midterm scores indicate already skilled performance with all but one mean above 3.0. Final STAH teaching performance scores are indicated in Table 6. In , 100% of students met objectives in the area of curricular and instructional skills, classroom teaching field experience, and academic instruction. In , all but one student met objectives in each area. The one student who did not met the objectives on six items, was further evaluated by the program lead faculty and was found to have met all objectives. The one item which needs ongoing attention is the finding in that midterm evaluation indicated a mean of 2.75 in the area of Appropriately uses and interprets assessment tools ; this mean improved to 3.48 in the midterm STAH evaluation. The employer evaluations of students achievement of school nurse competencies at the end of their school nurse services practicum are displayed in Tables 6 and 7. Employers indicate that 100% of our students achieve the required school nurse competencies expected from a credentialed school nurse.

292 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 17 Table 8 displays the results of a post-credential (SNSC) completion survey which highlights strong student satisfaction with the credential program. In all categories but one, 100% of students agreed or strongly agreed with aspects of program, faculty and staff quality and indicated that they would recommend others to the CSUF School Nursing credential program. The one area that received a lesser level of approval (65%- 78.6% agree or strongly agreed scores) was the availability of courses when desired. IV. Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance An example of the use of assessment results to improve candidate performance is the use of mid-term and final assessments for the practica for the School Nurses Services Credential and for the Special Teaching and Authorization in Health Credential. The midterm assessment by the nurse preceptor or master teacher, respectively, allows faculty the opportunity to provide additional instruction and remediation as needed by each student to achieve success in the course and allow the student to be recommended for the respective credential (Common Standard 7: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice, and Common Standard 9: Assessment of Candidate Competence). Review of the assessment results for the final employer evaluation of student competence (Tables 5, 6 and 7) has encouraged us to refine these final assessment tools to provide more discrimination of the level of competency attained in the practica. In the future, we will use current competency assessment modified to include a similar rating scale as used in the respective midterm assessments for the SNSC and STAH practica. This will allow for easier comparison between the assessments for each credential and will allow calculation of mean scores for each competency identified in these assessments (Common Standard 9: Assessment of Candidate Competence). The end of program survey, administered in 2010, for both and credential completers, indicates a lower level of satisfaction for the item Availability of courses when desired. Although this may have been related to early class closures during the budget difficulties of the last 2 years, some narrative comments indicated that students would prefer only distance courses instead of the mixed modality of distance classes with some campus meetings. These survey results, along with narrative comments, warrant additional investigation. In Fall 2010, a sub-group of the Graduate Program Committee in the School of Nursing will review the exit survey results including comments, as well as survey current students about desired course availability and determine if any scheduling changes need to be made (Common Standard 1: Program Design).

293 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Nursing - 18 Plan for action Candidate assessment data in both the School Nurse Services Credential courses and the Special Teaching Authorization in Health Credential courses are quite strong, indicating consistent ability to provide health services and health teaching at levels higher than required for recommendation for credentialing. We plan to continue to monitor assessment data on a regular basis to ensure that competency standards for credential completers remain at these outstanding levels. Some of the assessment tools, such as the employer evaluation of student competency, are imprecise, with competencies rated on a met or not met basis. We will revise the end of SNSC and STAH practica employer rating of student competency forms this academic year and will begin use at the end of fall semester, The revision will include a similar 4-5 point rating scale as used in the respective midterm assessments for the SNSC and STAH practica. The one item which needs ongoing attention in the STAH practicum is the finding in that midterm evaluation indicated a mean of 2.75 in the area of Appropriately uses and interprets assessment tools ; this mean improved to 3.48 in the midterm STAH evaluation. We plan to monitor this assessment item closely to determine what, if any, action is needed. Student satisfaction with the program is very high with the end of program results, showing 100% agree and strongly agree response to all survey items but one, Availability of classes when desired. In fall 2010, a sub-group of the Graduate Program Committee in the School of Nursing will review the exit survey results as well as poll current students about desired course availability and determine if any scheduling changes need to be made. Please address questions regarding the and Academic Years Biennial Report to Dr. Penny Weismuller, Nursing Graduate Program Coordinator, available at [email protected] or (657)

294 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Section B - 1 SECTION B INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY AND PLAN OF ACTION Trends observed in the data across program Candidate and employer survey results continue to indicate a high level of satisfaction in regard to the level of preparation candidates receive in our programs. Course pass rates indicate a high majority of our candidates demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to meet program and professional standards as aligned with course objectives. Departments review assessment data and discuss recommendations at department meetings and those departments with course custodians ensure assessments and improvements take place across their assigned course(s). Departments recognize the importance of program design and how it impacts candidates success. Across most programs, there is greater focus on how we can improve our candidates abilities to work more effectively with English language learners, students with special needs, at-risk students, and technology. Areas of strength The data show that the unit has a comprehensive, well-organized system of assessing candidate performance as well as program effectiveness. The assessment instruments are aligned with CTC, NCATE, and other program standards and reflect the values in the Conceptual Framework. Reports indicate how assessment results are regularly shared and discussed for enhancing program effectiveness. Candidates exit our programs feeling highly prepared and strong satisfaction with our programs. Employer data suggest that our graduates are competent and effective. In our programs requiring the passage of TPEs and TPAs, passage rates are high and supervisor and master teacher TPE ratings of candidate performance indicate a high level of agreement contributing to score reliability. The overall passage rate in all courses (including fieldwork and student teaching) and across all pathways indicates a high level of proficiency for nearly all candidates. Diversity assignments indicate that candidates understand where to access data about diverse students, how their needs are being met, and how to assess the success of programs designed to meet the needs of diverse students. Writing scores are high, indicating candidates strong writing proficiency. Passage of RICA and other program specific exams is high, indicating candidates are well prepared when they leave our programs. Areas for improvement Although the unit has a comprehensive, well-organized system of assessing candidate performance and program effectiveness, severe budget reductions forced the elimination of funding for the assessment coordinator position for one semester, causing a lapse in our assessment system. In addition, the college s data analyst resigned to take another position, leaving the college without a data analyst for one semester due to a hiring freeze. Unfortunately, during this time period, some data were lost or uncollected and cannot be restored. The college quickly restored the funding of the coordinator position and hired a new data analyst the following spring. The assessment system is operative again and we are back on track in regard to

295 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Section B - 2 data collection, management, and evaluation. Moving forward, it has become clear that coordination and staffing for the assessment system will be needed in order to ensure timely data collection, analysis and review. While scores on the unit-wide Diversity assignment are high, more appropriate prompts can be designed to meet the needs of all programs, rather than those designed for teachers. Other assessment tools, such as the employer evaluation of student competency in the Nursing program, are imprecise, with competencies rated on a met or not met basis. Revisions will be made to include a 4 to 5 point rating scale. Helping graduates feel better prepared to use technology effectively in the classroom is an area for improvement. Significant efforts have been made by some departments to offer professional development for faculty and increase candidates opportunities to receive additional instruction and practice in the use of educational technologies. Data have shown an increase in how well graduates feel prepared in using technology, but not to the extent that a large proportion of graduates feel adequately or well prepared to teach with technology. Another consistent finding is in regard to graduates response to their knowledge about resources in the school and community for at-risk students and families. Graduates from all three programs surveyed (Elementary and Bilingual Education, Special Education, and Secondary Education) responded that they did not feel adequately prepared in this area. To address this deficiency, faculty in Secondary Education have already created new assignments to help candidates better understand the needs of at-risk students and resources that are available; Special Education faculty is addressing this in their course custodian and credential committee meetings; and the faculty in the Department of Elementary and Bilingual Education have begun meeting to explore avenues for improving candidate and faculty performance in this area. Meeting the instructional needs of learners with special needs continues to be an emphasis in the departments of Secondary Education and Elementary and Bilingual Education. Generally, graduates perceive themselves as less prepared in these areas than their supervisors report them to be (with the exception of the first two years in the at-risk category). Meeting the needs of students with special needs has been a focus of the departments for the past few years; in fact, we have been recognized within the CSU system as one of the top performing CSUs in this area. While we may be making gains, it is abundantly clear that we have to continue to strive to better prepare our candidates (and faculty) in this area. Knowing and understanding the subjects of the curriculum at the grade level taught is an area of improvement identified by the faculty of the Department of Special Education. Year-out surveys reveal that an increasing number of graduates feel somewhat to not at all prepared in regard to knowing and understanding the subjects of the curriculum at their grade level. The department is going to focus on this area by continuing course custodian meetings with adjunct faculty who teach these courses. In addition, this will be an ongoing program improvement area through the department s Credential Committee meetings on a monthly basis. Curriculum and materials can be added to specific courses to strengthen the program in this area.

296 CSU Fullerton, October 2010 Section B - 3 Clinical management of disorders and assessment of swallowing disorders were identified as a weakness in the Department of Communications (HCOM). The faculty note that many graduates had not been involved in and currently were not involved in providing services involving swallowing disorders. The department recently hired a new tenure track faculty member in the area of phonology to help address these issues. Next steps: Plan of Action 1. Improving and emphasizing the importance of (1) assessment and (2) technology throughout our programs will be part of the College of Education s strategic plan and overall goals. 2. The Unit Assessment Committee will work with programs to revise and monitor the effectiveness of unit-wide surveys. 3. To ensure that each of the programs address improvements specific to their area we will use the Unit Assessment Committee and the Council of Chairs as vehicles to support programs as they plan and implement proposed changes. 4. The College will use Improvement and Accountability plans to monitor departments progress on areas of improvement. Claire Cavallaro, Dean Karen Ivers, Associate Dean College of Education California State University, Fullerton 800 N. State College Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92834