University of LaVerne College of Education & Organizational Leadership Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report 2013

University of LaVerne College of Education & Organizational Leadership Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report 2013 Credential Programs: Education Specialists: Mild-Moderate, Level One, Level Two, Transition Preliminary I. Credential Program Specific Information s Contextual Information The Education Specialist program has concluded its Mild-Moderate Educational Specialist Level One credential for traditional candidates and for those on an Intern Credential. The program currently offers the Level Two Credential and the Preliminary credential which have been in transition since 2012 and is currently in full implementation. Level One and the Preliminary credential have been designed to be responsive to the 2010 Standards since fall 2011. Due to the delay in hiring the third faculty member until September 2011, the program did not pursue establishing a Clear Credential as planned for 2011. At this time the program faculty are planning to design a clear credential for the 2015-2016 academic year. The Early Childhood Added Authorization will be submitted in 2013-2014 academic year with the Preliminary program narrative. Candidates can attach a Master of Science in Special Education to the Level Two by adding additional courses. The Master of Science in Special Education that is connected to Level Two was revised in 2008 and has been revised again in 2013 as a standalone Masters of Special Education Studies that can be completed after the Preliminary credential is completed Although the Level One Credential has been phased out information is include here because data for this program is included in the analysis that follows and substantial changes have been made based upon data and redesign elements to better meet the 2010 standards. The Level One Credential was comprised of four General Teacher Education courses and one five week general education student teaching. Educational Specialist candidates were exposed to reading instruction, English as a second language instruction, general education standards and lesson planning with their general education peers. Educational Specialists were responsible for all requirements in these courses including Teacher Performance Assessments (TPA) 1, 2 and 3. They were also required to pass the Reading Instruction Competency Assessment (RICA). The University of La Verne Educational Specialists had a quasi blended program; with just a few additional courses and field work candidates could receive both credentials. The university has had these shared experiences for years prior to the new CCTC requirements of 2010. Level I candidates data regarding the internship credential attached to phased out Level One is included in this report. The internship program for the Level One credential is a two year program with pre-requisites that include, among specific state and university pre-requisites, two specific courses; one in special education, and one in cultural-linguistic diversity and second language learner instructional strategies. Students are contracted to teach special education with school districts who partner with the university and provide appropriate and ongoing support personnel for the intern candidate. The internship program has the enhanced component requiring added training in working with second language learners, as well as more time communicating and learning from on-site mentors. Interns take the same courses and follow the same course sequence as non-

intern (traditional) teacher candidates, with one additional course (intern seminar, SPED 459), which is a scholarship course for interns only. There are 20 Interns reported for this report from the old Level One report (2011-2012). There are 4 currently in the pilot cycle Preliminary Credential. And, at this time the Internship is comprised of 4 courses and has been approved for the new requirements. Currently the university provides a Mild-Moderate Education Specialist Preliminary credential. Year 2011-2012 in the data reflects a Preliminary credential with 6 candidates who are on the lock list for Level 1. These candidates had various emergency situations that prolonged their program completion. Level Two is comprised of five core seminars in which candidates pursue specific individual professional goals within the course context of legal issues (SPED 504), advanced behavior issues (SPED 505), advanced assessment (SPED 506), advanced curriculum issues (SPED 507) and life cycle issues (SPED 508). The candidates professional goals are determined at the beginning of each seminar. In each seminar, the initial goals developed in planning meetings at the beginning of Level Two (SPED 503) are reviewed for relevancy in the seminar and the culminating projects in the seminars are reflective of these goals. The candidates final projects also include requirements for discussion with appropriate community members identified as stakeholders in the particular issues raised in the seminar. These stakeholders can be district personnel, parents, students and outside experts. At the end of Level Two candidates present their Level Two experience to invitees who may also have been stakeholders involved in the various projects. The district support providers are asked to attend and are asked to complete an evaluation survey relative to the preparation of the candidate with whom they worked. The Educational Specialist candidates at the University of LaVerne include Caucasians, African Americans, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, Asians and one North America Indigenous person. The Educational Specialists programs are offered at three campuses: the main LaVerne campus, the Valencia (COC) campus which opened in 2011 and the Bakersfield campus. There are three full time tenured faculty and one administer-faculty person, who primarily supports the Bakersfield campus. Program Specific Candidate Information Numbers of candidates and completers/graduates for two years reported 2011-2012 2012-13 Level One/Preliminary Number of Number of Number of Candidates Completers/Graduates Candidates LaVerne 85 22 81 17 Bakersfield 38 8 33 0 Valencia (COC) 23 0 24 4 TOTALS 146 30 138 21 Level Two LaVerne 10 4 8 5 Bakersfield 4 0 2 0 Valencia (Preliminary only) NA NA NA NA TOTALS 14 4 10 5 Masters LaVerne Bakersfield Valencia NA 0 0 0 Number of Completers/Graduates

Changes Since Commission Approval of Current Program The following significant changes have been made since the commission approved the current document: A new campus has been added to the special education program A new tenure track faculty has been added Sped 510 has been developed into typical/atypical development with a focus emphasis in Autism spectrum disorders Level One has been phased out and the Preliminary Significant diversity/social justice elements have been added to the program Community Engagement has been added to the program as an aspect of the new university president s initiative. The writing prompt in Key Assessment One Admissions has been changed from a onetime test at admissions to a course that supports 12 objectives and is delivered through co-teaching with a general education and special education team. A new reading sequence has been designed Five new adjuncts have been accepted and are in training as an objective in the ultimate goal to have at least one expert, in addition to full tenured faculty, trained to support each course as the program expands and changes. Sped 406/Assessment Practices and IEP development has added more focus on English language learners and diversity. The final culmination of student teaching is using an e-portfolio option The Internship scholarship is not available and so the seminar support is now a paid unit Changes since the 2010 report A new campus has been added to the special education program A new tenure track faculty has been added Sped 510 has been developed into a typical/atypical focus with an emphasis in Autism spectrum Level One has been phased out and the Preliminary is offered 2013 Biennial Report Current status In 2011 a new campus opened. We deliver mild moderate programs; 25 candidates have been accepted/attended. Dr. Witt has joined the faculty and is in charge of advisement at the newest campus and Sped 408, 507,510 and is liaison to the reading courses development process Dr. Witt has expertise here and has taught this course with positive student comments. She also is in charge of writing and supervising the autism authorization and certificate programs (implementation post this report but in development during the time frame of this report) Three general education requirements from the previous Level One have been eliminated and new courses have been added that are more

Significant diversity/social justice elements have been added to the program Community Engagement has been added to the program as an aspect of the new university president s initiative. The writing prompt in Key Assessment One Admissions has been changed from a onetime test at admissions to a course that supports 12 objectives and is delivered through co-teaching with a general education and special education team. A new reading sequence has been designed responsive to the 2010 standards. All lead instructors have added elements in courses to address this topic. Students are researching, analyzing, and studying, applying understanding of this issue at each Key assessment point. This is a university wide initiative and each college unit has identified how this value will be incorporated into their programs. Candidates in special education programs address their thinking, existing community support activities and plans for the future in Key assessment one and throughout the courses in the program. A very exciting element, responsive to the literature about adult writing especially with people of color, interviews with surrounding districts on writing needs of their specialists, and by analysis of data on prior writing prompt, and narrative investigation with struggling writer in the program or wanting to be in the program, a course was designed to address the understood issues, provide direct instruction and support in writing, introduce basic concepts of teaching writing to mild- moderate learners and addressing professional comportment and demeanor for success in the program. During 2012-2013 a new reading cycle was designed by the reading specialist program. Reading specialist and education specialist faculty and experts in the field met on a regular basis to design the courses in which each candidate learns principles of reading/writing instruction and applies this knowledge in a tutorial setting, and then participates in coaching and feedback. RICA preparation for successful passage was also studied. Five new adjuncts have been accepted and are in training as an objective in the ultimate goal to have at least one expert, in addition to full tenured faculty, trained to support each course as the program expands and changes. Assessment course(406) has added specific assessments and constructs for English learners and diversity issues E-portfolios are being introduced The pilot is in process 2013-2014 Adjuncts are shadowing their assigned courses Is being evaluated from course evaluations, student key assessment 2013-2014 Samples are being collected and analyzed

II. Candidates Assessment/Performance & Program Effectiveness Information Table 1: Summary of Transition Point 1: Admission Data (For students active from fall 2010 to spring 2013) & Combined Number of Students Enrolled Average of GPA GPA Average of Writing Score Writing Score Grade 401 Average of TP1 - Writing (401) TP1 - Writing (401) 2010-2011 92 3.263 72 2.719 64 2011-2012 115 3.195 89 2.770 74 11 3.350 12 2012-2013 109 3.139 79 2.710 62 18 3.410 20 Number of Students Enrolled Average of GPA GPA Average of Writing Score Writing Score Grade 401 Average of TP1 - Writing (401) TP1 - Writing (401) 2010-2011 54 3.235 35 2.759 29 2011-2012 71 3.221 48 2.756 41 2012-2013 63 3.077 38 2.676 37 13 3.360 15 2010-2011 38 3.289 37 2.686 35 2011-2012 44 3.165 41 2.788 33 11 3.350 12 2012-2013 46 3.196 41 2.760 25 5 3.560 5 Notes: 4 = Exceptional; 3 - Competent; 2 = Emerging; 1 = Not Present All course and key-assessment data reflect their corresponding school years. TP1 data are incoming data for all students included in course and key assessment portions. 2012-2013 data is Fall 2012 - Spring 2013 (does not include summer 2013) 5

Table 2: Summary of Key Assessments and Associated Course Grades (For courses completed from fall 2010 to spring 2013) Level I- Key Assessment 1 (Knowledge) & Grade Average of Key Assessment 1 Key Assessment 1-408 Combined 408 - Knowledge (408) Knowledge (408) 2010-2011 3.854 24 3.889 18 0.808 2011-2012 3.967 21 3.820 20 0.028 2012-2013 4.000 22 3.819 21 #DIV/0! 408 Grade 408 Average of Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge (408) Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge (408) 408 grade and KA 1 408 grade and KA 1 2010-2011 3.960 15 3.980 10-0.111 2011-2012 3.942 12 3.873 11 0.179 2012-2013 4.000 22 3.819 21 #DIV/0! 2010-2011 3.678 9 3.775 8 0.869 2011-2012 4.000 9 3.756 9 #DIV/0! 2012-2013 Level I- Key Assessment 2 -Planning & Combined 407 Grade 407 Average of Key Assessment 2 - Planning (407) Key Assessment 2 - Planning (407) 2010-2011 3.674 19 3.553 17 407 grade and KA 2 0.113 2011-2012 3.368 40 3.426 38 0.485 2012-2013 3.752 23 3.385 20 0.479 407 Grade 407 Average of Key Assessment 2 - Planning (407) Key Assessment 2 - Planning (407) 407 grade and KA 2 2010-2011 3.900 9 3.533 9 0.750 2011-2012 3.205 21 3.463 19 0.380 2012-2013 3.732 19 3.412 17 0.470 2010-2011 3.470 10 3.575 8-0.053 2011-2012 3.547 19 3.389 19 0.653 2012-2013 3.850 4 3.233 3 0.904 6

Level I- Key Assessment 3-Assessment & Combined 406 Level I-Key Assessment 4-Diversity & Average of Key Assessment Key Assessment 4-405 Grade 405 Combined 4 - Diversity (405) Diversity (405) 405 grade and KA 4 2010-2011 3.463 27 3.659 23 0.631 2011-2012 3.800 27 4.667 26-0.418 2012-2013 3.743 28 3.583 23 0.125 405 Grade 405 Average of Key Assessment 4 - Diversity (405) Key Assessment 4 - Diversity (405) 405 grade and KA 4 2010-2011 3.200 17 3.548 14 0.634 2011-2012 3.743 21 4.884 20-0.419 2012-2013 3.567 12 3.075 8-0.215 2010-2011 3.910 10 3.832 9 0.506 2011-2012 4.000 6 3.943 6 #DIV/0! 2012-2013 3.875 16 3.853 15 0.208 LevelI-Key Assessment 5-Technology Grade 406 Average of Key Assessment 3 - Assessment (406) Key Assessment 3 - Assessment (406) 406 grade and KA 3 2010-2011 3.617 30 3.770 27 0.626 2011-2012 3.231 35 3.400 34-0.091 2012-2013 3.488 26 3.464 28 0.431 406 Grade 406 Average of Key Assessment 3 - Assessment (406) Key Assessment 3 - Assessment (406) 406 grade and KA 3 2010-2011 3.463 19 3.689 18 0.536 2011-2012 3.016 25 3.496 25 0.159 2012-2013 3.540 5 3.543 7 0.167 2010-2011 3.882 11 3.933 9 #DIV/0! 2011-2012 3.770 10 3.133 9 0.838 2012-2013 3.476 21 3.438 21 0.463 7

& Combined Grade 409 Average of Key Assessment 5 - Technology Key Assessment 5 - (409) Technology (409) 2010-2011 21 3.867 21 2011-2012 18 3.726 19 2012-2013 14 3.853 15 Grade 409 Average of Key Assessment 5 - Technology (409) 8 Key Assessment 5 - Technology (409) 2010-2011 8 3.825 8 2011-2012 10 3.782 11 2012-2013 11 3.855 11 2010-2011 13 3.892 13 2011-2012 8 3.650 8 2012-2013 3 3.850 4 Level II-Key Assessment 1-Knowledge & Combined 504 Grade 504 Average of Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge (504) Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge (504) 504 grade and KA 1 2010-2011 3.875 16 3.782 11 #DIV/0! 2011-2012 3.389 18 4.000 4 #DIV/0! 2012-2013 3.900 3 504 Grade 504 Average of Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge (504) Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge (504) 504 grade and KA 1 2010-2011 4.000 9 3.700 6 #DIV/0! 2011-2012 3.214 14 4.000 4 #DIV/0! 2012-2013 3.900 3 2010-2011 3.714 7 3.880 5 #DIV/0! 2011-2012 4.000 4 2012-2013 Level II-Key Assessment 2-Planning & Grade Average of Key Assessment 2 - Key Assessment 2 - Combined 505 505 Planning (505) Planning (505) 505 grade and KA 2 2010-2011 3.050 18 3.343 14 0.623

2011-2012 2.900 16 3.333 9 0.195 2012-2013 3.425 28 3.326 27 0.764 505 Grade 505 Average of Key Assessment 2 - Planning (505) Key Assessment 2 - Planning (505) 505 grade and KA 2 2010-2011 3.042 12 3.311 9 0.694 2011-2012 2.489 9 3.300 4 0.333 2012-2013 3.300 18 3.288 16 0.631 2010-2011 3.067 6 3.400 5 #DIV/0! 2011-2012 3.429 7 3.360 5 0.194 2012-2013 3.650 10 3.382 11 0.901 Level II-Key Assessment 3-Assessment & Combined 506 Grade 506 Average of Key Assessment 3 - Assessment (506) Key Assessment 3 - Assessment (506) 506 grade and KA 3 2010-2011 1.817 18 3.367 12-0.065 2011-2012 3.127 11 3.578 9-0.081 2012-2013 3.800 9 3.556 9 0.500 506 Grade 506 Average of Key Assessment 3 - Assessment (506) Key Assessment 3 - Assessment (506) 506 grade and KA 3 2010-2011 1.838 8 3.400 6-0.328 2011-2012 2.671 7 3.560 5-0.273 2012-2013 3.800 6 3.600 6 0.433 2010-2011 1.800 10 3.333 6 0.160 2011-2012 3.925 4 3.600 4 0.000 2012-2013 3.800 3 3.467 3 1.000 9

Level II-Key Assessment 4-Diversity & Grade Average of Key Assessment 4 - Key Assessment 4-507 Combined 507 Diversity (507) Diversity (507) 507 grade and KA 4 2010-2011 1.622 9 3.333 3 0.500 2011-2012 3.314 14 3.545 11 0.324 2012-2013 3.200 9 3.128 6 0.200 507 Grade 507 Average of Key Assessment 4 - Diversity (507) Key Assessment 4 - Diversity (507) 507 grade and KA 4 2010-2011 1.460 5 3.200 2 #DIV/0! 2011-2012 3.329 7 3.560 5 #DIV/0! 2012-2013 2.900 6 3.128 6 0.200 2010-2011 1.825 4 3.600 1 #DIV/0! 2011-2012 3.300 7 3.533 6 0.424 2012-2013 3.800 3 Level II-Key Assessment 5-Technology & Combined 509 Grade 509 Average of Key Assessment 5 - Technology (509) Key Assessment 5 - Technology (509) 509 grade and KA 5 2010-2011 4.000 3 4.000 3 #DIV/0! 2011-2012 4.000 9 3.911 9 #DIV/0! 2012-2013 4.000 10 3.980 10 #DIV/0! 509 Grade 509 Average of Key Assessment 5 - Technology (509) Key Assessment 5 - Technology (509) 509 grade and KA 5 2010-2011 2011-2012 4.000 7 3.886 7 #DIV/0! 2012-2013 4.000 4 3.950 4 #DIV/0! 2010-2011 4.000 3 4.000 3 #DIV/0! 2011-2012 4.000 2 4.000 2 #DIV/0! 2012-2013 4.000 6 4.000 6 #DIV/0! 10

Table 3 Program Completers Program Specific Candidate Information Numbers of candidates and completers/graduates for two years reported 2011-2012 2012-13 Level One/Preliminary Number of Number of Number of Candidates Completers/Graduates Candidates LaVerne 85 22 81 17 Bakersfield 38 8 33 0 Valencia (COC) 23 0 24 4 TOTALS 146 30 138 21 Level Two LaVerne 10 4 8 5 Bakersfield 4 0 2 0 Valencia (Preliminary only) NA NA NA NA TOTALS 14 4 10 5 Masters LaVerne Bakersfield Valencia NA 0 0 0 Table 4: Post Program Data (Conducted by Center for Teacher Quality, Sacramento, California) Number of Completers/Graduates General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs During 2009-10, as Evaluated in 2011 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered by the Special Education Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of : University of La Verne: Nine Participating Universities: 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..... organize and manage a class or a group of pupils for instructional activities. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Mean SD N Mean 4 100% 0% 2.75 0.50 100 88% 12% 2.40 0.83 SD... organize and manage student behavior and discipline satisfactorily. 4 100% 0% 2.75 0.50 100 87% 13% 2.42 0.79 11

... prepare lesson plans and make prior arrangements for class activities. 4 100% 0% 2.50 0.58 101 85% 15% 2.38 0.76... understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools. 4 100% 0% 2.50 0.58 98 90% 10% 2.51 0.68... understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning.... learn about students interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly. 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... 4 100% 0% 2.75 0.50 97 89% 11% 2.47 0.72 4 100% 0% 2.25 0.50 99 89% 11% 2.41 0.71 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Mean SD N Mean SD B. General Preparation to Teach Students Who Need Special Education Services... know and understand federal and state laws that govern special education. 4 100% 0% 2.75 0.50 96 88% 13% 2.34 0.72... assess students' interests and abilities using multiple assessment procedures. 4 100% 0% 2.50 0.58 93 87% 13% 2.45 0.74 Evaluation Questions Answered by Special Education Teachers Who Completed Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs in 2010-11: Once you finished your credential program in 09-10, and when you were a special education teacher in 10-11, how well prepared were you to... University of La Verne: Nine Participating Universities: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Mean SD N Mean SD A. Preparation for Subject-Specific Pedagogies in Special Education... teach reading-language arts according to California Standards in Reading. 1 100% 0% 3.00 --- 90 71% 29% 2.08 0.96... teach mathematics according to California Content Standards in Math. 1 100% 0% 2.00 --- 87 62% 38% 1.82 1.05 12

General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs During 2009-10, as Evaluated in 2011 by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates Evaluation Questions Answered by the Special Education Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of : University of La Verne: Nine Participating Universities: 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 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Mean SD N Mean SD... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at her/his grade level. 4 75% 25% 2.00 0.82 101 85% 15% 2.37 0.76... meet the instructional needs of students who are English language learners. 4 75% 25% 2.00 0.82 91 81% 19% 2.25 0.86... think about problems that occur in teaching and try-out various solutions. 4 75% 25% 2.00 0.82 98 85% 15% 2.45 0.75... use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions. 4 75% 25% 2.25 0.96 99 86% 14% 2.46 0.81... know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families. Evaluation Questions Answered in 2011 by the Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of Education Specialist Level I 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... 4 75% 25% 2.00 0.82 97 79% 21% 2.26 0.86 University of La Verne: Nine Participating Universities: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Mean SD N Mean SD B. General Preparation to Teach Students Who Need Special Education Services... plan instructional activities in integrated settings for students with disabilities. 4 75% 25% 2.50 1.00 96 88% 13% 2.48 0.77... monitor outcomes and modify instruction based on pupil accomplishments. 4 75% 25% 2.25 0.96 95 84% 16% 2.39 0.83... work with other teachers in inclusive school environments. 4 75% 25% 2.25 0.96 95 85% 15% 2.43 0.85 13

General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs During 2009-10, as Evaluated by the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates While They Taught in Special Education Evaluation Questions Answered in 2011 by Special Education Teachers Who Completed Education Specialist Credential Programs in 2009-10: University of La Verne: Nine Participating Universities: Once you finished your credential program in 2010, and when you were a special education teacher in 10-11, how well prepared were you to... (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Mean SD N Mean SD... know and understand the subjects of the curriculum at your grade level(s). 2 50% 50% 2.00 1.41 92 74% 26% 2.12 0.88... communicate effectively with the parents or guardians of your students. 2 50% 50% 1.50 0.71 93 76% 24% 2.19 0.90... know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families. Evaluation Questions Answered by Special Education Teachers Who Completed Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs in 2010-11: Once you finished your credential program in 09-10, and when you were a special education teacher in 10-11, how well prepared were you to... 2 50% 50% 1.50 0.71 93 61% 39% 1.81 0.99 University of La Verne: Nine Participating Universities: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Mean SD N B. General Preparation to Teach Students Who Need Special Educ. Services... consult with regular-ed. teachers about teaching special education students. 2 50% 50% 2.00 1.41 85 71% 29% 2.05 0.96 Mean SD Education Coursework and Fieldwork in Learning to Teach: Value and Helpfulness of When the Programs' 2009-10 Graduates Served as Special Education Classroom Teachers During 2010-11 Questions Answered by Graduates of Education Specialist (L-I) Programs: Based on your experience as a teacher this year, how valuable or helpful were the coursework and fieldwork in your credential program? University of La Verne: Nine Participating Universities: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) N Very or Valuable A Little Valuable Mean SD N Very or Valuable A. How Valuable or Helpful Was Instruction in Special-Education Pedagogy? Instruction in the characteristics of pupils who are special-education eligible. 2 50% 50% 1.50 2.12 89 81% 19% 2.34 0.87 Instruction in the effects of cultural and linguistic backgrounds in special ed. 2 50% 50% 2.00 1.41 89 81% 19% 2.31 0.89 A Little Valuable Mean SD 14

Instruction in positive behavioral support techniques. 2 50% 50% 2.00 1.41 88 88% 13% 2.43 0.77 Instruction in implementing lessons in small-group and whole-class teaching. 2 50% 50% 2.00 1.41 89 83% 17% 2.39 0.82 Instruction in modifying/adapting instruction for students with disabilities. 2 50% 50% 2.00 1.41 90 84% 16% 2.39 0.83 Instruction in monitoring outcomes and modifying instruction accordingly. 2 50% 50% 1.00 1.41 87 80% 20% 2.34 0.85 Instruction in the assessment of students with disabilities. 2 50% 50% 1.50 0.71 89 90% 10% 2.52 0.71 15

III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data A. Analysis of the writing prompt verses the professional writing course( Sped 401) It is of particular interest to the program faculty whether the writing course (Sped 401) as added benefits to candidates while in the program and thereafter in their practice once teaching in the field. The analysis in this report is only a beginning in that process. In the 2010 report it was noted that in a comparison between a low writing scores did not correlate with a lower grades/gpa in course work. Based upon the literature in the field on adult writing instruction and minority( non-dominant culture) writing assessment it was our premise that: a one time writing prompt is not indicative of future course success because there are many types of course assessment used in the program other than writing on demand, candidates who are otherwise very qualified could benefit from professional writing support through an in depth course and direct instruction practicum, the requirement to pass a writing on demand requirement for admissions might have a negative effect on diversity in the special education program. The data shows that the overall GPA for the course was higher than the admissions GPA across all campuses and that the average grade in the course was significantly higher than the writing prompt (writing on demand). Over the 2011 and 2012 years there were 3 students who took an extension to complete course requirements and this is why the grade count is less than the last column, the TP1 count. See the highlighted area. Table 2 - Summary of Key Assessments and Associated Course Grades (For courses completed from fall 2010 to spring 2013) The data from the Key Assessment on Knowledge (Sped 408) indicated a drop in grades from the main campus to the campus. The course was being redesigned during this time and there were different instructors interpreting the changes. In addition the main campus is a 16 week semester and the courses are 10 weeks. It will be informative to analyze data over the next cycle to determine if course design and consistency of adjunct training and support can nullify these kinds of difference. It does appear that in 2011 this difference disappeared. There was a smaller group size and more one- on- one attention may have been available to candidates. Key assessments also had lower averages in some cases. Class size, adjunct verses lead tenured faculty instructors are elements especially of interest. The Key Assessment on Planning (Sped 407) is a consistent with no huge variations to consider in this cycle. There is only one instructor who teaches this course and this again may be a factor in consistency. There is a program goal of having at least two instructors trained for each course. The second instructor for Sped 407 will teach winter of 2014. An analysis in the next cycle will be given to the impact on this key assessment. In discussion over the over all grades and Key Assessment on Assessment (Sped 406) one obvious consideration for the grades and key assessment going down in average points is the 16

general class size. There was an influx of students needing the course and two instructors over 3 campuses.( 2011-2012, 2012-2013).When the class size went up per offering the average scores went down in grades and key assessment scores. Class size is particularly important in the course/key assessments because of the direct instruction given in administering complicated test materials. The appropriate class size for maintaining the quality of instruction expected in the program and the quality of performance by candidates is of great concern to the faculty. On Key Assessment on Diversity (Sped 405) there is another interesting development in the data. The higher scores on the campus can be tied we believe directly to the campuses being taught by an adjunct who is now being retrained. There were some new elements introduced in the course and she did not adequately teach these. This has been addressed and training is in place and of course we will revisit this throughout the next cycle. The Key Assessment on Technology (Sped 409) is introducing e-portfolios and the data indicates that as this new process is being introduced the grades and key assessment scores are fluctuating on the campus. It appears to have recovered in the last year of data and it is expected to trend that way in the future. The Key Assessments in Level Two, in general, indicate that in 2010-2011 some grade averages were lower than expected. This was an anomaly as in general Level Two candidates are in the field and very engaged and responsive to advancing their knowledge. In a few situations candidates were facing reduction in force possibilities and may have been distracted. B. Analysis of completers Table 3 The number of candidates across the three campuses in Level 1/Preliminary declined slightly over the two year cycle. We are getting a dedicated marketer to support our programs especially in light of the anticipated need for education specialists in the areas we serve. Level 2 is offered on the main campus and in Bakersfield. Candidates entering the program on the COC campus are all Preliminary and have no need for Level 2. Level Two has tended to be on the decline especially as more and more districts are assisting candidates to clear their credentials. C. Analysis of candidate and Employer feedback based upon Table 4: Post Program Data Using the Center for Teacher Quality data we can consider some interesting points although we recognize that any analysis must be done with caution because the number of responses is small. The overall response indicates that the program is viewed as similar as or higher than comparison universities. Several areas are of interest and will be explored. We looked at the ratings the fell in the 50 or 75% range for employers and the graduates and those that were in 100% positive agreement. 17

The common themes were around not feeling there was sufficient knowledge in instruction, working with at-risk learners and working with other adults (parents and teachers). These trends may be addressed in the next cycle and the results should indicate more confidence in the new teachers on the part of the administrators and more perceived skills by the teachers. Working more closely with districts through our new reach-out may also help in communicating what our goals are and therefore helping districts to look at particular skills on the part of our candidates. The at-risk issue has been an on-going concern on the part of administrators and beginning teachers. We have addressed this by adding more information and activities in this area. With more emphasis on Responsiveness to Intervention (RtI), Universal Design for Learning and Access (UDL-A) and Academic Instructional Support (AIS) the Education Specialists role is being more clearly and repeatedly reinforced. Courses have been redesigned to address these issues across the curriculum and we will pursue data results in the next cycle. Our positives rest in the area of around lesson and activities guidance and in the areas of learning about students and their families. This is an emphasis in our program and we will maintain and even perhaps enhance our performance in this area. Part IV Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance Data Source Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made Applicable Program or Common Standard (s) Table 1 Compare performance in Transition point 1 to Common Standards 1, 2,5 written performance in courses across the Preliminary and race of candidates. Program expectation to understand the generalization of the labor intensive courses with special interest to support for candidates of color and any struggling writer Table 2 Create and monitor inter-grading reliability between instructor who teach the same key assessment course. Table 2 Table 4 Conduct a study of the relationship between class size in Sped 406, the assessment key assessment course, and candidate performance in the course grade and key assessment Survey surrounding school districts and candidate regarding what being well prepared for working with at-risk students feels/looks like. We have added elements to each course to specifically address this area and we are planning a more directed communication 18 Common Standard 2 and 4 Research on reliability and consistency of grading across campuses Common Standard 2 Program expectation of reasonable class size for successful candidate performance, and positive candidates attitude. Program Standard 3 Educating Diverse Learners

Table 4 Table 4 Table 4 about at-risk support skills. We have added strategic approaches such as Circle of Courage and Boy s Town to our curriculum as they are used in surrounding districts. Review preliminary of credential courses for inclusion of components responsive to the survey described above by faculty and advisory council. Calculate the number of collaboration and problem solving opportunities candidate have in the program,have candidates reflect on these aspects in culminating classes and monitor candidates attitudes about preparation in collaboration and problem solving. Compare the grades from Sped 408(Key Assessment-knowledge) and an end of program questionnaire on understanding of subject matter. Common Standards 4, 8 Program commitment to training needs. Common Standards 9 Program Standard 4 Program Standard 14 19