CSU, Monterey Bay Special Education Program Summary and Responses to CSU System-wide Survey Results 1) Summary of Student Satisfaction Data for program alumni - 2011 2) Summary of Supervisor Evaluation Data of program alumni - 2008-2011 3) Program improvement activities implemented by the program - 2009-Present 4) Current Issues and Activities for 2012
Student Satisfaction 2011 (Graduates 2009-10) Comparison to average scores across the CSU system: Received scores WITHIN 10 percentage points ABOVE OR BELOW that of the overall CSU average on 63% of the total items (25 out of 40) Received scores 10 percentage points or more ABOVE that of the overall CSU average on 20% of the total items (8 out of 40) Received scores 10 percentage points or more BELOW that of the overall CSU average on 17% of the total items (7 out of 40)
Supervisor Responses Employment Supervisors who responded to the survey overwhelmingly reported that our graduates were Well or Adequately Prepared on each of the Evaluation Questions across 40 items 2008 Supervisor Responses (N=6) 83.3% Overall Mean Score 2009 Supervisor Responses: (N=6) 87% Overall Mean Score 2010 Supervisor Responses (N=5) 54% Overall Mean Score 2011 Supervisor Responses (N=6) 83.85% Overall Mean Score See tables 1, 2, & 5 from Set 4-B: ES Credentials
Overall Student Satisfaction with Instruction A strong majority of graduates from our program who responded to the survey felt that the Instruction provided was Very or Somewhat Valuable 2008 Alumni Responses (n=13) 82.8% Overall Mean Score across 17 Items 2009 Alumni Responses 83.25% Overall Mean Score 2010 Alumni Responses 84.6% Overall Mean Score 2011 Alumni Responses 81.3% Overall Mean Score See table 7 from Set 4-B: ES Credentials
Areas of Concern (as initially identified from data collected on 2007 program graduates) Knowledge of resources for at-risk students/families Use of Technology in the Classroom Consulting with General Educators
Area of Concern #1: Knowledge of resources for at-risk students/families 53% of 2007 and 2008 program graduates (N=21) reported being Well or Adequately Prepared to know about resources for at-risk students/ families (CSU Average = 55%). Program Improvement Goal #1: Increase candidate knowledge of resources for at-risk students & families See item #24, Table 4, Set 4-B: ES Credentials
Program Improvement Activities Related to Goal #1 Candidates in all programs are now required to conduct an assignment identifying and describing various community resources for at-risk students/families Level I Students: SPED 560 Inclusionary Practices for Students with Disabilities Each candidate identifies one area resource in their community to be shared with colleagues during class activities Resources are compiled in a handbook and made available as a resource to all students in the department Level II Students: SPED 682 Advanced Assessment and Curriculum Instruction for Students with Learning Challenges Each candidate presents this assignment in order that all candidates are exposed to a wealth of resources in a variety of areas.
Progress on Goal #1 56% of 2009 and 2010 graduates (N=9) of 2010 graduates stated they were well or adequately prepared to know about resources in the school and community for at risk students/families (CSU Average = 57%) Conclusion: Maintain Implementation of Program Improvement Activities for Goal #1
Area of Concern #2: Use of Technology in the Classroom 50% of 2007 program graduates (n=8) and 58% of 2008 program graduates (n=12) reported feeling Well or Adequately Prepared to use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records (CSU average = 56%). Program Improvement Goal #2a: Increase candidate preparedness to use computerbased technology in class activities and to keep class records See Item 17, Table 4, Set 4-B: ES Credentials
Area of Concern #2: Use of Technology in the Classroom 50% of 2007 program graduates (n=8) and 75% of 2008 program graduates (n=12) reported feeling Well or Adequately Prepared to use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects (CSU Average = 54%) Program Improvement Goal #2b: Increase candidate preparedness to use computerbased applications to help students learn curriculum subjects See Item 16, Table 4, Set 4-B: ES Credentials
Program Improvement Activities Related to Goal #2 Candidates are provided access to 4 computer-based applications and technology in the program s online courses (2 new online courses were added in AY 2011-12, with 2 more to be added by Fall 2012, which will bring the total to 8) In these courses candidates are required to explore online/computer-based resources for use in classroom activities and for assisting student learning Courses on Technology and Assistive Technology have been designed and will be added to new Preliminary Program (ED 538A & ED 538B)
Progress on Goal # 2 100% of the 2009 graduates (N=5) and 32.5% of 2010 graduates (N=4) reported being well or adequately prepared to use computer-based technology Conclusion: Initiate new course requirements in technology (ED 538A & 538B)
Area of Concern #3: Consulting with General Educators 57% of 2007 program graduates (n=7) and 83% of 2008 program graduates (n=12) reported feeling Well or Adequately Prepared to consult with general educators about teaching special education students (CSU average = 66%). See Item #14, Table 6, Set 4-B: ES Credentials
Program Improvement Activities Related to Goal #3 Textbook change in Level I Inclusion Course (SPED 560) focusing on strategies for instruction in general education settings Required course on working with general educators for all Level II candidates SPED 683 Collaboration/Consultation; for all mild to moderate candidates, or SPED 686 Advocacy for All: Leadership, Management and Advanced Communication Skills; for all moderate to severe candidates Added content/assignments into above courses focusing on collaborative efforts with general education teachers (e.g. co-teaching, consultation)
Progress on Goal #3 80% of 2009 graduates (N=5) and 75% of 2010 graduates (N=4) reported they were well or adequately prepared to consult with regular-ed teachers about teaching special education students (CSU Average = 62%) Conclusion: Goal #3 Achieved
Current Areas of Concern (from data on 2009 & 2010 graduates) School Experiences prior to supervised teaching 40% of 2009 graduates (N=5) and 50% of 2010 graduates (N=4) reported that they had a sequence of field experiences appropriate for their career goals, and that reflected the many roles of special education teachers. (CSU average = 78%) See Item #4, Table 8, Set 4-B: ES Credentials Goal #4: Increase candidate preparedness for school experiences.
Program Improvement Activities Related to Goal #4 In 2010-2011, program faculty developed a new Preliminary Credential Program in Mild to Moderate and Moderate to Severe Disabilities. One hallmark of this new program was the inclusion of a field experience course requirement to be taken during the initial semester of the program by all candidates. Program faculty developed a course syllabus to provide multiple field-based activities and experiences designed to enhance the preparedness of candidates for supervised teaching. This new field experience course requirement was instituted beginning with students admitted for the Fall 2011 semester.
Summary of Program Improvements Made and in Place Community Resources Assignment (SPED 560) for all Level I candidates Online/computer-based resources for use in classroom activities and for assisting student learning provided in new Preliminary Program online classes (currently 6, and soon to be 8 online courses) Required Technology course for all new Preliminary Program Students (ED 538A & 538B) Textbook change in Level I Inclusion Course (SPED 560) focusing on strategies in general education settings Required course on working with general educators for all Level II candidates SPED 683 Collaboration/Consultation; for all mild to moderate candidates or SPED 686 Advocacy for All: Leadership, Management and Advanced Communication Skills; for all moderate to severe candidates Added content/assignments to above courses on consultation with general education teachers (e.g. co-teaching, etc) Added initial semester field experience course requirement