Transcript of 2019 EPP Annual Report - bhsu.edu
2019 EPP Annual Report CAEP ID: 12127 AACTE SID: 400
Institution: Black Hills State University
Unit: School of Education
Section 1. AIMS Profile After reviewing and/or updating the
Educator Preparation Provider's (EPP's) profile in AIMS, check the
box to indicate that the information available is accurate.
1.1 In AIMS, the following information is current and accurate...
Agree Disagree
1.1.1 Contact person 1.1.2 EPP characteristics 1.1.3 Program
listings
Section 2. Program Completers 2.1 How many candidates completed
programs that prepared them to work in preschool through grade 12
settings during Academic Year 2017-2018 ?
Enter a numeric value for each textbox. 2.1.1 Number of completers
in programs leading to initial teacher certification or licensure1
132
2.1.2 Number of completers in advanced programs or programs leading
to a degree, endorsement, or some other credential that prepares
the holder to serve in P-12 schools (Do not include those
completers counted above.)2
48
Total number of program completers 180
1 For a description of the scope for Initial-Licensure Programs,
see Policy 3.01 in the Accreditation Policy Manual 2 For a
description of the scope for Advanced-Level Programs, see Policy
3.02 in the Accreditation Policy Manual
Section 3. Substantive Changes Have any of the following
substantive changes occurred at your educator preparation provider
or institution/organization during the 2017-2018 academic
year?
3.1 Changes in the established mission or objectives of the
institution/organization or the EPP
3.2 Any change in the legal status, form of control, or ownership
of the EPP.
3.3 The addition of programs of study at a degree or credential
level different from those that were offered when most recently
accredited
3.4 The addition of courses or programs that represent a
significant departure, in terms of either content or delivery, from
those that were offered when most recently accredited
3.5 A contract with other providers for direct instructional
services, including any teach-out agreements
Any change that means the EPP no longer satisfies accreditation
standards or requirements: 3.6 Change in regional accreditation
status
3.7 Change in state program approval
Course Details:
Preparation applicable to all content areas to effectively
integrate technology into instruction and active student
learning.
New Tech class.docx
Description:
This non-methods course presents major concepts and theories in the
various social studies disciplines including geography,
anthropology, sociology, world and US History, government,
citizenship, democracy, and economics. It builds an understanding
of research and inquiry in social studies specific to working with
K-8 students.
New SS for elem class.docx
Section 4: 1st Table Insert
Section 4: 2nd Table Insert
Section 4: 3rd Table Insert
Section 4: 4th Table Insert
Section 4: 5th Table Insert
Section 4: 6th Table Insert
(continued next page)
Tables for section 4.docx
Substitute Teaching
When asked to substitute-teach the intern may do so for their
clinical educator only. For long-term subbing, a three-way
agreement between the principal, the clinical educator, and the
intern is required. Some districts do not approve the interns to
substitute teach during their internship. Any payment that is
received for substituting is based upon school district policy.
Exceptional situations will be approved through the Office of Field
Experiences.
School of Education Policies and Procedures
3.4.2 Clinical educators in P-1`2 schools retain full
responsibility over their classrooms and delegate instructional
responsibility to the student teaching intern on a temporary
basis. However, the student teaching interns are not to be
used as substitute teachers in the building unless all the
following conditions are met:
1. Student teaching interns may substitute only for their clinical
educators unless school district personnel, the university
supervisor, and the Director of Field Experiences have granted
permission.
1. A four-way agreement exists among the school district
administration, clinical educator, university supervisor, and
student teaching intern.
1. Substitute payment is based upon district policy.
These are the two found. We have to adjust the number of parties in
the agreement, 3 or 4.
Thank you,
Thursday November 1, 2018
President’s Conference Room in the Student Union
Attendance: (19 Total) Julie Mathiesen, Brian Harting, Pete Wilson,
Jay Beagle, Kristen Strissel, Kirk Easton, Joe Hauge, Tonya,
Mullaney, Julie Hatling, Sharman Adams, Micheline Nelson, Amy
Fuqua,
Betsy Silva, Brian Eberhard, Jarrett Moore, Louise Yoho, Janet
Briggs, Denice Turner and Rod Custer
1) Welcome by Dean Adams and Chair Custer
2) Introductions of Council
3) CAEP update from Betsy Silva-final decision will be made October
22nd 2019 then it will take 30 days to finalize and send out.
4) Faculty update: 4 new education hires for Fall 2018: Elizabeth
Christian, Melissa Schwiesow, Sydney Haugland, Janet Briggs and
Dave Zanton, the Little Jackets Child Care Coordinator. Rod also
introduced the 3 new education faculty that were hired in the fall
of 2017: Louise Yoho, Carin Neitzel and Jarrett Moore.
5) Louise Yoho spoke a little about the new master’s degree
program. This program is designed for people without an
undergraduate degree. This is to roll out in the fall of
2019.
6) Denice Turner talked about the 3 strands of value: How we care
about ourselves, others and the world. Input was given from the
council.
a) We need to teach our student teachers to have more
· Confidence
· Resilience
· Leadership
· Build capacity that they are successful
· Learn from failure
· Differentiate instruction
· Data Collecting
· What can we give our teachers to make them excel in the
classroom
· Ask teachers what they need for their classroom
· Bring schools on campus at BH to have mini conferences
· Help teachers understand how to write grants
8) Input from the council about technology in schools
· What can teachers in the field offer our students
· bring teachers from the field to the Methods Block
· teachers are in experienced with online reports
· collaborate with Method blocks students by bringing teachers from
the field to a methods block class
· Coding and the number of jobs filled v/s the number of jobs being
created in computer science
· create workshops for pre service teachers at no cost
9) Micheline gave update on the EDC/SDACTE and DOE
· EDC
· Which programs are sustainable?
· Open Resources – Preview open resources for general education
courses (Chemistry, Biology, Physics, History, Political Science)
OER
· SDACTE
· Discussion on who and when the SD Code of Ethics for Teachers is
taught
· Discussion if student teachers may take long-term positions
· DOE: Kathy Riedy
· SDAR Article 24:53 Preparation Program Approval
· Programs now overlap K-8 and 5-12: institutions need to make sure
the middle school years are addressed in the programs
· 24:53:07:03 Certification programs – should we keep industrial
technology, agriculture, as teaching program or just CTE
· Need to add Mass Communication/Journalism
· Suicide Awareness before license or renew license
· Title II reporting: need to include the collaborative online
certification candidates. – not a degree
· Looked at the new standards for Elementary preparation: no
standards to prepare elementary PE, Music, Health, Art, etc.
· The English as New Language Endorsement codes:
· 01508: Elementary English Language Learner
· 01608: Grades 5-8 English Language Learning
· 01608: English Language Learning (Secondary)
Meeting adjourned at 1:30PM
Meeting Notes from Advisory Council Meeting 11-05-18 - cert now
5-12 mini conference.docx
Meeting Notes
Friday March 23, 2018
President’s Conf. Room/Student Union
Attendance: (12 total) Julie Mathiesen, Ryan Young, Brian Harting,
Pete Wilson, Jay Beagle, Kristen Strissel, Kirk Easton, Sharman
Adams, Betsy Silva, Micheline Nelson, Amy Fuqua, and Rod
Custer
1) Welcome by Dean Adams and Chair Custer
2) We received CAEP report back and responding to AFI’s. The CAEP
visit is April 15-17. Feedback from the Advisory Council is
welcome.
3) Faculty Update: 3 new Education hired for Fall of 2017: Louise
Yoho SPED, Jarrett Moore Secondary ED, and Carin Neitzel ED PSYC.
All three were unfamiliar with snow. Our retiring faculty in June
are Mary Cooper, Sue McGrath, Cynthia Chandler, and Kathleen
Matthew. New faculty for fall 2018 hired so far: S. Haugland and M.
Schwiesow. We are interviewing for Early Childhood, Science
Education, and the Child Care Care Coordinator.
4) Rod Custer will email the “Call for Comment” link to the
Advisory Council. We need the schools to go to the link and enter
their responses.
5) Betsy Silva gave a CAEP update. All 5 CAEP Standards were met.
We received formative feedback on Feb 9, 2018. Talked about using
the P-PAT method which Betsy said is more authentic and cutting
edge. We are addressing the 504 disconnect. Gen Eds went from 45 to
31. The council discussed how you figure out the content of new
technology course. The council talked about the importance of
finding the mindset to go out and find new technology and then
effectively implement the technology so it has an impact on what
students learn.
6) Brian Eberhard talked about Graduate Level Programming. Brian is
the MSCI coordinator. He discussed portfolio professional growth as
the most popular for the Master’s Program. The least popular are
Publication and Thesis. He has 7 programs and 71 current students.
The Specialist Generalist is a challenge and doesn’t meet the needs
of students in this area. SD Counts is running out of money. Brian
did a research project on what’s better, Traditional Teaching or
Progressive Teaching. The result showed Traditional was better. He
did this research to improve how effectively we place student
teachers out in the field.
7) Ryan Amys, Project Second, works with students who are looking
to change their career in the teaching field. He works with Vets
and recent grads. He is working with students in 11 states and sees
growth with virtually no marketing. The growth is due to simple
word of mouth. He is piloting new software called “Go React”.
Students shoot video of them teaching and Ryan pops right in their
video right where he needs to and offers feedback. He feels “Go
React” could be used practicum.
8) Micheline Nelson talked about PPC “Professional Progress
Committee”. She meets with this group on BIG issues or appeals.
From 2014-2017 we had 500 candidates, 13% (42 students) were
dropped or counselled out. The key is to document everything. Right
now Micheline is monitoring 4 students. Situations are transparent.
Micheline and the council discussed background checks and the
requirements of local schools.
9) Rod Custer provided data on Distance Education. We have 175
courses and 83 are online, almost 50%. There are no dual credit
courses in education. Field and Block courses are all face to face.
We have to offer online courses to keep up with other Universities.
The online courses are 1 to 3 hour courses, but most are 3 hours.
Enrollment minimum to run an online course is set at 10 but may
increase to 12. Grad level min enrollment is 7. We are keeping an
eye on the min. enrollment requirement as that will affect the
number of courses being offered. We are allowed 4% under-enrolled
courses campus wide. We use IDEA surveys to measure the quality of
our courses.
Notes respectfully submitted by Jean Osborn 3/26/18
AC Meeting Notes Spring 2018 - Tech class content.docx
Section 4: 1st Table Insert
Section 4: 2nd Table Insert
Section 4: 3rd Table Insert
Section 4: 4th Table Insert
Section 4: 5th Table Insert
Section 4: 6th Table Insert
(continued next page)
Tables for section 4.docx
Section 4. Display of Annual Reporting Measures. Annual Reporting
Measures (CAEP Component 5.4 | A.5.4)
Impact Measures (CAEP Standard 4) Outcome Measures 1. Impact on
P-12 learning and development (Component 4.1) 5. Graduation Rates
(initial & advanced levels)
2. Indicators of teaching effectiveness (Component 4.2)
6. Ability of completers to meet licensing (certification) and any
additional state requirements; Title II (initial & advanced
levels)
3. Satisfaction of employers and employment milestones (Component
4.3 | A.4.1)
7. Ability of completers to be hired in education positions for
which they have prepared (initial & advanced levels)
4. Satisfaction of completers (Component 4.4 | A.4.2)
8. Student loan default rates and other consumer information
(initial & advanced levels)
4.1 Provide a link or links that demonstrate data relevant to each
of the Annual Reporting Measures are public-friendly and
prominently displayed on the educator preparation provider's
website.
1
Link:
http://www.bhsu.edu/Portals/0/Academicshttp://www.bhsu.edu/Academics/The-Colleges/College-of-
Education-and-Behavioral-Sciences/School-of-Education/Accreditation
Description of data accessible via link: updating to meet new
expectations for CAEP; expected posting June, 2019
Tag the Annual Reporting Measure(s) represented in the link above
to the appropriate preparation level(s) (initial and/or advanced,
as offered by the EPP) and corresponding measure number.
Level \ Annual Reporting Measure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Initial-Licensure Programs Advanced-Level Programs
4.2 Summarize data and trends from the data linked above,
reflecting on the prompts below.
What has the provider learned from reviewing its Annual Reporting
Measures over the past three years?
Discuss any emerging, long-term, expected, or unexpected trends?
Discuss any programmatic/provider-wide changes being planned as a
result of these data? Are benchmarks available for comparison? Are
measures widely shared? How? With whom?
The EPP at Black Hills State University has developed strategies to
gather multiple measures of Completer Impact on P-12 Learning and
Development and Teacher Effectiveness. Due to South Dakota Codified
Law 13-42-70, a law ensuring privacy protection for P-12 students
and teachers in SD, the State DOE limits data release to the EPP.
The law prohibits sharing school and district evaluation data of
P-12 students or teachers that is disaggregated further than grade
level. Therefore, it was necessary for the EPP to create a unique
process for direct and indirect data collection to assess program
and completer impact on P-12 learning and development. Direct
measures provide data from teacher performance and value-added
assessments. These measures include Student Learning Outcome (SLO)
achievement, employer evaluations, Teacher Effectiveness-Ratings,
action- research, and South Dakota Department of Education Student
Teacher Accountability and Reporting System (STARS, aggregate data)
of proficiency and growth for P-12 learning and development.
Indirect measures include employer, alumni, and graduate surveys
and advisory committee recommendations as well as partner input.
The SLO and TE-Rating assessments are research-based evaluations
developed by The South Dakota Commission on Teaching and Learning
(CTL). The CTL also led to the South Dakota DOE policy of aligning
educational expectations and evaluations with the Charlotte
Danielson Framework (SD DOE 24:57:0201), providing another layer of
construct validity. Training for CTL created SLO and TE processes
are provided through the SD DOE. Privacy law parameters for
collection of SLO and TE-Rating data were discussed with
superintendents and SD Board of Regents legal counsel. The
resultant process required personal contact between P-12 school
faculty and EPP faculty for a direct transfer of data. The EPP
purposefully selected two local districts with a history of strong
partnership and a prevalence of EPP-prepared in- service teachers.
A unique characteristic of the chosen schools is that several
grades and subjects have at least 50% EPP- prepared teachers, thus
these teachers strongly influence SLO and TE-Rating data as an
actual measure of the completer impact on P-12 student-learning
growth. The EPP recognizes the limitations and possible biases
associated with volunteer data.
To maintain consistency in measuring program impact and
teacher-effectiveness of EPP-prepared in-service teachers on P-12
learning and development, the EPP uses STARS data for the same two
districts as the SLO and TE-Rating. STARS provides a variety of
academic and demographic data through a centralized system that
disaggregates student data to grade; only aggregate proficiency
data are reported due to privacy laws. STARS proficiency and growth
data are reported for Math, English Language Arts (ELA), and (as of
2017-18) Science. Combining proficiency with growth data annually
and across time provides a more complete picture of impact when
integrated with benchmarks of State averages and ranges. Together,
measures of performance and growth provide information for both
impact on learners and teacher effectiveness. In addition to
measurement data above, measures of student growth were collected
and analyzed using action research. This research was conducted by
alumni enrolled in the Master of Science in Curriculum and
Instruction degree program, in their respective classrooms. All
research required Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved to
ensure rigor. Only data from EPP- prepared teachers’ research are
included in this analysis. Action research outcomes demonstrated
improvement or neutral outcomes in P-12 learning across subject
areas and grade levels. Data below show the performance and growth
rates (first year of data for science so no growth rate) for the
2017-2018 academic year. It is evident that performance data is at
or above the State average with the exception of District 1
science. Growth rates for each district and subject are also at or
above State averages. The strong math growth rate for district 2 is
certainly notable. Coupling the growth data with performance is
important for the interpretation. Doc attached, Section 4: 1st
Table Insert
Measures of students’ college and career-readiness in each district
indicate a dichotomy of performance, yet positive impact on student
learning by EPP-prepared teachers. State DOE benchmarks for Math
and English are noted in the data table. District 1 students met
ELA State average benchmark and exceeded State average Math
benchmark. District 2 students performed below State average
benchmarks for ELA and Math. District 2 exceeded the State average
benchmark for the Career Readiness while District 1 performed
below.
Doc attached, Section 4: 2nd- 5th Table Inserts
Integration of STARS, SLO, and action-research data strengthen
conclusions that EPP-prepared teachers contributed to P-12
student-learning growth and were effective teachers. Findings of
SLO data for the two selected partner districts supported both
aggregate STARS data and action-research data determining
completers' positive impact on P-12 student learning. The SLO data
demonstrated that EPP-prepared teachers met and exceeded
expectations for student growth within their classrooms. STARS data
demonstrated both proficiency and growth for students in schools
with a preponderance of EPP-prepared in-service teacher.
Additionally, action-based research data collected by EPP-prepared
in- service teachers demonstrated positive student growth. The
three data sources with varying methodologies demonstrate
consistency of data and support the validity of the outcome that
EPP-prepared in-service teachers also demonstrated positive impact
of P-12 student growth.
The supervisor TE-Rating provides another measure of impact on
student learning. Although district TE- Rating reporting varies
within parameters allowed by the SD DOE, minimally, districts must
evaluate teacher effectiveness relative to the state-mandated
Danielson Framework. However, additional research-based teacher
effectiveness evaluation options may be added as approved by the SD
DOE. Although the TE-rating instrument is consistent, districts are
provided flexibility for scoring. District 1 used a 4 point scale,
4 being the highest; District 2 used a descriptive interpretation
of unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished. All
teachers included demonstrated proficient or stronger TE-ratings in
the classroom. This finding is consistent with the positive
evidence of growth relative to performance and high percentages of
students meeting college and career ready expectations. Taken
together with the growth, proficiency, and college and career ready
data, EPP-prepared teachers demonstrate a positive impact on
student learning.
Another critical component to measuring EPP impact is the
perception by candidates of their preparedness for the teaching
profession. Indirect measures of perceptions of program preparation
include graduate, alumni, and employer surveys and advisory council
input. The EPP currently administers surveys directly aligned with
the InTASC Standards which is one of the EPP foundations, therefore
surveys directly relate to the EPP curriculum. The same survey
question content, with audience variations, is administered to each
respondent group, completers, alumni, and principals, to enable
direct comparison of responses. Principals and alumni receive the
survey on off-set three year cycles and completers at the SOE
graduation exit seminar.
Doc attached, Section 4: 6th Table Insert
Employer data: 2019 Alumni data: 2020
All education program completers meet or exceed licensing
requirements due to EPP integration of SD DOE certification
requirements within curriculum, policy, and graduation
requirements. Policy and graduation requirements are inclusive of
the SD Board of Regents mandates. This ensures that completers meet
and exceed certification requirements and are fully qualified for
employment in the content area and level for which they were
prepared. Doc attached, Section 4: 5th Table Insert
The EPP and State collaborated to develop composite majors to serve
the needs of small (10-80 senior class) rural, and tribal schools.
The general need for teachers in the small and rural school
districts in South Dakota led to a SD DOE rules change that will be
implemented in 2019; secondary will change from 7-12 to 5-12. The
EPP is preparing for the curricular changes; however, this could
impact in-service teachers if assigned students in grades 5 and 6,
but who do not have the middle level preparation. This could
certainly impact both the graduate and the employer satisfaction
(4.3, 4.4) as well as Impact on P-12 Learning and
Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness. Also impacting graduation
rates, the EPP monitors developmental progression of content,
pedagogy, and dispositions to help candidates with decisions
related to admission, continuation, and graduation in the education
profession. Candidates unable to meet EPP requirements are
counseled out, removed, or required to remediate prior to
graduation as needed. This contributes positively to the strong
graduation rate. Preparation in each candidate’s field of interest
aligning with certification and licensure requirements helps with
career placement and subsequently, the ability of the graduates to
repay loans. BHSU 2012-2015 (most recent Federal data released)
aggregate default rate was 9.3% (aggregate means all BHSU students
inclusive of all years and all programs university-wide; schools or
degree are not reported). The national rate was 10.8, SD 12.9,
public 2-3 year 16.7 and 4 year 7.1.
https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/defaultmanagement/cdr.html
Section 5. Areas for Improvement, Weaknesses, and/or Stipulations
Summarize EPP activities and the outcomes of those activities as
they relate to correcting the areas cited in the last Accreditation
Action/Decision Report.
CAEP: Areas for Improvement (ITP) 5 Provider Quality Assurance and
Continuous Improvement
The EPP did not provide sufficient information regarding validity
and reliability. (component 5.2)
The EPP received accreditation with no stipulations, yet one area
for improvement was noted. The EPP-created Professional Disposition
Assessment and satisfaction survey instrument lacked sufficient
validity. The foundation of each tool’s creation was the Charlotte
Danielson Framework for Teaching and InTASC Standards, yet the
newly reconstructed tools were not yet determined to have
research-based content validity and reliability. The final decision
was received November 15, 2018, however, the EPP began working
toward remediation of the AFI based on the FFR.
Two EPP faculty developed a research proposal to determine validity
and reliability for the PDA has been submitted to the human
subjects committee for approval. The faculty completed the required
CITI training pertinent to this type of study and are awaiting
approval. Determining PDA validity and reliability will occur
across the summer and 2019-2020 academic year. The Survey
instrument will progress through the same process beginning Fall of
2020 as per the EPP Selected Improvement Plan.
Section 6. Continuous Improvement CAEP Standard 5
The provider maintains a quality assurance system comprised of
valid data from multiple measures, including evidence of
candidates' and completers' positive impact on P-12 student
learning and development. The provider supports continuous
improvement that is sustained and evidence-based, and that
evaluates the effectiveness of its completers. The provider uses
the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities,
enhance program elements and capacity, and test innovations to
improve completers' impact on P-12 student learning and
development.
CAEP Standard 5, Component 5.3 The provider regularly and
systematically assesses performance against its goals and relevant
standards, tracks results over time, tests innovations and the
effects of selection criteria on subsequent progress and
completion, and uses results to improve program elements and
processes.
6.1 Summarize any data-driven EPP-wide or programmatic
modifications, innovations, or changes planned, worked on, or
completed in the last academic year. This is an opportunity to
share targeted continuous improvement efforts your EPP is proud of.
Focus on one to three major efforts the EPP made and the
relationship among data examined, changes, and studying the results
of those changes.
Describe how the EPP regularly and systematically assessed its
performance against its goals or the CAEP standards. What
innovations or changes did the EPP implement as a result of that
review? How are progress and results tracked? How will the EPP know
the degree to which changes are improvements?
The following questions were created from the March 2016 handbook
for initial-level programs sufficiency criteria for standard 5,
component 5.3 and may be helpful in cataloguing continuous
improvement.
What quality assurance system data did the provider review? What
patterns across preparation programs (both strengths and
weaknesses) did the provider identify? How did the provider use
data/evidence for continuous improvement? How did the provider test
innovations? What specific examples show that changes and program
modifications can be linked back to evidence/data? How did the
provider document explicit investigation of selection criteria used
for Standard 3 in relation to candidate progress and completion?
How did the provider document that data-driven changes are ongoing
and based on systematic assessment of performance, and/or that
innovations result in overall positive trends of improvement for
EPPs, their candidates, and P-12 students?
The following thoughts are derived from the September 2017 handbook
for advanced-level programs How was stakeholders' feedback and
input sought and incorporated into the evaluation, research, and
decision-making activities?
QUALITY ASSURANCE: ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS, STANDARDS, AND FRAMEWORK
This EPP’s approach to quality assurance is continually evolving to
reflect research-based best educational practice as well as EPP
goals and accreditation expectations. Proprietary and EPP-created
measures combine to create verifiable, relevant, and actionable
analyses of candidate, program (licensure discipline), and EPP
outcomes. Proprietary assessments used by the EPP are the 1) ETS
Praxis discipline content, 2) Principles of Learning and Teaching
(PLT) exams and 3) Praxis Performance Assessment of Teachers
(PPAT). ETS provides national benchmarks for each assessment which
the EPP uses for candidate performance comparison (discussed later
in the report under annual reviews). EPP-created measures include
the Professional Dispositions Assessment (PDA), Formative and Final
Clinical Evaluations (FA), and surveys of employers, alumni, and
completers. Minimum benchmarks and expectations determined by the
EPP with partners add accountability. Non-academic performance
information are included within the PPAT and PLT and supplemented
by PDA and surveys. The FA report summarizes the formative
assessment rubric content as a synopsis of candidate growth through
the clinical experience.
PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS AND OUTCOMES Parallel to the EPP report,
program, and candidate data reviews occur annually. At the program
level, the School of Education Assessment Committee reviews,
analyzes, and interprets data then shares the reports with content
and EPP faculty for discussion, recommendations, and action. All
proprietary and EPP-created assessment data for transition point
(TP) 3 and exit are included in the annual disaggregated program
assessment reports prepared by the SOE Assessment Committee.
Candidates complete a PDA, clinical educator and university
supervisor performance survey, and program survey at TP 3, program
exit. All reports complement the proprietary assessments and
stipulated course and GPA requirements. Clinical educators and
university supervisors complete a PDA as well as formative and
final appraisals during TP 3. The number of formative and final
appraisals is dependent upon the type of placement and intern
performance. For the purposes of research and triangulation, the
PDA items are identical for each member of the internship team and
the survey completed by graduates is the same as that submitted to
alumni and employers.
Data and benchmark comparisons for proprietary and EPP-created
measures are the foundation of annual program reports. The
reporting process includes an annual analysis of each program and a
grand analysis: 2 measures of content: 1) certification proprietary
exam, 2) per program need Pedagogy-based proprietary exam Ability
to plan instruction Effect on student learning Professional
Dispositions Clinical Internship
Each program report provides evidence and analysis to demonstrate
CAEP SPA or State expectations. The SOE Assessment committee
reviews trends across time and programs, interpretation of
benchmark comparisons, and implementation of changes deemed
necessary from data analysis. The assessment committee members
initially collaborate with program coordinators across colleges for
discussion and interpretation of the data. Next, discussion expands
to incorporating data from alumni, employer, and graduate surveys,
and input gleaned from partners (e.g. superintendents, principals,
diverse population representatives, community content specialists,
teacher fair representatives). The EPP discusses the
recommendations in detail then determines actions taken by EPP
vote.
QUALITY ASSURANCE: TESTING INNOVATIONS AND IMPLEMENTING EVIDENCE
DRIVEN CHANGES Actions noted across time that led to curricular
changes over the past 2 academic years include: an additional
capstone technology course, an assessment course, and a behavior
management course. Approvals at the campus level and the Board of
Regents system level were achieved and the courses are being added
according to BOR policy. That means that teacher candidates who
entered the university under the 2018 Academic Catalog will be
required to complete the new courses. It will be 3-5 years before
strong data will be obtained regarding the implementation of these
courses. Additionally, faculty recognized a need for elementary
education majors to have more content in social studies, which
resulted in the addition of ELED 361, Social Science for Elementary
Teachers. Outcomes of this course will begin to be seen within the
next academic year of Praxis content results.
Results for social studies content specific to ELED will be notable
from the subcategory of the Praxis content exam. This will require
specifically tracking candidates who did/did not take the new
course until all candidates are required to take the course. The
impact of the technology, behavior management, and assessment
courses will be monitored via specific items on the PPAT, Clinical
Internship Final Appraisal, PDA and surveys of employers and
completers. Direct alignment of scores on proprietary tests and
ratings from the surveys and PDA will determine the impact,
positive, neutral, or negative of each course.
The EPP is transitioning to reporting and monitoring the 8 outcomes
and impact measures; specifically of interest here are Sections 4.1
and 4.2 of this report. These sections detail for data collection
and analysis of EPP completers' impact on P-12 learning and
development and teaching effectiveness.
CANDIDATE REVIEW PROCESS AND OUTCOMES As with the EPP and program,
candidate-level analysis occurs annually. Assessment driven actions
at the candidate level occur at each of three transition points
(TPs) or as a result of documented concerns.
Evidence for TP decisions is based on formative and summative
feedback data provided by clinical educators, EPP and university
faculty, supervisors, and proprietary assessment outcomes. The EPP
has an established formal process to review data, inform candidates
of decisions, and adjudicate disagreements.
Successful candidates must meet benchmarks for performance,
knowledge, and dispositional assessments at each of three
transition points (TPs). Candidates passing through TP1 achieved
EPP set benchmarks while TPs 2 and 3 require meeting national
proprietary assessment benchmarks as well as EPP. The nationally
determined benchmarks at TP2 is the SDDOE mandated Praxis content
exam, which is required prior to a clinical internship as an
affirmation of content competence for placement sites. TP3 national
benchmarks required for exit are the SDDOE mandated Praxis PLT and
PPAT. The EPP recently collaborated with the SDDOE and BOR
universities to set a state cut-score for are PPAT. Our EPP piloted
the PPAT in 2015 and it is now fully implemented.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PARTNER COLLABORATIONS AND CO-CONSTRUCTION
Recommendation/EPP action:
a) establishing policies allowing clinical interns to substitute
teach during their internship; EPP action: Discussion and
refinement for the School of Education Policies and Procedures
3.4.2 a-c; and the Student Teaching Handbook page 15: Substitute
Teaching
b) completers have experience with the SLO and TE-Rating process
EPP action: methods faculty are discussing and determining
appropriateness of depth for placement in curriculum; the SDDOE is
reviewing the viability of these two practices which will impact
the EPP inclusion of training
c) More experience with locally/regionally-used data platforms EPP
action: A newly developed course, EDFN 375, Methods of Technology
Integration, provides a capstone technology experience for
candidates that will include numerous local and regional data
platforms
f) Possibility of conference-type sharing on BHSU campus EPP
action: needs and feasibility investigation
Tag the standard(s) or component(s) to which the data or changes
apply.
1.3 Application of content and pedagogical knowledge 1.5 Model and
apply technology standards 5.2 Quality assurance system relies on
measures yielding reliable, valid, and actionable data. 5.4
Measures of completer impact are analyzed, shared and used in
decision-making
Upload data results or documentation of data-driven changes.
New_Tech_class.docx
New_SS_for_elem_class.docx
Tables_for_section_4.docx
sub_rules.docx
Meeting_Notes_from_Advisory_Council_Meeting_110518__cert_now_512_mini_conference.docx
AC_Meeting_Notes_Spring_2018__Tech_class_content.docx
Tables_for_section_4(1).docx
6.2 Would the provider be willing to share highlights, new
initiatives, assessments, research, scholarship, or service
activities during a CAEP Conference or in other CAEP
Communications?
Yes No
6.3 Optional Comments
Web Design intent is to create a table of the 8 reporting measures
with links to detailed data.
Section 8: Preparer's Authorization Preparer's authorization. By
checking the box below, I indicate that I am authorized by the EPP
to complete the 2019 EPP Annual Report.
I am authorized to complete this report.
Report Preparer's Information
Name: Betsy Silva
Position: Faculty/Assessment/CAEP Coordinator
Phone: 6056456673
E-mail: Betsy.Silva@bhsu.edu
I understand that all the information that is provided to CAEP from
EPPs seeking initial accreditation, continuing accreditation or
having completed the accreditation process is considered the
property of CAEP and may be used for training, research and data
review. CAEP reserves the right to compile and issue data derived
from accreditation documents.
CAEP Accreditation Policy
Policy 6.01 Annual Report
An EPP must submit an Annual Report to maintain accreditation or
accreditation-eligibility. The report is opened for data entry each
year in January. EPPs are given 90 days from the date of system
availability to complete the report.
CAEP is required to collect and apply the data from the Annual
Report to:
1. Monitor whether the EPP continues to meet the CAEP Standards
between site visits. 2. Review and analyze stipulations and any
AFIs submitted with evidence that they were addressed. 3. Monitor
reports of substantive changes. 4. Collect headcount completer
data, including for distance learning programs. 5. Monitor how the
EPP publicly reports candidate performance data and other consumer
information on its website.
CAEP accreditation staff conduct annual analysis of AFIs and/or
stipulations and the decisions of the Accreditation Council to
assess consistency.
Failure to submit an Annual Report will result in referral to the
Accreditation Council for review. Adverse action may result.
Policy 8.05 Misleading or Incorrect Statements
The EPP is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of all
information submitted by the EPP for accreditation purposes,
including program reviews, self-study reports, formative feedback
reports and addendums and site visit report responses, and
information made available to prospective candidates and the
public. In particular, information displayed by the EPP pertaining
to its accreditation and Title II decision, term, consumer
information, or candidate performance (e.g., standardized test
results, job placement rates, and licensing examination rates) must
be accurate and current.
When CAEP becomes aware that an accredited EPP has misrepresented
any action taken by CAEP with respect to the EPP and/or its
accreditation, or uses accreditation reports or materials in a
false or misleading manner, the EPP will be contacted and directed
to issue a corrective communication. Failure to correct misleading
or inaccurate statements can lead to adverse action.
Acknowledge