Data for the CAEP 8 annual reporting measures 1 ... · PDF fileOur EPP, along with EPP’s ... at predicting a teacher’s test-score gains was previous test-score gains (Ripley2012)

Page 1 of 58

Data for the CAEP 8 annual reporting measures

1. P-12 Student Learning, Standard 4

Attachment: Standard 4: Program Impact

The provider demonstrates the impact of its completers on P-12 student learning and development, classroom instruction, and schools, and the

satisfaction of its completers with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation.

Introduction

An overarching goal of Harris-Stowe State University’s (HSSU) teacher education program has always been to prepare urban dwellers to teach urban children. Towards this end,

the Educator Preparation Provider (EPP) seeks to provide a teacher-preparation program that is relevant and enriching for our completers and ultimately for the P-12 students they

serve. The EPP is committed to our completers who are typically nontraditional urban students who have matriculated through our open-admission institution and who work in

some of the most challenging schools and neighborhoods in the Greater St. Louis Metropolitan area.

Harris-Stowe State University has an enduring and well-known history of producing highly-effective educators who expertly relay their knowledge and pursuit of academic

achievement to students at various educational levels. Time is a testament to the ongoing success of the EPP completers effectively applying their professional knowledge, skills,

and dispositions.

The College of Education (COE) at Harris-Stowe State University (HSSU) provides a learning environment emphasizing informed inquiry, multicultural opportunity, educational

technology, attention to individual differences, collaboration with others, and commitment to lifelong learning. High priority is placed on the educational growth of students and on

enhancement of their potential leadership qualities. The teaching-learning process emphasizes the interaction of the following elements: leadership, development techniques,

effective use of technology, and learner responsibilities.

Our EPP, along with EPP’s around the state, are working with DESE to determine what indicators the state can provide in terms of P-12 data that will serve as evidence of

completer impact on P-12 learning. With limited availability of proprietary state data, the EPP is actively seeking ways to develop more consistent survey and student impact data

to inform both program efficacy and areas in need of improvement. To this end, we are developing action research projects and case studies to document our EPP’s positive impact

upon the P-12 students.

Multiple measures were used to assess the efficacy of the EPP in terms of our program completer’s preparation. The EPP has reviewed and analyzed data from First-Year Teacher

Self-Assessment Surveys and First-Year Teachers - Principals’ Perceptions Surveys - this data has been made available from The Missouri Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education (DESE). In addition, the EPP has administered student perception surveys; student perception surveys have become meaningful in measuring teacher

effectiveness (DESE, Surveys 2014). As a final measure, the EPP reviewed and analyzed the transcripts from the Administrative/ Cooperating Teacher Advisory Board and the

First-Year Teacher Focus Group meetings.

The Missouri Educator Evaluation System is an assessment administered annually by DESE. One component of the evaluation surveys principals who are asked to rate the

effectiveness of their first-year teachers. The survey is comprised of thirty-six quality indicators that are aligned to the nine standards that originated with the Missouri Standards

for Teacher Effectiveness (MoSTEP) and later transitioned to the Missouri Standards for Professional Educators (MoSPE) in 2015. These sixteen indicators “were determined by

consulting research regarding the effect size of teacher strategies and actions on student achievement and in working with districts across the state to identify indicators that are of

particular importance specifically in the first and second years of teaching.”

Page 2 of 58

According to the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project (2012), teachers’ student survey results are predictive of student achievement gains. “Students know an effective

classroom when they experience one . . . surveys produce more consistent results than classroom observations or achievement gain measures.” Researchers found that the only

thing better [than student perception surveys] at predicting a teacher’s test-score gains was previous test-score gains (Ripley 2012).

In the spring of 2016, HSSU COE hosted a First-Year Teacher Focus Group meeting focus group meeting for St. Louis area district superintendents. The impetus for this meeting

was two-fold; the EPP sought to form stronger partnerships and re-establish Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) with the districts that represent our major stakeholder, and

the EPP sought input regarding the performance of our HSSU COE and our EPP completers. From this initiative, an HSSU COE Administrative/Cooperating Teacher Advisory

Board was formed. As a result of this interaction and based upon the input of our partners, a number of enhancements to our educator preparation program were discussed for

future implementation.

To gain additional insight into employers’ satisfaction of completers’ preparedness, HSSU COE conducted its’ annual focus group session during the summer of 2016. The group

met on campus for a meet and greet, including lunch and an informal discussion. The formal meeting continued in the COE to discuss the most recent results of the Missouri Pre-

Service Teacher Assessment (MoPTA) and to discuss a range of issues impacting both public and higher education.

Participants from the focus group included current public school district administrators and cooperating teachers. Topics of the focus group included the number of HSSU

completers employed in each school, completers’ roles and responsibilities, completers’ pedagogical proficiency, and overall satisfaction of completers’ preparedness.

The principals attending the focus group praised our students and did not have the same concerns of the 2013 principals surveyed. Principals attending the focus group wanted

first-year teachers to be better prepared to understand and analyze data. They wanted students to be able to design lessons based on data to make a significant impact on the P-12

learning environment. Lastly, they wanted students to be more knowledgeable of effective classroom management techniques, given the nature of working and teaching urban

students with behavioral patterns that manifest in the classroom. Overwhelmingly, they expressed satisfaction with HSSU COE completers and admonished the EPP to graduate

more educators for them to employ.

The First-Year Teacher Survey is a voluntary self-assessment, designed to capture completers’ perception of their preparedness. The benchmark established by DESE is that no

less than 90% will respond Adequately Prepared or above, with a 90% rate required on the response to one question asking specifically “What overall rating would you give the

quality of the professional education preparation program you completed?”

Based on the 2013 survey results provided by DESE, 11 of the EPP’s completers responded to the DESE First-Year Teacher survey. 100% of these completers rated their

preparation by the EPP as Adequately Prepared or above.

In 2014, six-completers responded to the First-Year Teacher Survey. Of these, 100% rated their preparation by the EPP as Adequately Prepared or above on 7 of the 16 quality

indicators. 83% of the survey responders rated their preparation at the Adequately Prepared or above level on eight quality indicators. The only indicator rated below 83% was

related to using effective classroom management practices.

In the spring of 2016, in an effort to gain additional clarity on our completers’ satisfaction with their preparedness, HSSU COE conducted a focus group session with a group of 2014-2015 completers who had just finished their first year of teaching. They shared their successes and challenges of their first year of teaching. All felt fully prepared by their EPP with respect to pedagogy and content knowledge. Overall, their primary concern was helping children in their classrooms cope with the violence so many of them are exposed to in their communities. They would like to have more strategies that enable them to manage the children’s behaviors that are a by-product of the trauma they face on a daily basis.

They encouraged us to provide our pre-service teachers with the knowledge and strategies that will better equip them for the realities of the 21st

century urban classroom.

Page 3 of 58

In summary, our completers are effective educators who positively impact P-12 student learning and development and they have an overall satisfaction with the effectiveness of

their preparation. The EPP’s findings demonstrate that our program completers are effective educators who positively impact P-12 student learning and development; and they are

satisfied with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation from Harris-Stowe State University.

Page 4 of 58

2. Observation of teaching effectiveness: Standard 1 Formative and Summative, MoPTA – JJ files/ sharepoint A. Fall 2016 End of Semester EVAL of COOP. TCHR. & SUPERVISORS

Teacher Candidate Evaluation of Cooperating Teacher FALL SEMESTER 2016

Standards Legend: 1. My cooperating teacher was a good model to follow. 2. My cooperating teacher maintained effective discipline. 3. My cooperating teacher used varied activities. 4. My cooperating teacher helped me with planning. 5. My cooperating teacher offered constructive criticism.

6. My cooperating teacher was available for conference.

7. My cooperating teacher gave support and encouragement. 8. My cooperating teacher was interested in my improvement. 9. My cooperating teacher was positive and professional, yet developed a personal

rapport with me. 10. My cooperating teacher provides me with guidance and appropriate feedback.

Standards

ID Date Cooperating

Teacher Assigned School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Comments

Key: Always = 4; Usually = 3; Sometime = 2; Never = 1; N/A = 0

Student 1 5-Dec Coop. Teacher 1 School 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 1

Student 2 5-Dec Coop. Teacher 2 School 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 *3








*1 - Care about my well-being and academic success *2 - Helpful/open/available/encouraging - good role model *3 - Seasoned; professional and patient *4 - Detailed oriented; helpful and distinguished *5 - Faculty & staff of school very cooperative, supportive and encouraging

Page 5 of 58

Standards Legend:

Teacher Candidate Evaluation of University Supervisor FALL SEMESTER 2016

1. Effectively communicated expectations for student teaching. 2. Encouraged on-going communication between my cooperating teacher, EPP and me. 3. Supervisor provided with a copy of his/her assessments after each observation. 4. Supervisor provided constructive suggestion and feedback related to teaching strategies, materials and content. Cooperating teacher helped me with planning. 5. Supervisor gave support and encouragement. 6. Supervisor was interested in my improvement and available when needed for conference. 7. Supervisor encouraged students to be self-evaluative/ reflective. 8. Supervisor contributed positively to the student teaching experience. 9. Supervisor was positive and professional, yet developed a personal rapport with me. 10. Supervisor provides me with guidance and appropriate feedback.

STANDARDS

ID Date Supervisor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Comments

Key: Always = 4; Usually = 3; Sometime = 2; Never = 1; N/A = 0

Student 1 5-Dec Supervisor 1 2 3 3 2 2 4 3 2 3 3




Student 5 5-Dec Supervisor 5 3 4 2 4 2 1 1 3 2

Student 6 5-Dec Supervisor 6 1 1 4 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 *1


Student 8 5-Dec Supervisor 8 2 3 3 2 2 4 3 2 3 *2


*1 - Could barely contact; did not seem committed as a supervisor *2 - Hard to communicate with supervisor

Page 6 of 58

B. Fall 2016 Supervisors Reports (Johnson & Strawbridge)

FALL 2016 Formative Observation Feedback Form

Ms. Field Supervisor 1, Supervisor

Observation

Date

Stu

den

t ID

Ad

van

ced

/Gra

p

hic

Org

aniz

ers

Cla

ssro

om

dis

cuss

ion

Co

op

era

tive

lear

nin

g

Gro

up

Wo

rk

Gu

ide

d P

ract

ice

Han

ds

on

/

Act

ive

Le

arn

ing

Ind

ep

en

de

nt

Stu

dy

Wo

rk

Lear

nin

g C

en

ters

Lect

ure

No

nlin

guis

tic

Re

pre

sen

tati

on

s

Oth

er

Pe

er

Eval

uat

ion

P

rese

nta

tio

ns

Pro

ject

Bas

ed

Lear

nin

g

Q

/A

Sim

ilari

tie

s/

Dif

fere

nce

s

Sum

mar

izin

g/

No

te T

akin

g

Total

8/19/2016 1 4 4

8/25/2016 2 4 4

9/1/2016 3 2 2

9/6/2016 4 2 2 2 6

8/18/2016 5 4 4

8/25/2016 6 4 4 8

9/1/2016 7 3 3 3 9

10/4/2016 8 4 4 8

10/12/2016 9 4 4 8

9/20/2016 10 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 44

8/17/2016 11 X 0

8/28/2016 12 4 4 8

1/14/2016 13 3 3

1/27/2016 14 3 3

8/25/2016 15 3 3

8/18/2016 16 2 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 55

9/1/2016 17 4 4

10/4/2016 18 3 3 6

Page 7 of 58


8/17/2016 19 4 4 4 4 4 20

8/25/2016 20 4 4 4 4 4 20

9/1/2016 21 4 4 4 4 16

8/17/2016 22 4 4 4 12

9/22/2016 23 4 4 4 4 16

8/25/2016 24 4 4 4 4 16

9/1/2016 25 4 4 4 4 16

8/17/2016 26 4 4 4 4 16

9/27/2016 27 4 4 4 4 16

9/1/2016 28 4 4 4 12

8/25/2016 29 4 4 4 4 4 20

8/18/2016 30 4 4 4 4 16

9/1/2016 31 4 4/4 4 4 20

9/22/2016 32 4 4 4 4 4 20

8/25/2016 33 4 4 4 4 16

8/17/2016 34 4 4 4 4 16

9/1/2016 35 4/4 4 4 16

9/22/2016 36 4 4 4 4 16

8/26/2016 37 4 4 4 4 16

Page 8 of 58

C. Spring 2017 Supervisors (Johnson & Strawbridge) Formative Observation Feedback Reports Summary

Spring 2017 Formative Observation Feedback Report Summary


Obs. Date

ID

School

Coop. Tchr

Subj

Gr Lv

Ad

v./G

rp O

rg

Clr

Dis

c.

Co

op

.

lear

nin

g

Grp

wo

rk

Gu

ide

. Pra

c.

Han

ds

on

Ind

. Stu

.

Wo

rk

Lear

n. C

tr

Lect

ure

No

nlin

g. R

ep.

Oth

er

Pe

er e

val.

Pre

s.

Pro

j-b

ased

Q/A

Sim

. /D

if.

Sum

m.

She

et

Tota

ls

Ob

sv.

Tota

ls

2/1 1 1 1 Comm. Arts 4 4 8

1/18 2 2 2 Soc. Stu. 0

2/22 3 3 3 ELA/Math 4 4 4 12

3/2 4 4 4 STEM 4th & 5th 4 4 8

2/16 5 5 5 4 4 32

2/15 6 6 6 3 4 7

1/18 7 7 7 Am. Lit. 3 3

2/1 8 8 8 3 3 6 16

2/15 9 9 9 Science 10th 4 4 4 12

3/2 10 10 10 Biology 10th 4 4

2/23 11 11 11 Biology 10th 4 4 4 4 4 20 36

1/18 12 12 12 6th 3 3

2/15 13 13 13 Math 6th 3 3 6

2/15 14 14 14 Math 6th 3 3 6

2/16 15 15 15 Math 6th 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 29

3/2 16 16 16 3 3 3 9 53

Page 9 of 58


Obs. Date

ID

School

Coop. Tchr

Subj

Gr Lv

Ad

v./G

rp O

rg

Clr

Dis

c.

Co

op

. le

arn

ing

Grp

wo

rk

Gu

ide

. Pra

c.

Han

ds

on

Ind

. Stu

. Wo

rk

Lear

n. C

tr

Lect

ure

No

nlin

g. R

ep

.

Oth

er

Pe

er

eval

.

Pre

s.

Pro

j-b

ase

d

Q/A

Sim

. /D

if.

Sum

m.

Dat

e T

ota

ls

Ob

serv

e T

ota

ls

2/23 1 1 1 Literacy 1st 4 4

2/2 2 2 2 Math 1st 4 4 8 12

1/19 3 3 3 Math 5th 4 4 8 8

2/23 4 4 4 Literacy Pre-K 4 4 8

2/21 5 5 5 Literacy Pre-K 4 4 4 12 20

1/17 6 6 6 Lang. 3rd 4 4 8

2/23 7 7 7 Reading 3rd 4 4 8

2/28 8 8 8 Science 3rd 4 4 8 24

2/28 9 9 9 Math & Science

4 4

2/21 10 10 10 Math 1st 4 4 4 12 16

2/13 11 11 11 Literacy Pre-K 4 4

2/2 12 12 12 Center Time

Pre-K 4 4 4 12 16

SUMMARIZING ONLY STUDENT ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES KEY H - High = 4/ M - Moderate = 3/L - Low = 2/D - Disengaged = 1

Page 10 of 58

Field Sup. 2 Curriculum/ Instruction

Evidence of student Work

Learning Environment

Co-teaching Accessible Materials

Clear learning targets

Technology integrated

Differentiated instruction

1 2 1 N/A 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2

1 2 1 1 1 2

1 2 1 1 1 2 1

1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2

1 2 2 1 1 1 1

1 2 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 2

1 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2

2 2 1 1 1 2 1

Learning Assessments observed

Q/A

Quiz/Test

Ind. Resp.

Doc. Of Assessment

Informal

Grp response

Conference

Observation

Other

Curriculum/ Instruction

and Learning Assessments

observed Summaries

4 2

1 1 6 3 1 5 2 1 6 2 1 5 3

4 3

5 2 5 1

3 2 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 5 3

Page 11 of 58

Observation

date

Comments/Observations

2/23/2017 Upon arrival, the students were exercising and going to the toilet. Cooperating teacher 1, began the literacy lesson by reviewing what had been previously taught. Student 1. Bell monitored the students to keep them on task

2/2/2017 Student 1 started the lesson with vocabulary review using the interactive board. She engaged the students as she directed them to partner-share

1/19/2017 Student 2 was working with a group of five. The math involved understanding how to create and explain fractions. Student 2 was providing individual assistance to the students who were very receptive and stayed on task.

2/23/2017 The students were in different classroom centers and they were working with letter recognition. Student 3 moved among the students monitoring and questioning the students about certain letters.

2/21/2017 Student 3, along with the cooperating teacher and the teacher assistant helped the students write/spell-out their name using Cheerios.

1/17/2017

Student 4 monitored the students' progress as they did the language morning work. The interactive board was used to display the details of the task. Student 4's movement among the students kept them om task and allowed her to oversee the quality of their performance.

2/23/2017 The students viewed a video about myths. They were to determine what elements of the story made it a myth. The use of the interactive board made it easy for the students to view the video and the accompanying questions.

2/28/2017 The students used the graphic organizer, KWL chart as the class discussed natural disasters.

2/28/2017 The students were preparing to go outside to do an ecology lesson. They were going to clean up the yard. Student 5 monitored the cloakroom and set-up the room for dismissal.

2/21/2017 The students were guided by Student 5 as they determined the fact families of given problems such as 3 + 4 = 7, 4 + 3 = 7, and 7 - 4 = 3. Individual students were called on to provide answers to workbook problems.

2/13/2017 Student 6 worked with one student who was practicing her handwriting. Student 6 gave directions about forming upper and lower case letters.

2/2/2017 Student 6 monitored the social interactions of the students in the various learning centers. She joined the students who were at the crafts center. She also worked with a student who asked for her help to assemble a puzzle.

Page 12 of 58

Obs. Date

ID

School

Coop. Tchr

Subj

Gr Lv

Ad

v./G

rp O

rg

Clr

Dis

c.

Co

op

.

lear

nin

g

Grp

wo

rk

Gu

ide

. Pra

c.

Han

ds

on

Ind

. Stu

.

Wo

rk

Lear

n. C

tr

Lect

ure

No

nlin

g. R

ep.

Oth

er

Pe

er e

val.

Pre

s.

Pro

j-b

ased

Q/A

Sim

. /D

if.

Sum

m.

She

et

Tota

ls

Ob

sv.

Tota

ls

1/18 1 1

1 Biology

3

3

6

2/1 2 2 2

Biology 3

3

2/15 3 3 3

Biology 4

4

8

2/1 4 4 4

Biology 3

3

2/15 5 5 5

Biology 4

4

8 28

1/18 6 6 6

4

x

4

2/1 7 7 7 Comm.

Arts

4 4

8

2/16 8 8 8

Lang./Wtrg 3

x

3

3/2 9 9 9

3

3

6

2/22 10 10 10

Math 5th 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3

3 2 2 3 3 3 3 43 64

✓ Possible duplicates

SUMMARIZING ONLY STUDENT ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES KEY H - High = 4/ M - Moderate = 3/L - Low = 2/D - Disengaged = 1

Page 13 of 58

Ms. Field Sup. 1

Curriculum/ Instruction

Evidence of Student Work

Learning Environment Co-teaching Accessible Materials

Clear learning targets

Technology integrated

Differentiated instruction

Yes - 1

No – 2

C

on

du

cive

Som

ewh

at

con

du

cive

No

t

con

du

cive

Dis

rup

tive

beh

avio

r

Yes - 1

No - 2

Yes - 1

No - 2

Yes - 1

No - 2

Yes - 1

No - 2

Yes - 1

No - 2

1 1 2 1 1 1 2

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1

1 1 1 1 1 2 2

1 1 2 1 1 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 2 1 1 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 2 1

1 1 2 1 1 2 2

Learning Assessments

Page 14 of 58

Q/A

Qu

iz/T

est

Ind

. R

esp

.

Do

c. O

f

Ass

essm

ent

In

form

al

Grp

resp

on

se

C

on

fere

nce

Ob

serv

atio

n

Oth

er

Curriculum/

Instruction

and Learning

Assessments

Summaries

Assessments Observed - Yes = Y (1)/ No = N (2) 1 1 7 2

2 0

1 7 1

1 1 1 10 0

1 0

5 2

4 3

7 1

12 0

1 1 1 1 1 12 0

1 1 1 1 1 0 0

? ?

5 1

6 1

1 1 8 1

5 1

1 1 8 1

5 1

7 0

4 3

6 1

1 1 1 1 1 9 3

Page 15 of 58

Observation date


2/1/2017

Standards: • 2.4 differentiated instruction

• 3.2 lessons for diverse learners

• 7.5 communication of student progress – all excellent. Student 1 reviewed the previous days’ homework and each student

2/22/2017

Observed the administering of the ACUITY TEST Student 1 monitored the progress or lack of progress as individual Student answer questions. Adding and subtracting data results 12 students scored 5 pts; 3 students scored 4 pts; 7 students scored below prof. Student 1 and I discussed the ACITY TEST results. Scores from students-student’s place scores on white board. Student 1 discussed the different ways in a lesson to address the below proficient student’s addition/subtraction skills

3/2/2017 Girls Robotic Class 7 girls involved in building different robots. The finished product has USB card which enables the robot to be programmed.

2/16/2017 Great interaction with students as you transition them from the classroom to the music room preparing for Black History Program.

2/15/2017 Students were involved in a Research, Information Essay, 14 students were assigned to do a google doc 1. the instructions were projected on a whiteboard 2. Ms. Student 6 and Ms. Student 7 were answering student questions concerning the research - individually

1/18/2017 Observed: Ms. Student 6 involved with student’s proof reading compositions

2/1/2017 Standards 3.1 Curriculum 7.5

2/15/2017

10 students in lesson Topic: Ribosome/Condon translation intro transitions for ribosome is objective for lesson language DNA 1. displayed a comfort interacting with students 2. projected a proficiency level in the content knowledge 1.1 3. 5.1 classroom management - good transition into the hands-on activity

3/2/2017

today's feedback session: 1. observed the planning of the next lesson *great interaction between cooperating teacher 1 * 1 is open to Student 2 suggestions * Student 2 is welcomed * great co-planning Ms. Student 2 is aware of the 4 elements of planning a lesson and follow-up 2. involved in mid-term conference with 1 and Ms. Student 2

2/23/2017

7.1, 7.2, 7.5 Study guide attached Ms. Student 2 worked with individual students as they studied for the TEST. Administer - Tue 2/28 Ms. Student 2 addressed one of the students question by giving him an additional study guide to assist him with understanding the concept. attached – 1. involved in keeping students engaged and focused for entire lesson (1.2 2). Entire less/study session (4.2 3. 5.1)

1/18/2017 Great method of differentiating instruction

Page 16 of 58

Observation date


*2/15/2017

1. this class is designed for differentiating instruction 2. The 15 students assigned to this class have individual or group assignment. Today Mr. Cooperating Teacher 2 3. Ms. Student 3 and Mrs. Student 4 address each student and/or group of two – the needed question asks and/or give input on the work being completed. 4. Students engaged with mathematical games on the ??......are monitored to ensure the students’ attention remains on the game.

*2/15/2017

1. this class is designed for differentiating instruction 2. The 15 students assigned to this class have individual or group assignment. Today MR. COOPERATING TEACHER 2 3. Ms. Student 2 and Mrs. Student 3 address each student and/or group of two – the needed question asks and/or give input on the work being completed. 4. Students engaged with mathematical games on the ??......are monitored to ensure the students’ attention remains on the game.

2/16/2017 Great variety! Loved that you used white boards. Loved the “scoot” game

3/2/2017

Observed: 1. Ms. Student 2 involved with guided practice 1.1 (standard 1 content knowledge) 2. students were (standard 1.2) engaged in lesson - Pop >>> a??? 3. (standard 5) 5.1, 5.1, 5.3 on point 4. administrating math test 5. students were given test A or B - differentiated lesson design **will discuss with Ms. Student 2 - pr??? and more non-verbal communication with students

2/1/2017

Lesson – Mutations: 1. Note-taking 2. Ms. Blk reads information for notes from internet standards 5 3. 5.1, 5.2 3. classroom management – great board interaction with students (standard 1) 4. Ms. Blk is knowledgeable in her content area

1/18/2017 This lesson involved students writing notes from slide presentation comparing and contrasting DNA and RNA molecules attached is the CODON Chart and worksheet to extract the CODON

*2/15/2017

Extremely involved class 1.1.2 attached: standard 1.1.2 1. Hands on project for mitosis – example 2. Cell cycle chart – example 3. Assignments sheet - example

2/1/2017 Lesson: mutations: 1. Notes-taking 2. Ms. Blk reads information for notes from inter??

Page 17 of 58

Observation date


*2/15/2017

Extremely involved class 1.1.2 attached: standard 1.1.2 1. Hands on project for mitosis – example 2. Cell cycle chart – example 3. Assignments sheet - example

1/18/2017 No comments

2/1/2017 No comments

2/16/2017 Behavior issue: having the class to reflect on their neg. behavior. In the written form is Good Attached- reflections- the disc.? You and I had after the lesson was productive. Also, I perceived at the conclusion of the discussion you will adjust your method of interacting with the class when redirecting their behavior

3/2/2017 Observed students involved in preparing for debates: 1. 2 teams: football/basketball which is better sport

2/22/2017

In this particular lesson (adding fractions with unlike denominators) Ms. Student 5 clearly followed BBC Board protocol. The students were somewhat engaged (50%), but it is important to state clear expectations (voice level, behave.) in the beginning. Some students were talking/playing during learning time. The lesson was interrupted due to rehearsal of the Black History month program.

* = possible duplicates

D. FALL 2016 FORMATIVE & SUMMATIVE REPORTS (Johnson & Strawbridge)

Page 18 of 58

E. Orig. MoPTA 2015-2016 SUMMARIES

Missouri Performance Assessments (MoPTA) Scoring 2015-2016 Task 1: Knowledge of Students & The Learning Environment

Task 2: Assessment/ Data Collections to Measure/ Inform…

Task 3: Designing Instruction for Student

Learning

Task 4: Implementing/ Analyzing Instruction to

Promote Learning

InTasc

alignment: 1- 3;

Scored by EPP

the

Ass

essm

ent

and

an

alyz

ing

the

dat

e

Ref

lect

ing

Task

2 S

ub

tota

l

the

Less

on

Focu

s St

ud

ent

Less

on

Ref

lect

ing

Task

3 S

ub

tota

l

the

Less

on

the

Pla

n

Wo

rk

Ref

lect

ing

Task

4 S

ub

tota

l

earn

ed (

44

max

.)

Passing Status & Grp %

N = Number of students Total points to be earned (44 max.) 4 4 4 12 4 4 4 4 16 4 4 4 4 16

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION (ERCH)

3 2.4 2.8 2.167 2.5 7.5 2.3 2.2 2.2 1.8 8.5 2.3 2.3 2 2.7 18.67 84%

3.6 3 3 3 9 2.5 3 2.5 2 10 3 3 2.5 3 23 45.6 Passed

2.1 2.5 1.5 2 6 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 6.5 2 2 1.5 2 15 29.6 Passed

1.5 3 2 2.5 7.5 2.5 2 2.5 2 9 2 2 2 3 18 36 Passed

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (ELEM)

10 2.74 2.9 2.767 2.7 8.4 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.7 11 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 19.8

95%

3 2.5 3 2.5 8 3 3 3 3 12 3 2.5 2.5 3 22 45 Passed

2.7 3 2.5 3 8.5 2.5 2.5 3.5 2.5 11 1.5 1.5 1 1 10 32.2 Passed

2.5 3 2.5 2.5 8 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 10.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2 19 40 Passed

3.5 3 3 3 9 3 3 3 3 12 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 21 45.5 Passed

2.7 3 3 3 9 2 0 2 2 6 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 21 38.7 Not Passed

2.7 3 3 2.5 8.5 3 2.5 2.5 3 11 2.5 3 3 2.5 22 44.2 Passed

2.4 2.5 2 2.5 7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 12 31.4 Passed

2.9 3 3 2.3 8.3 3 3 3 3 12 3 3 3 3 24 47.2 Passed

2 2.3 1.67 2 6 3 3.5 3.5 2.5 12.5 2.5 3 3 3.5 24 44.5 Passed

3 4 4 4 12 3 3.5 3 3 12.5 2.5 3 3 3 23 50.5 Passed

Page 19 of 58

MIDDLE SCHOOL MATH (MSM)

1 1.3 3 2.5 3 8.5 3 2.5 2.5 2 10 2 0 0 1 6

59%

1.3 3 2.5 3 8.5 3 2.5 2.5 2 10 2 0 0 1 6 25.8 Not Passed

MIDDLE SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES (MSSS)

3 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.3 7.9 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.8 11.5 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.3 19.7

95%

3 3 2.5 2.5 8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 10 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 20 41 Passed

2.7 3 3.5 3 9.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 14 3 2.5 3 3 23 49.2 Passed

2.5 2.7 2 1.5 6.2 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 10.5 2 2 2.5 1.5 16 35.2 Passed

SECONDARY ENGLISH (SENG)

1 3.1 2.5 2 2.5 7 3 2.5 3 2 10.5 3 2.7 3 2.7 22.68

98%

3.1 2.5 2 2.5 7 3 2.5 3 2 10.5 3 2.7 3 2.7 22.68 43.3 Passed

SOCIAL SCIENCES/SOCIAL STUDIES (SS)

1 2.8 3 3 3 9 2.5 3 2.5 1.5 9.5 2 2 2 2 16

85%

2.8 3 3 3 9 2.5 3 2.5 1.5 9.5 2 2 2 2 16 37.3 Passed

SECONDARY SOCIAL SCIENCE/SOCIAL STUDIES (SSSS)

1

2.3

3

2.5

3

8.5

2

2

2.5

2.5

9

3

2.5

3

3

23

97%

2.3 3 2.5 3 8.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 9 3 2.5 3 3 23 42.8 Passed

UNIFIED SCIENCE (SCED) 1 2.8 3 3 3 9 2.5 3 2.5 1.5 9.5 2 2 2 2 16 34.5 97%

2.8 3 3 3 9 2.5 3 2.5 1.5 9.5 2 2 2 2 16 34.5 Passed

Page 20 of 58

Group Averages for Missouri Performance Assessments (MoPTA) 2015-2016

Task 1: Knowledge of Students & The Learning Environment

Task 2: Assessment/ Data Collections to Measure/ Inform…

Task 3: Designing Instruction for Student Learning

Task 4: Implementing/ Analyzing Instruction to Promote Learning

CERT. AREA

St

ep 1

: Pla

nn

ing

the

Ass

essm

ent

Step

2: A

dm

inis

teri

ng

the

asse

ssm

ent

and

anal

yzin

g th

e d

ate

Step

3:

Ref

lect

ing

Task

2 S

ub

tota

l

Step

1: P

lan

nin

g th

e

Less

on

Step

2: T

he

Focu

s

Stu

den

t

Step

3: A

nal

yzin

g th

e

Less

on

Step

4:

Ref

lect

ing

Task

3 S

ub

tota

l

Step

1: P

lan

nin

g th

e

Less

on

Step

2:

Imp

lem

enti

ng

the

Pla

n

Step

3:

Stu

den

t W

ork

Step

4:

Ref

lect

ing

Task

4 S

ub

tota

l

Passing Status

ECE 2 3 2 3 8 2 2 2 2 9 2 2 2 3 19 3 of 3 passed

ELEM 2.74 2.933 2.767 2.733 8.4 2.75 2.65 2.85 2.7 11 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 19.8 9 of 10 passed

MSM 1.3 3 2.5 3 8.5 3 2.5 2.5 2 10 2 0 0 1 6 0 passed

MSSS 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.3 7.9 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.8 11.5 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.3 19.7 3 of 3 passed

SENG 3.1 2.5 2 2.5 7 3 2.5 3 2 10.5 3 2.67 3 2.7 22.68 1 of 1 passed

SS 2.8 3 3 3 9 2.5 3 2.5 1.5 9.5 2 2 2 2 16 1 of 1 passed

SSSS 2.3 3 2.5 3 8.5 2 2 2.5 2.5 9 3 2.5 3 3 23 1 of 1 passed

SCED 2.8 3 3 3 9 2.5 3 2.5 1.5 9.5 2 2 2 2 16 1 of 1 passed

21 STUDENTS TESTED

19 90% PASSED 2 10% NOT PASSED

Page 21 of 58

3. Employer satisfaction and completer persistence - Surveys Standard 4 from DESE – KC files/ Sharepoint A. 4.3.1 - 2007-2014 First Year Teacher Surveys – Principals

Table 4.3.1

Harris-Stowe State University First Year Teacher Survey - Principals

N = 27 2007-2104 Data from The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)

Very Well Prepared 14.8% 14.8% 11% 7% 7% 13.8% 7.4% 10.3% 18.5% 10.3% 11.5% 11.5% 23.1% 18.5% 17.2% 13.8% Well Prepared 37% 22.2% 29.6% 17.2% 18.5% 27.6% 25.9% 34.5% 25.9% 24.1% 34.6% 34.6% 23.1% 29.6% 24.1% 34.5%

Adequately Prepared 33.3% 37% 25.9% 41.4% 40.7% 31% 33.3% 24.1% 33.3% 37.9% 34.6% 34.6% 42.3% 30% 31.0% 28% Inadequately Prepared 11% 26% 33% 27.6% 25.9% 20.7% 30% 27.6% 18.5% 20.7% 19% 15.4% 11.5% 22% 24.1% 20.7%

Not At All Prepared 3.7% 0% 0% 6.9% 7.4% 6.9% 4% 3% 4% 6.9% 0% 4% 0% 0% 3% 3.4% % Meeting the Standard 85% 74% 67% 65.5% 66.6% 72.4% 66.6% 68.9% 77.7% 72.3% 80.7% 80.7% 88.5% 78% 72.3% 75.9%

The EPP has analyzed the compiled survey data provided through the Missouri Educator Evaluation System from 2007-2014. The criterion for an

acceptable rating on the First-Year Teacher Survey completed by principals is Adequately Prepared to Very Well Prepared. Approximately 89% of

the principals surveyed expressed that their first-year teachers from the EPP interact effectively with colleagues and parents to support student

learning. In terms of content knowledge, 85% of the principals responded that EPP completers have a thorough knowledge of the subjects taught. In

addition, 81% perceive that completers 1) use professional development to enhance knowledge and skills and 2) that they use professional

instructional practices. The principals responding to the survey perceived that the EPP completers 1) understand how students learn and develop

Page 22 of 58

(74%), 2) plan lessons based on curricular goals and performance standards (72.4%), 3) use communication skills to effectively foster learning

(77.7%), 4) use assessments effectively to evaluate student academic achievement (72.3%), 5) use electronic technology effectively as part of

instructional practice (77.7%), 6) use effective classroom management practices (72.3%), and 7) the principals perceived that the EPP had provided a

quality preparation program for their first-year teachers (75.9%).

B. 4.3.2 - 2013 First Year Teacher Surveys – Principals

Table 4.3.2

Harris-Stowe State University First Year Teacher Survey - Principals

N = 6 2013 Data from The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)

Very Well Prepared 16.7% 16.7% 0% 0% 0% 16.7% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 20.0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% Well Prepared 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 20.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3%

Adequately Prepared 33.3% 0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0% 16.7% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 20.0% 33.3% 33.3% 0% 16.7% 0% Inadequately Prepared 0% 50% 50% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 50% 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% 40% 16.7% 16.7% 50% 33.3% 33.3%

Not At All Prepared 16.7% 0% 0% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0% 0% 0% 16.7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16.7% % Meeting the Standard 83.3% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 66.7% 83.3% 66.7% 60.0% 83.3% 83.3% 50.0% 66.7% 50.0%

Survey data for 2013 was reported by DESE and the criterion for the First-Year Teacher Survey completed by principals is Adequately Prepared to

Very Well Prepared. An analysis of the data indicates that 83.3% of the principals surveyed expressed that their first-year teachers from the EPP have

1) a thorough knowledge of the subjects taught, 2) use communication skills effectively to foster learning, 3) use professional instructional practices,

and 4) interact effectively with colleagues and parents to support student learning. 68%) of the principals perceived their first-year teachers from the

Page 23 of 58

EPP as being able to 1) create a classroom learning environment that encourages student engagement, 2) use assessments effectively to evaluate

student academic achievement, and 3) use effective classroom management practices. 60% of the survey respondents perceived that the EPP’s first-

year teachers use professional development to enhance their knowledge and skills.

Due to the small number of completers, data from annual surveys is not always available from DESE. The number of responders to the 2014 First-

Year Teacher Survey completed by principals was too small and no findings were reported by DESE.

C. 4.5 - DESE First-Year Educator Surveys 2015 Technical Manual

D. 4.6 Student Surveys-DESE Manual

E. III. HSSU Student Teacher EXIT SURVEY

HSSU Student Teacher EXIT SURVEY

1 2 3 4 *13. Knows the subject matter he/she is teaching. (1) I tend to present the subject in only one way.

(2) I am learning to present the subject in more than one way and to involve students in active engagement. (3) I often present the subject in more than one way and sometimes use the methods of inquiry used in the discipline. (4) I present the subject matter in multiple ways and engage students in the methods of inquiry used in the discipline.

*14. Understands how students learn and develop. (1) I do not exhibit knowledge of child/adolescent development and theories of learning. (2) I am learning to incorporate child/adolescent development and theories of learning in my instructional activities. (3) I know and identify child/adolescent development and theories of learning. (4) I know, identify and apply child/adolescent development and theories of learning.

*15. Creates instructional activities that are adapted to

diverse learners.

(1) I tend to teach all students in the same way. (2) I am learning to individualize instruction in learning experiences. (3) I design and implement individualized instruction in some learning experiences. (4) I design and implement individualized instruction for students based on their prior experience, learning styles, strengths, and needs.

*16. Implements curriculum based upon students, district

and state performance standards

(1) I do not plan for the long-term curriculum. (2) I am developing skill in planning for meeting short and long-term goals. (3) I follow district and state performance standards and meet the needs of the students. (4) I evaluate plans relative to long and short-term goals and adjust them to meet student needs and to enhance learning.

*17. Uses strategies that develop critical thinking, problem

solving, and performance skills

(1) I do not use learning activities that promote critical thinking and problem solving. (2) I am learning the importance of promoting higher level thinking skills. (3) For the most part, I utilize learning activities that promote higher critical thinking and problem solving. (4) I engage students in active learning that promotes the development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance capabilities.

*18. Manages time, classroom environment transitions,

and activities effectively.

(1) I do not demonstrate knowledge of motivation theories and behavior management strategies and techniques.(2) I am learning motivation theories and behavior management strategies.(3) I demonstrate some knowledge of motivation theories and behavior management strategies.(4) I demonstrate knowledge of motivation theories and implement and strategies for behavior management.

*19. Models effective communication skills. (1) I do not allow for learner expression in speaking, writing, listening, and other media. (2) I am learning the importance of learner expression in speaking, writing, listening, and other media. (3) I encourage some learner expression in speaking, writing, listening, and other media. (4) I support an expand learner expression in speaking, writing, listening, and other media.

Page 24 of 58

*20. Uses a variety of instructional technologies. (1) I do not use technology. (2) I am learning to use technology in some ways. (3) I use one or two types of technology in lessons. (4) I incorporate a variety of instructional technologies in lessons and recordkeeping.

*21. Uses assessment strategies to develop instructional

opportunities and provide feedback

(1) I do not use assessment strategies to develop instructional opportunities or to provide feedback. (2) I am learning to use assessment to guide my instructional activities. (3) I use assessment strategies to develop some instructional opportunities for the class as a whole, but I am not consistent in the use of the assessment to evaluate individual needs of students. (4) I evaluate the effect of class activities on both individual and the class as a whole, collecting information through observation of classroom interactions, questioning, and analysis of student work.

*22. Practices professional ethical standards. (1) I am not aware of professional ethical standards. (2) I am learning about professional ethical standards. (3) I am aware of professional ethics in most of my actions. (4) I continually assess the effects of my choices and actions on others.

*23. Develops professional relationships to support student

learning and well-being.

(1) I do not try to develop professional relationships. (2) I am learning the importance of professional relationships. (3) I develop professional relationships when asked to participate. (4) I seek out professional relationships as ways to enhance my teaching practice and to support student learning.

*24. Works effectively with parents. (1) I do not encourage parental involvement or conversations. (2) I am learning the importance of parental involvement. (3) I encourage parental involvement in student's learning in most situations. (4) I encourage parents to participate in student's learning and welcome dialogue and cooperation.

*25. Displays openness to constructive criticism and

intellectual curiosity.

(1) I do not welcome constructive criticism as beneficial to improving instruction. (2) I am learning to accept constructive criticism for improving instruction. (3) I display openness to constructive criticism and intellectual curiosity that does not undermine my personal beliefs concerning education. (4) I am open to constructive criticism that will enhance teaching and intellectual curiosity that leads to improved professional and educational practices.

*26. Demonstrates the ability to link content specific

theoretical concepts to planning and pedagogy, being fully

knowledgeable of the academic content and goals intended

for students

(1) I do not link content specific theoretical concepts to planning and pedagogy. (2) I am learning to link content specific theoretical concepts to planning and pedagogy. (3) I link content specific theoretical concepts to planning and pedagogy, but do not always address goals intended for students. (4) I link content specific theoretical concepts to planning and pedagogy, being fully knowledgeable of the academic content and goals intended for students.

*27. Actively engages learners, meaningfully assesses all

students equitably (fairly), and modifies strategies to

become more inclusive and accurate.

(1) I have difficulty with engaging learners, assessing all students fairly and modifying strategies to become more inclusive and accurate. (2) I am learning to become more inclusive and accurate in assessment. (3) I engage learners and assess all students equitably (fairly), and demonstrate efforts to modify strategies to lead toward a more inclusive classroom. (4) I actively engage learners, meaningfully assess all students equitably (fairly), and modify strategies to become more inclusive and accurate.

*28. Expresses beliefs that all students can and will learn

and differ in their approaches to learning and that all

instruction should adapt learning experiences of diverse

learners.

(1) I do not demonstrate the belief that all students can learn or that they differ in their approaches to learning. (2) I am learning to demonstrate the belief that all students can learn and that they differ in their approaches to learning. (3) I express beliefs that all students can learn and differ in their approaches to learning, but at times, I have difficulty adapting learning experiences of diverse learners. (4) I express beliefs that all students can and will learn and differ in their approaches to learning and that all instruction should adapt learning experiences of diverse learners.

*29. Maximizes positive aspects of diversity and engages in

developmental processes to address different learning

styles, abilities and interests.

(1) I tend to teach all students the same without regard to diversity in learning styles, abilities, and interests. (2) I am learning to teach all students to meet their individual needs. (3) I employ developmental processes to address different learning styles, abilities and interests. (4) I maximize positive aspects of diversity and engage in developmental processes to address different learning styles, abilities and interests.

*30. Examines students' responses, materials used in

reference to students' experiences, students' outcomes and

personal preferred practices, understanding that change

can result from experimentation.

(1) I do not value students' responses, experiences and personal backgrounds which depart from my own expectations. (2) I am learning to appreciate the differences in students as related to my expectations for them. (3) I incorporate differences in responses, materials used in reference to students' experiences, students'

Page 25 of 58

outcomes and personal preferred practices as vital to the learning experience. (4) I examine students' responses, materials used in reference to students' experiences, students' outcomes and personal preferred practices, understanding that change can result from experimentation.

*31. Engages in reflective practice to continually

participate in self-evaluative actions to examine the effects

of his/her actions on others.

(1) I do not appear to use reflective practice to examine the effects of my actions on others. (2) I am learning the importance of reflection on the effects of my actions on others. (3) I engage in reflective practice to examine the effects of some actions on others. (4) I engage in reflective practice to continually participate in self-evaluative actions to examine the effects of my actions on others.

*32. Examines personal beliefs, practices and assumptions

to make decisions regarding future instruction.

(1) I do not examine beliefs, practices and assumptions in planning the future instruction. (2) I am learning to reflect on changes for future instruction based on beliefs, practices and assumptions. (3) I reflect on decisions regarding future instruction. (4) I examine personal beliefs, practices and assumptions to make decisions regarding future instruction.

*33. Fosters collegiality and professional communal

partnerships to support student learning and well-being

both inside and outside the classroom.

(1) I do not participate in collegiality and professional communal partnerships. (2) I am learning to develop collegiality and professional communal partnerships. (3) I am working toward collegiality and professional communal partnerships to support students learning and wellbeing. (4) I foster collegiality and professional communal partnerships to support student learning and wellbeing both inside and outside the classroom.

*34. Maintains a psychologically safe environment where

no child is influenced or affected by the results of impartial

actions.

(1) I do not maintain a psychologically safe environment where no child is influenced or affected by the results of impartial actions. (2) I am learning about the importance of providing a psychologically safe environment for students. (3) I am not always aware of factors that help me to maintain a psychologically safe environment where no child is influenced or affected by the results of impartial actions. (4) I maintain a psychologically safe environment where no child is influenced or affected by the results of impartial actions.

*35. Academic quality of the faculty (1) Many of the faculty members were not of high academic quality. (2) A few of the faculty members were not of high academic quality. (3) Most of the faculty members were of high academic quality. (4) Faculty members were of high academic quality.

*36. Faculty concern and understanding (1) Many faculty members did not demonstrate personal concern and understanding for candidates. (2) A few of the faculty members did not demonstrate personal concern and understanding for candidates. (3) Faculty demonstrated personal concern and understanding for candidates in most instances. (4) Faculty demonstrated personal concern and understanding for all candidates.

*37. Effectiveness and helpfulness of clerical staff (1) Clerical staff was not effective and helpful in meeting the needs of the candidates. (2) Clerical staff was not effective and helpful in meeting the needs of the candidates most of the time. (3) Clerical staff was effective and helpful in meeting most of the needs of the candidates. (4) Clerical staff was effective and helpful in meeting the needs of the candidates.

*38. Information and orientation to program requirements (1) Faculty members did not provide adequate information and orientation to program requirements. (2) Faculty members were not consistent in providing adequate information and orientation to program

requirements. (3) Faculty members provided most of the information and orientation to program requirements. (4) Faculty members provided timely and meaningful information and orientation to program requirements.

*39. Exposure to issues concerning special needs students (1) Programs did not provide adequate exposure to issues concerning special needs students. (2) Programs did not provide consistent exposure to issues concerning special needs students. (3) Programs provided adequate exposure to issues concerning special needs students. (4) Programs provided appropriate exposure to issues concerning special needs students.

*40. Application of educational technology. (1) Programs did not prepare candidates with applications of educational technology. (2) Programs did not prepare candidates with meaningful applications of educational technology. (3) Programs prepared candidates with some applications of educational technology. (4) Programs prepared candidates with meaningful applications of educational technology.

*41. Resources for learning (1) Resources for learning were not available for candidates. (2) Resources for learning were not readily available for all candidates. (3) Resources for learning were available for candidates in most instances (4) Resources for learning were readily available for all candidates.

*42. Departmental environment (1) The departmental environment was not conducive to learning and collegiality. (2) The departmental environment did not demonstrate support for learning and collegiality. (3) The departmental environment was conducive to learning and collegiality most of the time (4) The departmental environment was always conducive to learning and collegiality.

Page 26 of 58

*43. Modeling dispositions (1) Faculty members did not model positive dispositions. (2) Faculty members usually did not model positive dispositions. (3) Faculty members usually modeled positive dispositions. (4) Faculty members consistently modeled positive dispositions.

*44. Preparation for Praxis (1) The department did not provide help for preparation for Praxis. (2) The department did not communicate that help for preparation for Praxis was available. (3) The department provided some help for preparation for Praxis (4) The department provided excellent help for preparation for Praxis.

*45. Preparation for student teaching (1) Programs did not provide adequate preparation for student teaching. (2) Programs did not consistently provide adequate preparation for student teaching. (3) Programs provided some preparation for student teaching. (4) Programs provided excellent preparation for student teaching.

*46. Student teaching experience (1) The student teaching experience did not provide adequate preparation for teaching after graduation. (2) The student teaching experience did not provide adequate preparation for teaching after graduation. (3) The student teaching experience provided adequate preparation for teaching after graduation. (4) The student teaching experience provided excellent preparation for teaching after graduation.

*47. Overall experience at HSSU (1) My overall experience at HSSU was not positive. (2) My overall experience at HSSU was somewhat positive. (3) My overall experience at HSSU was mostly positive. (4) My overall experience at HSSU was totally positive.

Page 27 of 58

F. KC IV. HSSU Student Teacher EXIT SURVEY DATA

HSSU Student Teacher EXIT SURVEY DATA - PART I

ID

SEM/YR

GENDER

AGE

RACIAL/ETHNIC GRP CONCENTRATION

AREA CERTIFICATION

STATUS STUDENT STATUS

1ST

DATE OF ENROLLMENT

1 Fall 2016 Male 31-40 years African American MID SCH MATH CERT. ONLY Full-time Fall 2008

2 Fall 2016 Female 41-50 years African American ELEM. ED Degree Full-time Fall2012

3 Fall 2016 Female 41-50 years African American ECE Full-time Spring 1992

4 Fall 2016 Female 31-40 years African American ELEM. ED Degree Full-time 2007

5 Fall 2016 Female 21-30 years African American SENG Degree Full-time Fall 2013

6 Fall 2016 Male 31-40 years African American ECE Degree Full-time Fall 2014

7 Fall 2016 Female 21-30 years African American ECE Degree Full-time 2010

8 Fall 2016 Female 21-30 years African American ECE Degree Full-time Fall 2014

ID TRANSFER FROM GRAD./CERT.

DATE PLANS FOR TEACHING

1 SLUH Dec. 2016 Applying to school districts

2 Flo. Valley Comm. College Dec. 2016 Applying to school districts

3 N/A Spr 2017 Applying to school districts

4 N/A Dec. 2016 Job Fair

5 SIU-E Dec. 2016 Applying to school districts

6 Drury University Dec. 2016 Applying to school districts

7 Tallahassee Comm. College Dec. 2016 Spring Substitute

8 University of Memphis Fall 2016 Applying to grad school @ Wash. U

Page 28 of 58

EXIT SURVEY PART II

Survey Key: *13. Knows the subject matter he/she is teaching.

(1) I tend to present the subject in only one way. (2) I am learning to present the subject in more than one way and to involve students in active engagement. (3) I often present the subject in more than one way and sometimes use the methods of inquiry used in the discipline. (4) I present the subject matter in multiple ways and engage students in the methods of inquiry used in the discipline.

*14. Understands how students learn and develop. (1) I do not exhibit knowledge of child/adolescent development and theories of learning. (2) I am learning to incorporate child/adolescent development and theories of learning in my instructional activities. (3) I know and identify child/adolescent development and theories of learning. (4) I know, identify and apply child/adolescent development and theories of learning.

*15. Creates instructional activities that are adapted to diverse learners. (1) I tend to teach all students in the same way. (2) I am learning to individualize instruction in learning experiences. (3) I design and implement individualized instruction in some learning experiences. (4) I design and implement individualized instruction for students based on their prior experience, learning styles, strengths, and needs.

*16. Implements curriculum based upon students, district and state performance

standards (1) I do not plan for the long-term curriculum. (2) I am developing skill in planning for meeting short and long-term goals. (3) I follow district and state performance standards and meet the needs of the students. (4) I evaluate plans relative to long and short-term goals and adjust them to meet student needs and to enhance learning.

*17. Uses strategies that develop critical thinking, problem solving, and performance

skills (1) I do not use learning activities that promote critical thinking and problem solving. (2) I am learning the importance of promoting higher level thinking skills. (3) For the most part, I utilize learning activities that promote higher critical thinking and problem solving. (4) I engage students in active learning that promotes the development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance capabilities.

*18. Manages time, classroom environment transitions, and activities effectively.

(1) I do not demonstrate knowledge of motivation theories and behavior management strategies and techniques. (2) I am learning motivation theories and behavior management strategies. (3) I demonstrate some knowledge of motivation theories and behavior management strategies. (4) I demonstrate knowledge of motivation theories and implement and strategies for behavior management.

*19. Models effective communication skills. (1) I do not allow for learner expression in speaking, writing, listening, and other media. (2) I am learning the importance of learner expression in speaking, writing, listening, and other media. (3) I encourage some learner expression in speaking, writing, listening, and other media. (4) I support an expand learner expression in speaking, writing, listening, and other media.

*20. Uses a variety of instructional technologies. (1) I do not use technology. (2) I am learning to use technology in some ways. (3) I use one or two types of technology in lessons. (4) I incorporate a variety of instructional technologies in lessons and recordkeeping.

*21. Uses assessment strategies to develop instructional opportunities and provide

feedback (1) I do not use assessment strategies to develop instructional opportunities or to provide feedback. (2) I am learning to use assessment to guide my instructional activities. (3) I use assessment strategies to develop some instructional opportunities for the class as a whole, but I am not consistent in the use of the assessment to evaluate individual needs of students. (4) I evaluate the effect of class activities on both individual and the class as a whole, collecting information through observation of classroom interactions, questioning, and analysis of student work.

*22. Practices professional ethical standards. (1) I am not aware of professional ethical standards. (2) I am learning about professional ethical standards. (3) I am aware of professional ethics in most of my actions. (4) I continually assess the effects of my choices and actions on others.

ID 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

2 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4

3 2 x 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Page 29 of 58

8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Page 30 of 58

Survey Key: *23. Develops professional relationships to support student learning and well-being.

(1) I do not try to develop professional relationships. (2) I am learning the importance of professional relationships. (3) I develop professional relationships when asked to participate. (4) I seek out professional relationships as ways to enhance my teaching practice and to support student learning.

*24. Works effectively with parents. (1) I do not encourage parental involvement or conversations. (2) I am learning the importance of parental involvement. (3) I encourage parental involvement in student's learning in most situations. (4) I encourage parents to participate in student's learning and welcome dialogue and cooperation.

*25. Displays openness to constructive criticism and intellectual curiosity. (1) I do not welcome constructive criticism as beneficial to improving instruction. (2) I am learning to accept constructive criticism for improving instruction. (3) I display openness to constructive criticism and intellectual curiosity that does not undermine my personal beliefs concerning education. (4) I am open to constructive criticism that will enhance teaching and intellectual curiosity that leads to improved professional and educational practices.

*26. Demonstrates the ability to link content specific theoretical concepts to planning and

pedagogy, being fully knowledgeable of the academic content and goals intended for

students (1) I do not link content specific theoretical concepts to planning and pedagogy. (2) I am learning to link content specific theoretical concepts to planning and pedagogy. (3) I link content specific theoretical concepts to planning and pedagogy, but do not always address goals intended for students. (4) I link content specific theoretical concepts to planning and pedagogy, being fully knowledgeable of the academic content and goals intended for students.

*27. Actively engages learners, meaningfully assesses all students equitably (fairly), and

modifies strategies to become more inclusive and accurate. (1) I have difficulty with engaging learners, assessing all students fairly and modifying strategies to become more inclusive and accurate. (2) I am learning to become more inclusive and accurate in assessment. (3) I engage learners and assess all students equitably (fairly), and demonstrate efforts to modify strategies to lead toward a more inclusive classroom. (4) I actively engage learners, meaningfully assess all students equitably (fairly), and modify strategies to become more inclusive and accurate.

*28. Expresses beliefs that all students can and will learn and differ in their approaches

to learning and that all instruction should adapt learning experiences of diverse learners. (1) I do not demonstrate the belief that all students can learn or that they differ in their approaches to learning.

(2) I am learning to demonstrate the belief that all students can learn and that they differ in their approaches to learning. (3) I express beliefs that all students can learn and differ in their approaches to learning, but at times, I have difficulty adapting learning experiences of diverse learners. (4) I express beliefs that all students can and will learn and differ in their approaches to learning and that all instruction should adapt learning experiences of diverse learners.

*29. Maximizes positive aspects of diversity and engages in developmental processes to

address different learning styles, abilities and interests. (1) I tend to teach all students the same without regard to diversity in learning styles, abilities, and interests. (2) I am learning to teach all students to meet their individual needs. (3) I employ developmental processes to address different learning styles, abilities and interests. (4) I maximize positive aspects of diversity and engage in developmental processes to address different learning styles, abilities and interests.

*30. Examines students' responses, materials used in reference to students' experiences,

students' outcomes and personal preferred practices, understanding that change can

result from experimentation. (1) I do not value students' responses, experiences and personal backgrounds which depart from my own expectations. (2) I am learning to appreciate the differences in students as related to my expectations for them. (3) I incorporate differences in responses, materials used in reference to students' experiences, students' outcomes and personal preferred practices as vital to the learning experience. (4) I examine students' responses, materials used in reference to students' experiences, students' outcomes and personal preferred practices, understanding that change can result from experimentation.

*31. Engages in reflective practice to continually participate in self-evaluative actions to

examine the effects of his/her actions on others. (1) I do not appear to use reflective practice to examine the effects of my actions on others. (2) I am learning the importance of reflection on the effects of my actions on others. (3) I engage in reflective practice to examine the effects of some actions on others. (4) I engage in reflective practice to continually participate in self-evaluative actions to examine the effects of my actions on others.

*32. Examines personal beliefs, practices and assumptions to make decisions regarding

future instruction. (1) I do not examine beliefs, practices and assumptions in planning the future instruction. (2) I am learning to reflect on changes for future instruction based on beliefs, practices and assumptions. (3) I reflect on decisions regarding future instruction. (4) I examine personal beliefs, practices and assumptions to make decisions regarding future instruction.

ID 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

2 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Page 31 of 58

6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Page 30 of 58

7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Survey Key:

*33. Fosters collegiality and professional communal partnerships to support student

learning and well-being both inside and outside the classroom. (1) I do not participate in collegiality and professional communal partnerships. (2) I am learning to develop collegiality and professional communal partnerships. (3) I am working toward collegiality and professional communal partnerships to support students learning and wellbeing. (4) I foster collegiality and professional communal partnerships to support student learning and wellbeing both inside and outside the classroom.

*34. Maintains a psychologically safe environment where no child is influenced or

affected by the results of impartial actions. (1) I do not maintain a psychologically safe environment where no child is influenced or affected by the results of impartial actions. (2) I am learning about the importance of providing a psychologically safe environment for students. (3) I am not always aware of factors that help me to maintain a psychologically safe environment where no child is influenced or affected by the results of impartial actions. (4) I maintain a psychologically safe environment where no child is influenced or affected by the results of impartial actions.

*35. Academic quality of the faculty (1) Many of the faculty members were not of high academic quality. (2) A few of the faculty members were not of high academic quality. (3) Most of the faculty members were of high academic quality. (4) Faculty members were of high academic quality.

*36. Faculty concern and understanding (1) Many faculty members did not demonstrate personal concern and understanding for candidates. (2) A few of the faculty members did not demonstrate personal concern and understanding for candidates. (3) Faculty demonstrated personal concern and understanding for candidates in most instances. (4) Faculty demonstrated personal concern and understanding for all candidates.

*37. Effectiveness and helpfulness of clerical staff

(1) Clerical staff was not effective and helpful in meeting the needs of the candidates. (2) Clerical staff was not effective and helpful in meeting the needs of the candidates most of the time. (3) Clerical staff was effective and helpful in meeting most of the needs of the candidates. (4) Clerical staff was effective and helpful in meeting the needs of the candidates.

*38. Information and orientation to program requirements (1) Faculty members did not provide adequate information and orientation to program requirements.

(2) Faculty members were not consistent in providing adequate information and orientation to program requirements. (3) Faculty members provided most of the information and orientation to program requirements. (4) Faculty members provided timely and meaningful information and orientation to program requirements.

*39. Exposure to issues concerning special needs students

(1) Programs did not provide adequate exposure to issues concerning special needs students. (2) Programs did not provide consistent exposure to issues concerning special needs students. (3) Programs provided adequate exposure to issues concerning special needs students. (4) Programs provided appropriate exposure to issues concerning special needs students.

*40. Application of educational technology. (1) Programs did not prepare candidates with applications of educational technology. (2) Programs did not prepare candidates with meaningful applications of educational technology. (3) Programs prepared candidates with some applications of educational technology. (4) Programs prepared candidates with meaningful applications of educational technology.

*41. Resources for learning (1) Resources for learning were not available for candidates. (2) Resources for learning were not readily available for all candidates. (3) Resources for learning were available for candidates in most instances (4) Resources for learning were readily available for all candidates.

*42. Departmental environment (1) The departmental environment was not conducive to learning and collegiality. (2) The departmental environment did not demonstrate support for learning and collegiality. (3) The departmental environment was conducive to learning and collegiality most of the time (4) The departmental environment was always conducive to learning and collegiality.

Page 31 of 58

ID 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

2 4 4 3 2 4 2 2 2 1 2

3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 3 3 4 2 4 4 4 4

5 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

7 4 4 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2

8 4 4 3 1 3 2 3 4 3 3

Survey Key:

*43. Modeling dispositions (1) Faculty members did not model positive dispositions. (2) Faculty members usually did not model positive dispositions. (3) Faculty members usually modeled positive dispositions. (4) Faculty members consistently modeled positive dispositions.

*44. Preparation for Praxis (1) The department did not provide help for preparation for Praxis. (2) The department did not communicate that help for preparation for Praxis was available. (3) The department provided some help for preparation for Praxis (4) The department provided excellent help for preparation for Praxis.

*45. Preparation for student teaching (1) Programs did not provide adequate preparation for student teaching. (2) Programs did not consistently provide adequate preparation for student teaching. (3) Programs provided some preparation for student teaching. (4) Programs provided excellent preparation for student teaching.

*46. Student teaching experience (1) The student teaching experience did not provide adequate preparation for teaching after graduation. (2) The student teaching experience did not provide adequate preparation for teaching after graduation. (3) The student teaching experience provided adequate preparation for teaching after graduation. (4) The student teaching experience provided excellent preparation for teaching after graduation.

*47. Overall experience at HSSU (1) My overall experience at HSSU was not positive. (2) My overall experience at HSSU was somewhat positive. (3) My overall experience at HSSU was mostly positive. (4) My overall experience at HSSU was totally positive.

ID

43

44

45

46

47

Total Pts

Average

1 4 4 4 4 4 140 4

Page 32 of 58

2 3 3 2 4 3 119 3.4

3 3 4 3 4 2 105 3

4 4 4 4 4 4 136 3.9

5 1 1 2 3 1 105 3

6 4 4 4 4 4 140 4

7 2 1 3 2 2 110 3.14

8 3 3 3 4 2 125 3.6

G. VII. Additional Secondary Survey Data for P-12 Impact

STANDARD FOUR

Additional Survey Data for P-12 Impact:

The analysis of data, from a secondary mathematics completer’s, classroom revealed that at least 94% of the student responses met the criterion, to

the three questions, in Domain One - students in the classroom feel cared for. In this domain students responses at the criterion level of Always to

Usually had a range of 94% to 98%. Domain Two - student behavior is managed to enable learning - at least 92% of the students surveyed met the

criterion; in this domain students responses at the Usually to Always range from 92% to 100% on the four questions in this domain. On question “six” –

my classmate’s misbehavior slows down the learning process - 0% of the students responded Always, 0% responded Not at All and 8% responded

Sometimes. Domain Three - students receive support and scaffolding - at least 94% of the students responded at the Usually to Always level with 94%-

97% meeting the criterion. On Domain Four, six questions measured - students experience a challenging work environment- responses at the Usually to

Always level were in the range of 96% to 100%. At least 96% of the responses to the six questions in Domain Five – students are invested in classroom

learning – are at the criterion level, Usually to Always, range from 94% to 97%. On Domain Six, two questions measured - students receive descriptive

feedback - responses at the criterion Usually to Always range from 96% to 97%.

4. Completer satisfaction: Surveys Standard 4– KC files/ Sharepoint A. 4.4.3 Focus Group Minutes with Completers

A focus group of 7 completers from Harris-Stowe State University’s EPP was conducted in May 2016. The questions and results are listed below:

First Year Teachers Focus Meeting Results Tuesday, May 24, 2016

The focus group met for dinner and conversation at the home of Dr. Betty Porter Walls, Assistant Professor.

Page 33 of 58

First Year Teachers Present: Male Student 1, Female Student 1, Male Student 2, Female Student 2, Female Student 3, Female Student 4. Six (6)

teachers attended, 24 teachers were invited.

First Year Teachers Employment: 3-St. Louis Public Schools, 1-Riverview Gardens School District, 1-Hazelwood School District, 1-Charter School

Grades Taught by First Year Teachers: First Grade-, Second Grade-, Fifth Grade-All core content areas, Seventh-World Cultures, Ninth Grade- and 11th

Grade

English, First – Sixth Makerspace (elementary science)

HSSU College of Education Staff Present: Dr. Lelia Vickers, Dr. Statha Kline-Cherry, Dorothy Turner, Dr. Betty Porter Walls

Dr. Walls welcomed everyone and thanked them for coming. She then explained the purpose for the meeting. Each teacher completed a “First Year Teacher Contact Form” for future communications. (Copy of form attached.) Completed forms will be filed in COE Office. Dr. Walls introduced Dr. Vickers as dean because this group had graduated prior to her coming.

Non-scripted Conversation

Dr. Vickers reiterated that their responses were two-fold: (1) to aid the College of Education in preparation for the CAEP accreditation visit and (2) to aid the College of Education in preparing students for their student teaching assignment/experiences. She asked that the teachers be candid and frank in their responses.

The teachers were asked about their overall student teaching experience. All of them reported that their overall experiences were good and positive; however, there needs to be improvement in several areas as it relates to several instructors. It was noted that it would have been good when selecting classes that the advisors consult with the College of Education to ensure that appropriate classes and timelines were followed. Because of this, several of them had taken classes out of order and had difficulty.

They also indicated that color coding and rubrics for projects would be very effective. This would and could be a valuable element for evaluation. The teachers also talked about the new Missouri Learning Standards and Common Core Standards, and how Harris-Stowe had included them in their curriculum for them to be familiar with both.

Dr. Vickers asked the teachers if they had issues with trauma. All of them stated that the subject had been discussed in class, but it was totally different in the classroom. In the classroom there are many trauma issues that weren’t talked about. They are having to live them each and every day, and they have to find different ways to deal with different traumas with different students. They all stated they have learned to be patient and compassionate. They have learned to leave their emotions at home.

The teachers were asked how they handled problems within their schools. One teacher indicated that she had some problems and went to the principal. After that, it became very uncomfortable and she left for another location. It was suggested that they speak with the cooperating teacher and come up with solutions to resolve the issue. They were told that most of all, to use their initiative and remember that it is the cooperating teacher’s class.

Data was discussed as it relates to documentation, and teachers reported the various methods used in their districts to collect data from color coding, genres, lesson plans, rubrics. This information is also used for IEP MoPTA.

It was noted that one of the teachers was selected for space camp a couple summers ago. Another teacher has a non-traditional classroom using various electronic and scientific methods for assignments. A third teacher only teaches social studies.

Page 34 of 58

The teachers were asked if they had difficulty with students’ attendance. All said they had no problems, with one expressing that some students may have missed other classes but did not miss his.

The teachers were very complimentary for what they learned at Harris-Stowe. Dr. Vickers announced that soon Harris-Stowe will be offering graduate courses, and the teachers were pleased to hear that.

The teachers were invited to Harris-Stowe next Thursday for the new superintendents’ reception. The superintendents are Harris-Stowe alumni.

First Year Teachers Questionnaire

The teachers completed the “First Year Teachers Questionnaire” providing information on their impact on schools where they were employed. (Form attached.)

A. Exiting Student Teaching

1. To what extent did the student teaching supervisor share with you the expectations for your performance in the classroom before each observation? All responded Always.

2. To what extent did the student teaching supervisor base observation feedback on the expectations for your performance in the classroom?

All responded Always.

3. To what extent did the student teaching supervisor provide you with a written report or checklist of his or her observation of your performance in the classroom? Four responded Always and 2 responded Frequently.

4. Did you ever communicate with your student teaching supervisor by e-mail, text, or telephone call?

All responded Yes.

5. To what extent did your student teaching supervisor respond to your communications (e.g., e-mail, text, or telephone call) within two school or business days? Three responded Always and 3 responded Frequently.

6. To what extent did your student teaching supervisor offer you opportunities to reflect on your performance in the classroom?

Four responded Always and 2 responded Frequently.

7. To what extend did your student teaching supervisor provide multiple means for you to communicate with him or her, such as e-mail, telephone, texting, videoconferencing, or face-to-face interaction? Five responded Always and one responded Frequently.

8. To what extent did your student teaching supervisor ask you for ways he or she can support you?

Three responded Always and three responded Frequently.

Page 35 of 58

9. The student teaching supervisor formally observed me teaching a minimum of three times. All responded Yes.

10. The student teaching supervisor observed me teaching a minimum of 45 minutes during at least three of my formal observations.

All responded Yes.

B. During My First Year

• To what extent were you prepared to effectively implement discipline/management procedures? Three responded Well Prepared, two responded Sufficiently Prepared, and one responded Not Sufficiently Prepared.

• To what extent were you prepared to integrate effective modeling, questioning, and self-reflection (self-assessment) strategies into instruction? Four responded Well Prepared and two responded Sufficiently Prepared.

• To what extent were you prepared to make appropriate decisions (e.g., when and how to make accommodations and/or modifications to instruction, assessment, materials, delivery, and classroom procedures) to meet the learning needs of students who have an individualized education program (IEP)? Three responded Sufficiently Prepared, two responded Not Sufficiently Prepared and one responded Not at all Prepared.

• To what extent were you prepared to provide appropriate ways for limited-English proficient students and English language learners to

demonstrate their learning? One responded Well Prepared, four responded Sufficiently Prepared and one responded Not at all Prepared.

• To what extent were you prepared to provide technology-based classroom learning opportunities that allow students to interact with real-time

and/or online content? Three responded Well Prepared, one responded Sufficiently Prepared, one responded Not Sufficiently Prepared and one responded Not at all Prepared.

C. Participation and Impact on School

1. In what professional development (PD) activities have you participated? Was participation required or voluntary? To what extent did the PD improve your instructional delivery? 1. I’ve attended multiple workshops and seminars on various subjects; co-teaching strategies, Kagan win-win discipline, engagement strategies for students with difficult and disruptive behaviors, increasing student mastery of basic math facts. 2. I participated in cultural competency Professional Development monthly. I and another teacher then co-sponsored an organization which allowed students to have empowered discussions on race and identity. Cultural competency was required. I attended the National Education Association Black Caucus Professional Development to learn about issues facing African American students in the classroom. This was voluntary and very beneficial. 3. I have attended PD on topics such as Trauma in the Classroom, EdTech, and alternative teaching methods. Some of them were mandatory for the entire school, but others were sought out to expand my own knowledge.

Page 36 of 58

4. I have participated in Cultural Diversity, Classroom Management and Content Professional Development activities. My participation was mandatory. The Professional Development helped my instructional delivery immensely. 5. I’ve attended opportunities both voluntary and mandatory (approximately 33 hours thus far). Professional development greatly improved my instructional delivery. I was given new resources that I wasn’t exposed to before to help me engage my students. 6. Technology (Promethean Board). No. I can’t live without the Promethean Board. Love. Students really enjoy learning through technology.

2. What leadership roles have you assumed? Provide details:

▪ member of curriculum committee 1. No

2. I will be working on curriculum for 9th

Grade English in our district. 3. This summer I will be serving on the curriculum development committee, working to develop curriculum aligned to the new Missouri Learning Standards.

▪ conducted professional development for peers

1. This fall I will be presenting a workshop on effective classroom management strategies. 2. Led PD on using Legos in ELA

3. Will do

▪ member of a planning committee

1. No 2. Member of 1931S Committee 3. I am a member of both the building and district leadership committee.

▪ sponsored an after school club, sport or activity

1. I was an after-school Title I reading tutor. 2. “Storied” students taking on race and identity through Empowered Discussions is an after school club that I co-sponsor 3. Teacher at Jackie Joyner Kersee Summer Program

▪ volunteered to tutor students

1. Washington Montessori 2. Volunteered and created the C.O.L.O.R. (Cultivating Our Love of Reading) reading and tutoring programs once a week 3. I tutored students a minimum of three times per week.

▪ chaired a committee

No responses

▪ introduced an initiative for academic improvement 1. At the NEA Black Caucus meeting I suggested pushing state legislation to make it law to address institutional racism in the high school curriculum.

3. What special recognition, awards have you received?

1. Recognition for bringing in culturally relevant material.

Page 37 of 58

4. To what professional organizations do you belong? 1. MNEA, CEC, NCTE, ASCD, NSTA, NCTM and NCSS 2. NEA, NEA Black Caucus 3. I am a member of Alpha Chi Honor Society and Alpha Delta Phi Honor Society.

5. How would you assess your impact on student learning. Explain.

❖ student failures

1. I would say my impact was good, although I believe the results would be seen later. 2. My class is built on failing and learning from it. 3. Personal student growth and behavior 4. Data 5. Not many, alternative suggestions 6. Needs improvement – I need to truly refine the process of deciding which action steps will be taken when my students aren’t learning.

❖ student showing progress on assessments 1. Proficient – but as always, can stand to improve 2. Very successful with progress and certain assessment 3. Looking at growth 4. Class data tracker 5. While I do not have formal assessments, progressive iterations are built into my program and students know it. 6. My impact on students showing progress is great. I allowed my students to open up and I believe it gave them a sense of confidence.

❖ students receiving behavior reprimands, suspensions

1. I rarely had to send out students for behavioral issues. 2. Tyler system (school provided website) 3. Document 4. I set up a direct line of communication before sending a write up. 5. Needs improvement – want to move from punitive to transformative

❖ students with improved attendance 1. Proficient – I can stand to improve. 2. Students sometimes only came for my class. 3. Reaching out to families/phone calls 4. Tyler system 5. I do not believe I had an impact.

❖ students more involved in self-selected reading

1. My impact in self-selected reading is great, as students would come and tell me about new books they were reading or had an interest in. 2. One-on-one conference

Page 38 of 58

3. Classroom library and daily individual reading 4. I brought in diverse reading material. 5. Needs improvement – I have created a group of obedient readers and realize in hindsight that this can turn students into reluctant readers.

❖ students with IEPs

1. Proficient – although I can stand to improve! 2. Very prepared to attend meetings and implement plans 3. Cover more strategies; documentation, data 4. Running records, DIBELS, any measurable resource 5. My impact on students with IEPs was not great or minimal. I have students who made gains and some who I was not able to reach.

D. Recommendations for the College of Education

1. Selection of cooperating teachers 1. Teachers who are still excited about teaching. 2. N/A – My coop teacher was excellent. 3. Very good 4. Cast a wider net.

2. Professional development during practice teaching

1. Encourage students to take the initiative to seek out opportunities, whether or not credit is being offered. 2. I attended for the district. I was assigned to. 3. With selected districts 4. Classroom management data collection 5. Data and creating modifications

3. Topics for methods classes

1. Trauma 2. Trauma awareness 3. Data 4. Very good 5. Basic math fact mastery

4. Sequence of courses

1. Inform advisors of the importance of students taking classes in their proper sequence. 2. Very good 3. Take method courses separately (due to required clock observation hours per class) 4. Need to be handled by the School of Education

5. Preparation for MoPTA

1. Students need to be prepared for lesson plan preparation and building relationships.

Page 39 of 58

2. Focus groups 3. Study group 4. Very good 5. Consider assigning tasks in classes as summative assessments as opposed to tests.

6. Support during practice teaching

1. Very good 2. A committee 3. Emphasize alumni/faculty support beyond the district 4. Mentors!!!

7. Financial assistance

1. Many non-traditional students attend Harris-Stowe, so some type of financial assistance would be welcome. 2. Research and provide additional tuition assistance and loan forgiveness after graduation. 3. Classroom library and resources 4. More funding should be given. 5. Inform students about the TEACH grant. There is too much free money out there for HSSU students to not be utilizing it.

8. Other

5. Completer or graduation rate See chart from registrar

6. Licensure rate: Dr. Weatherford-Jacobs & JJ files/ Sharepoint

Page 40 of 58

Harris-Stowe

State University

Licensure Data Summary Dr. Lelia Vickers, Dean

College of Education

Page 41 of 58

Introduction

The Harris-Stowe State University Licensure Data Analysis is a summary of the students that were recommended for certification through its Educator Preparation Program. HSSU as the Educator Preparation Provider used this data analysis to determine the strengths and continuous improvement plan through a series of data related questions. The licensure data analysis summary provides the model of the type of unit and program data based on student data that should be reviewed in conjunction with the Harris-Stowe State University data. The HSSU Licensure Data Analysis Summary is intended to support greater discourse about the data and information, and to describe thorough conclusions about the areas of need.

The process of completing the Harris-Stowe State University Licensure Data Analysis Summary enables the Educator Preparation Provider to utilize student demographic and student achievement data to more effectively plan its continuous improvement plan and quality assurance system for strategic goals and actionable items. By implementing this process, HSSU staff employed significant and valuable discussion leading the Educator Preparation Provider and its staff to make thorough conclusions about the Educator Preparation Program’s areas of progress and areas in which to focus. When the Harris-Stowe State University Data Analysis Program Summary is completed by the Educator Preparation Provider, the University has a comprehensive blueprint to proceed to the next phase of its continuous improvement plan and quality assurance system.

The Harris-Stowe State University Licensure Data Analysis Summary is an effective tool to:

o recognize issues of licensure achievement for all students;

o identify areas to be included in the Continuous Improvement Plan;

o assist HSSU with analyzing its assessments for the Quality Assurance System plan;

The HSSU Licensure Data Analysis Summary is aligned to the HSSU’s Continuous Improvement Plan and that establishes the framework for the quality assurance system plan. The Continuous Improvement Plan has four major components that move in continuous cycle of being a reflective practitioner of research, theory, and practice. They are:

Reflect What changes need to be made? Where is the status of HSSU’s EPP now and did we reach our goals? How

effective were the strategies and action plans that were implemented?

Plan How do we organize our work so that it aligns to our objectives? What questions and predictions does the data

provide?

Implement What strategies and actions does the Educator Preparation Provider need to implement to document the evidence,

areas of improvement, problems, and observation to begin data analysis to meet its goals?

Analysis How do we analyze the data to summarize key lessons?

Page 42 of 58

Structure of the HSSU Licensure Data Analysis Summary

Each section of the Harris-Stowe State University Licensure Data Summary presents data and a series of questions that investigate uncover hidden evidence in the data and information. Harris-Stowe State University uses the licensure data analysis summary along with other common assessment to analyze student achievement based on its recommendations for certification to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE).

The Harris-Stowe State University Licensure Data Analysis Summary consists of three components:

1. Recommendations for Certification

a. Demographic Certification by Race/Ethnicity 2014 b. Demographic Certification by Race/Ethnicity 2015 c. Demographic Certification by Race/Ethnicity 2016 d. Demographic Certification by Gender 2014 e. Demographic Certification by Gender 2015 f. Demographic Certification By Gender 2016

2. Comparison of Recommendations for Certification by Sub-Group

a. By Gender, Race, and Ethnicity for 2014, 2015, and 2016 3. Licensure Achievement Data

Page 43 of 58

Recommendations for Certification

Overview of Recommendations for Certification

The Harris-Stowe State University has increased the number of students that it has recommended for certification by 19%

between the 2014 (17 students) to 2015 (21 students) academic calendar year. The Educator Preparation Provider has

recommended an increasing number of students for certification through its Educator Preparator Program except for the 2016

academic calendar year which experienced a slight decline of 5%.

Table 1. Number of Students Recommended for Certification

Year # of Students

2014 17

2015 21

2016 20

Totals 58

Figure 1. Number of Students vs. Year (Bar Graph)

Page 44 of 58

Figure 2. Number of Students vs. Year (Line Graph)

Comparison of Recommendations for Certification by Sub-Group

Page 45 of 58

By Gender, Race, and Ethnicity for 2014, 2015, and 2016

Table 2. Sub-Groups Recommended for Certification

Group 2014 2015 2016

# % # % # %

White 1 5.9 4 19 5 25

Black 15 88.2 14 67 13 65

Asian 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hispanic 0 0 2 9.5 0 0

American Indian 0 0 0 0 0 0

Multiracial 0 0 1 4.8 1 5

Other 1 5.9 0 0 1 5

Male 2 11.8 9 43 6 30

Female 15 88.2 12 57 14 70

Figure 3. Aggregated Certification Data on Student Sub-Groups

Page 46 of 58

Page 47 of 58

1) What is the recommendation for certification trend for the past 3 years?

2) For which sub-groups has the percentage of students changed by more than 5% over the past 3 years?

Table 3. Percentage of students changed by more than 5% over the past 3 years

The recommendation for certification trend for the past three years at HSSU indicates that the University has

increased the number of students that it recommended for certification by 19% (21 - 17 = 4 and 4/21 = 19%)

between the 2014 (17 students) to 2015 (21 students) academic calendar year. The HSSU EPP has

recommended an increasing number of students for certification through its EPP program except for the

2016 which experienced a slight decline of 5% (21 - 20 = 1 and 1/21 = 4.8% or 5%).

HSSU’s recommendation for certification has changed by more than 5% for the Whites sub-group which

increased by 13.1% (19.0% -5.9%) during the 2014 to 2015 academic calendar year. There was also an

increase by 6% (25% - 19%) during the 2015 to 2016 academic calendar year. HSSU’s recommendation for

certification also changed by more than 5% for the Blacks sub-group which declined by 21.2% (88.2% - 67%)

during the 2014 to 2015 academic calendar year. However, HSSU bounced back during the 2015 to 2016

academic calendar year with a decline by 2% (67 % - 65%). There was also an increase in the number of

Hispanic (9.5%) and Multi-Racial (4.8%) sub-group that HSSU recommended for certification.

In addition, HSSU’s recommendation for certification has changed by more than 5% for the Male sub-group

which increased by 31.2% (43% - 11.8%) during the 2014 to 2015 academic calendar year. The next year,

HSSU’s recommendation for certification had changed by more than 5% for the Male sub-group which

declined by 13% (43% - 30%) during the 2015 to 2016 academic calendar year. Likewise, HSSU’s

recommendation for certification has changed by more than 5% for the Female sub-group which declined by

31.2% (88.2% - 57%) during the 2014 to 2015 academic calendar year. However, HSSU bounced back during

the 2015 to 2016 academic calendar year with an increase by 13% (70% - 57%).

Page 48 of 58

Sub-Group 2014 2015 2016

Whites - 13.1% Increase 6% Increase

Blacks - 21.2% Decline 2% Decline

Hispanic - 9.5% Increase -

Multi-Racial - 4.8% Increase .2 % Increase

Other - 5.9% Increase -

Male - 31.2% Increase 13% Decline

Female - 31.2% Decline 13% Increase

Page 49 of 58

3) What patterns or trends in recommendation for certification need to be addressed?

4) What implications does the data present for HSSU in the following areas: demographics, recruitment and licensure? What are the

possible action(s) that can be taken to address the implications identified?

The patterns or trends that Harris-Stowe State University needs to address in its recommendation for

certification is that the populations of its students have become increasingly diverse. This has increased the

number of White students it has recommended for certification. Also, HSSU’s increased its advertisements

about its low cost and high quality of education. These advertisements have increased the number of White

students choosing to attend HSSU over private or more expensive public institutions. Likewise, the trend or

patterns indicates a decline in Blacks being recommended for certification over this timeframe. With HSSU’s

more robust recruitment plan and dedication to retain students in its program; HSSU supports and utilizes

this data to support its ongoing mission of preparing educators for the urban environment.

The implications about the demographics, recruitment, and licensure of HSSU’s students indicate that as

HSSU continues to examine the data as a part of its continuous improvement plan, it can use the data to

analyze, plan, reflect, and implement processes to improve its recommendation for licensure to the

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). This data assists HSSU in the recruitment

process to hypothesize and predict the type of students that will be successful in achieving licensure.

Page 50 of 58

Licensure Achievement Data Analysis

The following narratives, figures, graphs, tables, and charts examines licensure achievements of students across the Educator Preparation

Program. This data will compare licensure achievement for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 academic year. A review of the EPP’s overall

performance during these years can assist in determining if there are areas of concern with the Educator Preparation Providers instructional

program, or within the Educator Preparation Provider’s curriculum.

Licensure Achievement

Years: 3 years

Table 4. Licensure Achievements by Certification

Year 2014 2015 2016

Sub-Group # % # % # %

Early Childhood

Education

4/5 80 2/2 100 1/3 33

Elementary

Education

5/8 62.5 12/12 100 5/10 50

Middle School

Education

3/3 100 3/4 75 2/4 50

Secondary

Education

1/1 100 1/2 50 1/3 33

Mild/Mod Cross

Categorical

0 0 1/1 100 0 0

Figure 4. Licensure Achievements by Certification (Pie Graph)

Page 51 of 58

Page 52 of 58

Figure 5. Licensure Achievements by Certification (Bar Graph)

Page 53 of 58

Licensure Achievement Certification Totals

Years: 3 years

Table 5. Total of Licensure Achievements by Year

Year 2014 2015 2016

# of

students

% # of

students

% # of

students

%

Recommendation

Totals

13/17 77 19/21 90 9/20 45

1. Based on a review of the student licensure rates did HSSU identify any areas of challenge?

Harris-Stowe State University has identified Secondary Education sub-group as areas of challenge over

the last 3 years. The Secondary Education sub-group experienced a decline in percentages of students

receiving licensure after recommendation during the 2015 to 2016 academic year with a 40% decline.

During this time frame, two out of the five students in Secondary Education were recommended for

certification with only 40% being successful. In addition, the 2016 academic year has also proved to be

challenging with a total of 20 students being recommended for certification but only 9 obtained

licensure. Thus, the success rate for 2016 was only 45% (9/20).

Page 54 of 58

2. For the identified challenge(s), what has HSSU determined to be the leading cause(s) for the challenge(s)?

3. What sub-group(s) have the highest licensure rate in the last 3 years? What sub-group(s) have the lowest licensure rate?

Harris-Stowe State University has identified that the leading challenge for all Educator Preparation

Programs is the change in assessments for licensure for teachers. Okhremtchouk, Newell, and Rosa

(2013), haveRe completed research studies on the perceptions of completers of teacher performance

assessments (TPA’s) and found that there was not a sufficient number of quality samples for teachers

completing the licensure assessments to review and use to prepare for their assessments. Elder (2015)

asserted that teachers completing the MoPTA needed more time on writing and the gaps between Task

2 and Task 3. The focus of Task 2 is on Assessment and Data Collection to Measure and Inform Student

Learning. The focus of Task 3 is on Designing Instruction for Student Learning. The EPP should allow

students to design lessons plans that use the data from formative and summative assessments to

address these areas on the MoPTA. The prior licensure assessment did not include this task on the

assessment. With time and consistency, HSSU’s rate of licensure will improve as HSSU continues to

utilize the licensure data as a part of its continuous improvement plan and quality assurance system.

Morton (2016) believes that all future EPP unit program and curriculum will be more precisely aligned to

teacher performance assessments when stakeholders and EPP’s are provided best policies and practices

on how to support teachers applying for licensure.

Mild/Moderate Cross Categorical had the highest licensure rate in the last 3 years with only 1 student

being recommended and successfully obtaining a license. The Elementary Education and Middle School

Education sub-groups tied for the second highest licensure rates over the last 3 years. The Elementary

Education sub-group recommended 30 students for licensure over the last 3 years and 22 of them were

successful in obtaining a licensure (22/30 = 73%). Also, the Middle School Education sub-group

recommended 11 students for licensure over the last 3 years and 8 of them were successful in obtaining a

licensure (8/11 = 73%). The sub-group with the lowest licensure rate is the Secondary Education sub-

group with three of six students being recommended for licensure and only 50% of them being successful

(3/6 = 50%).

Page 55 of 58

Licensure Achievement

Years: 3 year sub-groups

Table 6. Total of Licensure Achievements (2014 -2016)

Year 2014 - 2016

Sub-Group # %

Early Childhood

Education

7/10 70

Elementary

Education

22/30 73

Middle School

Education

8/11 73

Secondary

Education

3/6 50

Mild/Mod Cross

Categorical

1/1 100

Page 56 of 58

Figure 6. Licensure Achievements (Percentage by Certification 2014-2016)

1. How has licensure achievement changed over the last 3 years?

2. What examples of outcome indicators have been developed for analysis of licensure achievement?

Licensure achievement has declined over the last year with the transition to a new licensure assessment

exam (MoPTA).

The examples of outcome indicators that have been developed for analysis of achievement included

analyzing trend data of students recommended for licensure and item analysis of the four task on the

MoPTA.

Page 57 of 58

The strengths of the licensure data are that with HSSU actively recruiting a more diverse population to become an

urban educator, it continues to experience a high success rate of 70% over the last 3 years within three of its four

certification areas. With its diverse population, several sub-groups support HSSU’s mission of preparing students to

become urban educators and with maintaining high licensure rates. While HSSU celebrates its continued success of

licensure achievements, establishing the goal of 80% licensure achievements over the next 3 years will be the

benchmark established as a part of its continuous improvement and quality assurance system plan.

Harris-Stowe State University Licensure Data Analysis Summary

The Harris-Stowe State University Licensure Data Analysis Summary Report is designed as a process to analyze licensure achievement data in terms of strengths,

challenges, and gaps, and to establish the contributing causes for the gaps. It also provides linkage between the HSSU continuous improvement plan and the

quality assurance system plan.

Summary

Based on your analysis of licensure data, what are strengths and challenges according to the licensure achievement data for all content

areas?

Strengths:

Challenges:

The challenges of the licensure data are that with HSSU preparing its students to become urban educators and

striving to prepare students that other EPP’s would not traditionally admit into its program; HSSU has experienced

the most challenge in the Secondary Education certification. Being aware of this challenge has encouraged HSSU as

an Educator Preparation Provider to strategically analyze data to reflect and re-align its curriculum to aide in the

success of its students. As a part of its continuous improvement and quality assurance system plan, HSSU will

establish a target goal of 70% for the Secondary Education certification area. HSSU will utilize all data to adequately

prepare its graduates to be well-informed teachers that use a holistic approach to properly educate a child.

Page 58 of 58

References

Elder, R. (2015). A mixed-method investigation of the Missouri pre-service teacher assessment pilot

program at a private midwestern university. Retrieved from,

http://media.proquest.com/media/pq/classic/doc/3883990131/fmt/ai/rep/NPDF?_s=RDtjgljOyY8BOcst9qP60vxbFKE%3D

Morton, J. (2016). Perceptions of completers of a four-task teaching performance assessment. Retrieved

from, http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3775&context=dissertations

Okhremtchouk, I., Seiki, S., Gilliland, B., Ateh, C., Wallace, M., & Kato, A. (2009). Voices of pre-

service teachers: Perspectives on the performance assessment for California teachers (PACT). Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 39-62. Retrieved from

http://www1.chapman.edu/ITE/public_html/ITESpring09/08okrhemtchouketal.pdf

Employment Rate: DESE dat – KC files/Sharepoint

B. VIII. DESE – Harris Stowe Completers

Consumers included: Superintendents, Alumni, Principals, Accrediting Agency, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Deans at other

institutions, teacher education candidates, recruitment officers high schools, Human Resources Officers, Career Officers, Title II, Department of Education,

HLC

http://media.proquest.com/media/pq/classic/doc/3883990131/fmt/ai/rep/NPDF?_s=RDtjgljOyY8BOcst9qP60vxbFKE%3D

http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3775&context=dissertations

http://www1.chapman.edu/ITE/public_html/ITESpring09/08okrhemtchouketal.pdf

Documents

Data for the CAEP 8 annual reporting measures 1 ... · PDF fileOur EPP, along with EPP’s ... at predicting a teacher’s test-score gains was previous test-score gains (Ripley2012)