Annual Initial Licensure Program Assessment ReportElementary Education, Undergraduate and MEd Programs

June 15, 2012

Date of Meeting: June 6 and April 26 (also throughout May via email). The Program Committee faculty listed below have provided expertise for the primary content areas; all have been directly involved in data gathering and/or data analyses for one or more of the CAEP assessments.

Participants/Role: Paul Cobb, Program Committee Member—Mathematics Amanda Goodwin, Program Committee Member—Literacy Clifford Hofwolt, Program Committee Member—Science Deborah Rowe, Program Committee Member—Literacy Emily Shahan, Program Committee Member—Mathematics Lanette Waddell, Program Committee Member—Mathematics Kathy Ganske, Program Director

Program Progression

1. 2011-2012 Undergraduate Screening I and Formal Admission to the Program: Students were formally admitted to the Undergraduate Elementary Education Program during both fall 2011 and spring 2012 semesters. During 2011-2012, 36 students (fall n = 19; spring n = 17) applied for formal admission through the Screening I process; 35 of these were admitted (fall n = 18; spring n = 17). One fall student, who demonstrated numerous document dispositional issues, changed majors and did not complete the Screening I process.

Students are expected to apply to the Undergraduate Elementary Education Program, through the Screening I process, no later than fall of junior year. This year students were encouraged to make application as sophomores (spring) in order to provide the Program with an earlier in-depth review of their performance and dispositions. During fall 2011, a revised process for Screening I was put into place. In addition to students’ formal applications, faculty feedback regarding academic performance and dispositions, and Program Committee consideration of the student’s potential to be successful in the Program, applicants were also required to participate in a panel review process. The panel reviews, replaced the previously used one-to-one interviews with the student’s advisor or Program Director. For each of the four 10-minute panel reviews, students were asked to respond to a scenario or question presented to them in one of the following four categories: Professionalism and the Profession; Collaboration with Colleagues and Families; Diversity; and Development of Critical Thinking. Responses in each area were scored by a team of evaluators comprised of a faculty member and a school teacher or instructional coach. Each rubric (4-point scale) included an element related to the topic and an element related to Communication. Average scores on the rubric areas evaluated ranged from 2.3 (Diversity) to 2.8 (Collaboration with Colleagues and Development of Critical Thinking). Individual student averages ranged from 2.2 to 3.1, with an overall average of 2.6.

A similar process was followed during spring 2012, with the exception that the number of mini-panels was reduced to three by consolidating Professionalism and the Profession and Collaboration with Colleagues and Families. In addition, effort was made to ensure that evaluators represented expertise across the four content areas: literacy, math, science, and social studies. Average scores on the rubric areas, including Communication, ranged from 2.78 (Professionalism and Collaboration) to 3.04 (Critical Thinking, and Diversity). Individual student averages in the spring ranged from 2.29 to 3.67, with an

1

overall average of 2.96. Considering that students complete the Screening I process early in the sequence of program courses and field experiences, ratings of 2 (emergent) are expected. In general, students exceeded expectations.

2. Candidates Admitted to the MEd in Elementary Education, Plus Licensure Program during 2011-2012. During the spring 2011, 27 applicants to the MEd Program were admitted to the Program; 17 subsequently accepted and formed the 2011-2012 cohort. During spring 2012, of the 33 admits, 17 accepted; this group will comprise the new cohort for 2012-2013.

3. Undergraduate Elementary Education Screening II for 2011-2012: Screening II is a review process that teacher candidates undergo to ensure that they are ready to student teach the following semester. Twenty-four undergraduate candidates applied for Screening II during 2011-2012 (n = 15 fall; n = 9 spring). Of the 24 candidates, 21 were fully approved and either student taught during spring 2012 or will student teach in fall 2012. One candidate in the fall, who demonstrated a pattern of numerous dispositional issues, changed majors and did not complete the Screening II process. One spring candidate chose to not complete the process at this time; the other candidate experienced difficulties in a spring course and intends to retake the course in the fall and then student teach in the spring. Her file will be reviewed again in the fall to ensure improved performance in the course being retaken.

4. MEd Elementary Education, Plus Licensure Screening II for 2011-2012: Seventeen MEd candidates applied for Screening II; all 17 were approved to student-teach during fall 2012.

5. Undergraduate and MEd Candidates Successfully Completing Student Teaching: Thirty-five candidates successfully completed student teaching during 2011-2012. Twenty of these candidates were in the Undergraduate Elementary Education Program (n = 6 fall and n = 14 spring); the other 15 (fall) candidates were in the Masters in Elementary Education, Plus Licensure Program. Three of the undergraduate students were Dual Majors (1 in the fall and 2 in the spring). These students completed just one placement of student teaching in Elementary Education. The other placement was in a Special Education setting.

Candidate Performance on Key Assessments

1. What Do the Data from Key Assessments and Dispositions Indicate about Candidates’ Ability to Meet Standards? Because both the Undergraduate and MEd Programs are initial licensure programs, essentially the same assessments are defined for CAEP; in addition to CAEP requirements, they reflect the needs of the Association for Childhood Education International—ACEI to address all content areas, especially the primary content areas of Literacy, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. In addition to dispositional data, the following assessments are used as to assess candidates: four Praxis II exams, the Core Content Assessment—CCA, a Planning Portfolio, the Teacher Performance Assessment—TPA, the Final Student Teaching Evaluations—PGP and the Final Student Teaching Supplement, and a Unit Plan. Data are also collected on field experience performance. Results from these assessments reveal that candidates are developing solid to strong knowledge, skills and dispositions for teaching in the elementary grades (K-6). Assessment 1 (Licensure Assessment): Four Praxis II Exams: Curriculum Instruction, and Assessment, Reading Across the Curriculum, Content Knowledge, and Principles of Learning and Teaching (completed prior to being recommended for licensure; typically, these tests are completed following the final semester of academic coursework, during student teaching, or immediately after student teaching). During 2011-2012, 42 candidates completed all or portions of the four Praxis exams. As the results in Table 1 reveal, average scores for each of the four tests, for both undergraduate

2

candidates and MEd candidates, exceed the cut score required by the State of Tennessee. Of the four tests, Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment (CIA) is the only test completed exclusively by Elementary Education teacher candidates. Six categories of understanding are evaluated by the CIA: Literacy; Mathematics; Science; Social Studies; Arts and PE; and General Information about Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment. The Praxis II Report for AY 2010-2011, distributed in October 2011, reveals strong performance across the 6-tested categories for the CIA but does not sufficiently disaggregate the data by level to permit confident interpretation on a program level of the six subcategories. However, individual students’ overall scores, which ranged from 176-196 on the paper test and 169-199 on the computer version of the test, clearly demonstrate that each teacher candidate’s performance considerably surpassed the required State score.

Assessment 2 (Content Knowledge in Elementary Education): Core Content Assessment—CCA (completed prior to the candidate being recommended for student teaching: fall or spring for undergraduates and spring for MEd candidates). The CCA is an evidence-based, diagnostic analysis by the teacher candidate that represents a repertoire of knowledge in the four key content areas: Reading/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies. It is designed to allow candidates to demonstrate their understanding of both specific content knowledge and the application of the knowledge to their teaching. It is an authentic assessment task through which teacher candidates demonstrate their understanding of specific content knowledge by analyzing elementary student work products. Candidates present analyses of the work samples provided (including interpretations of student thinking), verification for their interpretations, and implications for their teaching, based on their interpretations. Students complete the Core Content Assessment in a single administration and as a part of the Screening II process. New rubrics were developed in early fall 2011 for each of the CCA content areas; the rubrics align with the ACEI standards. The number of ACEI standard elements assessed by the rubrics varies by content area from one (Mathematics) to four (Literacy).

During 2011-2012, all but two undergraduate teacher candidates, and all MEd, candidates passed all four content areas of the CCA. Because the CCA is completed towards the end of the program, it is expected that candidates will achieve levels beyond emergent. As revealed by Table 2, the percentage of rubric items passed at the proficient or accomplished level, by MEd candidates, ranged from 70% (Science) to 100% (Social Studies). Percentages at the Undergraduate level were more varied, with Literacy, Science and Social Studies percentages similarly robust (87½% to 93%) , and Mathematics considerably lower (42% and 50% for fall and spring, respectively). Two candidates did not pass the Math portion of the CCA, one in the fall and one in the spring. Faculty within each content area determine whether students demonstrate adequate understanding to “pass” their portion of the CCA, which accounts for the higher passing rate for Math, despite the number of emergent ratings at the undergraduate level.

Faculty analysis of student performance in each of the content areas led to the following conclusions: Literacy: Solid to strong performance overall; emergent ratings generally stemmed from

misinterpretation of a particular type of assessment data (UG and MEd) or with application of knowledge to an instructional situation.

Mathematics: Although the rubric contains just one element, performance was analyzed on a deeper level to understand candidates’ knowledge of whole numbers, rational numbers, and negative numbers. Several candidates (UG) demonstrated difficulty with rational numbers and proportional reasoning (the word problems that some candidates generated for rational numbers were mathematically appropriate but would not have been appropriate for use with children; wording of the question may have been a factor). MEd candidates’ weakest performance was also on the proportional reasoning task.

Science: Candidates demonstrated understanding of the concepts children need to know to perform a specific novel task, but they had difficulty knowing how to deal with student perceptions and, in some cases, revealed misconceptions of their own (UG and MEd).

3

Social Studies: Although undergraduate candidates were able to draw on Social Studies knowledge in their responses, in general they did not mention provision of inquiry-based, real-life research opportunities or the use of content integration. MEd candidates demonstrated solid to strong understandings.

Assessment 3 (Ability to Plan Instruction): Planning Portfolio—Literacy, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies (completed as part of the corresponding methods course[s], across the Programs, prior to student- teaching). Candidates develop several lessons for each content area as part of their methods courses, using a detailed lesson-plan template that is consistent across program courses; one of these lessons in each content area is uploaded to TaskStream and, thus, becomes the basis for evaluation of the candidate’s ability to plan lessons across the primary content areas. Whenever possible, candidates teach these lessons and reflect on their teaching and students’ learning in conjunction with an accompanying practicum experience. For 2011-2012 data from all four content areas were analyzed at the undergraduate and MEd levels. Lessons are evaluated on areas specific to each of the content areas, as well as five common areas (Development, Learning and Motivation; Adaptation to Diverse Learners; Critical Thinking and Problem Solving; Active Engagement in Learning; and Assessment).

Modal ratings for content-specific standards for Literacy, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies provide an overall picture of performance in the content areas at the undergraduate and MEd levels. Modal scores at the undergraduate level were as follows: Literacy (four areas assessed)—75% of the areas were rated proficient and 25% not applicable; Mathematics (three areas assessed)—67% proficient and 33% emergent; Science (two areas assessed)—100% proficient; and Social Studies (two areas assessed) emergent. Undergraduate Social Studies performance ratings in the spring were much stronger; they were based on course performance expectations rather than end-of-program expectations. For the MEd Program, modal scores by content area were Literacy (four assessed areas)—50% proficient, 25% accomplished, and 25% not applicable; Mathematics (three assessed areas)—100% proficient; Science (two areas assessed)—50% proficient and 50% accomplished; Social Studies (two areas assessed)—100% proficient. The not applicable ratings for Literacy are discussed in the section on Changes Needed.

Data for the five non-content-specific ACEI standards evaluated across Literacy, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies are shown in Tables 3-4. At the undergraduate level, candidates begin to learn about lesson planning as sophomores in the Social Studies methods and practicum courses. They typically complete the other methods courses and planning assessments during their junior year or first semester of their senior year. Although there is variation across content areas as demonstrated by the percentages and modal scores, a progression of improved performance is evident from Social Studies planning to other content planning at the undergraduate level. In the MEd Program, planning as represented by this assessment occurs across a single academic year. MEd candidates’ overall proficient performance demonstrates their ability to plan effective lessons in specific content areas.

Assessment 4 (Student Teaching): Final Student Teaching Assessment—PGP and Final Student Teaching Supplement (completed at the end of the second student teaching experience). The Final Student Teaching Assessment—PGP (Professional Growth Profile) is based on a developmental model that is characterized by ongoing and continuous evaluative feedback. Throughout the program the same criteria area used to measure growth and development in a formative as well as summative manner. The PGP performance evaluation covers four criteria: Subject matter knowledge; knowledge of learners and learning; conceptions of the practice; and initial repertoire in curriculum, instruction, management, and assessment. These criteria derive directly from the Peabody Teacher Education Conceptual Framework, which articulates criteria for excellence in candidate performance. The final PGP scores are a compilation of PGP student teaching evaluation results from the first and second placements that were completed by the University Mentor and Field Mentor. The Final Student Teaching Supplement is completed at the end of the second placement, a placement during which students typically

4

teach all four content areas. The Supplement was first used during fall 2011; it was added to the PGP to permit further data gathering on nine areas of performance of importance for Elementary Education teaching, namely: Communication, diversity, classroom management, reflection, home/school interactions, Literacy teaching, Mathematics teaching, Science teaching, and Social Studies teaching. As with the PGP, reported scores for the Supplement are a compilation of the evaluations of the Mentor Teacher and University Mentor, but for just one placement.

Undergraduate Program. Twenty candidates completed student teaching in 2011-2-12; six in the fall and 14 in the spring. Results are discussed for 17 of the 20 candidates; the other 3 candidates, as noted previously, completed their second student teaching placement in a Special Education setting. Complete data are unavailable for them. However, reconciled scores for their first placement PGP were 3.25, 3.5, and 3.5, respectively. For the remaining 17 candidates, 100% of the ratings across the four categories and across the 17 candidates were at the proficient (78%) or accomplished (22%) level. Spring performance was stronger, with 73% proficient and 27% accomplished, compared to fall percentages of 90% and 10%, respectively. PGP Supplement performance was also stronger in the spring than in the fall. In fall 2011, 96% of the ratings across the nine areas for the five teacher candidates combined were at the proficient or higher level (80% proficient; 16% accomplished). In spring 2012, 100% of the scores of the 12 teacher candidates were at the proficient or higher level (69% proficient; 31% accomplished). Average ratings for communication and diversity were among the three strongest each semester. There was also some consistency across the two semesters in areas of relative weakness. Math and Social Studies average ratings were among the three lowest each semester; however, each average was at least 3.0.

MEd Program. MEd candidates student teach during fall only. In 2011, 97% of the ratings across the four categories and across the 15 candidates were at the level of proficient (74%) or accomplished (23%). Strongest ratings were achieved in conceptions of the practice, where no rating was less than proficient. Performance on the Supplement in 2011 was also strong; 92% of the ratings across the nine areas for the 15 teacher candidates were at the level of proficient (81%) or higher (accomplished 11%). The most robust scores were achieved in the areas of communication and diversity, where proficient and accomplished ratings, respectively, were 67% and 33% (communication) and 73% and 27% (diversity). For these two categories, as well as for home/ school interaction and for Teaching Literacy, there were no emergent ratings. Teaching Social Studies and Teaching Science were the least robust areas of the Supplement results (average scores were 2.9 and 2.9). These lower scores may relate to candidates’ opportunities to teach science and social studies, a common issue in elementary schools. Because the supplement was new in the fall 2011, there are no evaluator comments to provide further explanation about the scores.

Assessment 5 (Effect on Student Learning) Teacher Performance Assessment—TPA (completed during the first student teaching placement; candidates choose either math or literacy as the focus). The TPA is an assessment that is still undergoing development and revision, as well as scoring calibration for nationwide use. The assessment is evaluated with a set of rubrics (13 rubrics were used in spring 2012 and 12 in fall 2011). Rubrics are scored using a 5-point scale.

Undergraduate Program. Twenty teacher candidates in the Undergraduate Elementary Education Program completed the TPA during academic year 2011-2012 (fall n = 6; spring n = 14). Of these 20 candidates, 11 chose to complete the TPA in Literacy and nine in Math. All passed, with the exception of two fall candidates who completed their TPAs in Math. It should be noted that no cut-scores have been established yet for the TPA, and rubrics and scorer expertise are being developed. Due to the absence of specific cut-scores, faculty from Teaching and Learning reviewed the two candidates’ performance and suggested need for remediation, after which both candidates passed. Placement was a factor for one of the two candidates. Although the licensure band for Elementary Education in Tennessee is K-6, this candidate’s 6th grade setting involved advanced students, which pushed the level of math into a higher

5

grade level. The two rubric items that most closely address Effect on Student Learning are rubrics 6 (Analyzing Student Learning) and 7 (Using Feedback to Guide Further Learning), both in the Assessment strand. At the undergraduate level, in fall 2011, the Math modal scores were 3 for rubric 6 and balanced across ratings 1, 2, and 3 for rubric 7; modal scores for Literacy in the fall were balanced across ratings 2, 3, and 4 for rubric 6 and 3 for rubric 7. Spring undergraduate modal scores for Math were 4 (rubric 6) and balanced between 3 and 4 for rubric 7. Undergraduate spring Literacy modal scores were 3 for each rubric. MEd modal scores for the fall were 4 (rubric 6) and 3 (rubric 7).

Spring Literacy performance was stronger than fall performance. Average scores for the various rubric categories for fall 2011 candidates (n = 3) ranged from a low of 2.67 (analyzing teaching effectiveness) to a high of 3.83 (planning balanced literacy), with an overall average of 3.11. Spring results for candidates (n = 8) ranged from 2.75 (engaging students in learning) to 4.13 (using knowledge to inform instruction), with an overall average of 3.32. There were no “5” ratings in the fall and just 70% of the fall ratings were 3s or 4s, in the spring 3% of the ratings 5s and 91% were 3s and 4s. Math performance was also stronger in the spring. Average category scores for fall candidates (n = 3) ranged from a low of 1.67 (deepening student learning) to highs of 2.67 in two areas (planning assessment to monitor and support learning; using assessment to inform instruction), with an overall average of 2.31. Spring average category scores for Math (n = 6) ranged from 2.83 (analyzing teaching effectiveness) to 4.0 (using knowledge to inform instruction), with an overall average rating of 3.41. There were no ratings of 5 in the fall, but 3% of the spring ratings were at this level. Just 36% of the fall ratings were 3s and 4s, but 92% of the ratings in the spring were 3s and 4s. Undergraduate candidates clearly performed well in the spring; however with both the Literacy and the Math results it’s important to bear in mind that the scale and scoring are still being calibrated.

MEd Program. During fall 2011, 15 candidates completed the TPA, nine in Literacy and six in Math. All candidates passed, and no one achieved a rating of less than 2 (emergent) on a rubric. Rubric scores for in Literacy ranged from a low average score of 2.94 (understanding students’ language development and academic language demands) to a high of 3.83 (analyzing student work). Ninety-seven percent of the ratings were 3 (proficient) or higher. Math category scores ranged from 2.81 (using feedback to guide further learning) to 3.59 (planning assessments to monitor and support learning). Seventy-eight percent of the ratings were 3 or higher; the other 22% were at the 2-level. The latter weaker ratings were spread across 8 different categories.

Assessment 6 (Additional Assessment [required]): Unit Plan (completed during the second student teaching placement). The Unit Plan outlines a 10-15 lesson integrated unit of study and includes several components: 1) a computer-generated curricular map (with standards, activities, strategies, and assessments incorporated); 2) a calendar/timeline for when the lessons will be taught; lessons plans developed using an abbreviated version of the lesson-plan template; a strategy and text web that must address collaboration among students, motivation, community involvement, instructional formats, professional resources used, differentiation and diversity, and technology. In addition to the primary content areas of Literacy, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies, the areas of Art, Music, and PE are targeted. The Unit Plan demonstrates the candidate’s ability to create a cohesive, standards-based learning unit, with an emphasis on long-term planning through development of a unit of study. Because the Unit Plan is created towards the end of the candidate’s Program, expectations are that the majority of candidates will perform at a proficient or higher level.

As evident in Table 5, all but a small percentage of students achieved proficient or accomplished ratings across the standards and Programs. All but three of the undergraduate modal ratings are proficient; these three show accomplished performance in the areas of Development, Learning, and Motivation; Active Engagement for Instruction; and Collaboration with Families. MEd candidates’ ratings exceeded Program expectations: They were 100% accomplished.

6

Dispositions: Dispositions for Teaching Instrument (completed at the end of each licensure-related course and at the end of each field experience.) The dispositions form is comprised of six categories that reflect traits of effective teaching: Professional Conduct, Receptive and Expressive Communication, Professional Habits of Mind (including perseverance, initiative, curiosity, openness, etc.), Capacity for Collaboration, Commitment to Learning for All Students (including valuing of family and community and advocating for learners), and Reflection and Continuous Growth (including awareness of actions and their effect on others, a desire to grow, and an intentional seeking and using of feedback) seeking of feedback. Dispositional data are monitored throughout the Programs; they are especially important for the Screening I (undergraduates only) and Screening II processes. Because dispositional data were not collected in fall 2011, results apply to spring 2012 only. They are presented by course results, field experience results, and student teaching results. MEd candidates student-teach in the fall only, so no data are available for that category.

Undergraduate Program. Student Teaching: Although 14 candidates student-taught in spring 2012, dispositional data were available for just 10 candidates. Candidate performance was strong. Overall averages for the six categories ranged from 3.67 (Commitment to Learning for All Students) to 4.0 Expressive and Receptive Language). Individual candidate averages across the six categories ranged from 3.5 to 4.0. There were no ratings less than 3 (proficient). Coursework: Data were available for 55 candidates. Average ratings by category ranged from 3.46 (Habits of Mind) to 3.56 (Commitment to Learning for All Students), with the range for individual student averages from 2.83 to 4.0. Just 2% of the ratings were at the emergent level. Of these, there were only two students with more than a single emergent rating; each student had two emergent ratings. Analysis of dispositional data from prior years revealed that candidates with four or more emergent ratings tended to not complete the Program. It will be important to carefully monitor these two candidates. Field Experiences: Although there are three practicums in the Undergraduate Program, data were available for just two of these. Evaluations were completed for 30 candidates. Sixty percent of the ratings were emergent, 39% were proficient, and a mere 1% were accomplished. Because the practicums are completed early- and mid-program the ratings are what one would expect.

MEd Program. Coursework: For spring 2012 data were available for all 17 MEd students. Overall averages for the six categories ranged from 3.13 (Receptive and Expressive Language) to 3.34 (Professional Conduct, and Commitment to Learning for All Students). Individual student averages ranged from 2.83 to 3.83. Four percent of the ratings across all students and courses were at the emergent level; 64% were proficient and 32% accomplished. Just one candidate demonstrated emergent-level performance in multiple areas; two categories were involved. Field Experience: MEd candidates take just one practicum in the spring. Overall averages for the six categories ranged from 2.41 (Commitment to Learning for All Students) to 2.94 (Professional Conduct, Receptive and Expressive Language, and Reflection and Continuous Growth. Individual averages ranged from 2.5 to 3.0. Across the six categories and 17 candidates, 25% of the ratings were emergent and 75% were proficient.

It is evident from the dispositional data that candidates are more likely to demonstrate stronger ratings in courses than in field work, student teaching excepted. At the MEd level, coursework dispositions were strongest in the area of Commitment to Learning for All students; yet this was the weakest area for Field Experiences. Understanding the what, how, and whys of advancing all students’ learning on a cognitive level is easier than enacting these in practice.

2. What Changes Are Needed to Improve Candidate Performance (Including Changes to Assessments and Scoring Guides?

Assessment 1—Praxis II: No changes are needed; monitoring progress will continue.

7

Assessment 2—Core Content Assessment (CCA): Adjustments are made to the CCA questions after each administration, sometimes with an entirely new question. This will continue as will general refinement of the rubrics. In addition, as a result of faculty review of the CCA results, the following changes are planned or are being instituted:

o Literacy—further attention in courses to interpretation of reading miscue data. o Mathematics—revision of the CCA rubric to create three separate rubric items instead of

the one currently in place; this will facilitate monitoring of candidates’ understandings of 1) whole numbers, 2) rational numbers, and 3) negative numbers. Also a course session, reading, and assessment will be added to address and assessment will be added to address the problems some students experienced with proportional reasoning.

o Science—the MEd class will meet twice a week instead of once a week to provide candidates with more time to process information and to complete assignments that require analysis of situations similar to those used in the CCA. There will also be continued attention through class discussion and assignments in the content and methods courses to helping Undergraduate candidates recognize and know how to address misconceptions.

o Social Studies-- the Elementary Education Program Director has already consulted with the new instructor of the Undergraduate course; attention will be given to developing students’ content knowledge and their ability to integrate research and other curricular areas through the choice of course texts and activities/assignments.

In addition to the preceding, the Program Committee(s) will review procedures for CCA completion. Although the time allowed was lengthened from 2½ hours to 3 hours following the fall 2011 assessment, addressing the questions of four content areas in one sitting may not enable candidates to optimally perform. It may be better to require students to complete the four assessments across two days: two hours and two assessments each day. Students currently choose the order in which to complete the four tests, and whichever one they complete last may not represent their best work. Also, the Program Committee(s) will discuss the percentage of ratings in each content area (or across content areas) that we expect to be proficient or accomplished.

Assessment 3—Planning Portfolio: The lesson plan template is a critical tool for Elementary Education candidates’ lesson planning. The template needs to be reviewed for possible modifications. In particular, consideration needs to be given to making explicit the need to ensure that lessons are engaging throughout and not just at the onset and also that lessons provide for accommodation of diverse needs (academic, language, culture). In Literacy, further attention needs to be devoted to helping candidates understand the integration of word reading and comprehension so that this knowledge is reflected in their planning, and thus will enable evaluation of the rubric item rated “not applicable” this academic year.

Assessment 4—Final Student Teaching Assessment—PGP and Final Student Teaching Supplement. The PGP needs to be revised on TaskStream to allow for evaluation of subcategories of the four Conceptual Framework areas. Rather than evaluation of four areas, there should be access to 11. Because Elementary Education Programs were the first to be set up on TaskStream for the PGP, the breakdown of categories was for nearly 30, rather than the intended 11. This made analysis of data almost impossible and placed an undue burden on evaluators, who had to continue with the large number of indicators during the spring, because TaskStream could not be altered until the end of the academic year. In addition, for both the PGP and the Supplement, comments for ratings 2 or 4 are needed to provide insights regarding candidates’ performance, especially when performance is at the emergent level.

Assessment 5—Teacher Performance Assessment—TPA. Faculty who teach methods courses will be asked to address the areas of academic language in their syllabi (the lesson plan template already includes academic language) as well as ensure that candidates consider the need to engage learners throughout their lessons. In addition, during the coming year, the Program Committee will discuss

8

ways to integrate use of the TPA rubrics into field experiences to familiarize candidates with their language and expectations, as means for furthering candidates’ performance on the TPA.

Assessment 6—Unit Plan. No planned changes at this time. Dispositions. The disposition data provide means for monitoring students’ preparedness for teaching

and their suitability for the teaching profession. The primary need for improvement with dispositions is access to the data in a relatively easy and timely manner. Because TaskStream is new for candidates, evaluators, program directors, and the Teaching and Learning manager of TaskStream, there have been many hurdles to overcome and much to learn. Access to dispositional data, as well as assessment data, has often been a problem this year, and anticipated data hasn’t always been inputted because of evaluators’ uncertainty about the process or difficulty in using TaskStream. Making significant progress in working out the problems needs to be a priority for the coming year for all involved. As we work through issues, it would be very helpful to have a person to review assessment areas at key times to ensure that the necessary data are there.

Diversity

1. What Do Data from Key Assessments and Dispositions Indicate About Candidates’ Ability to Work with Diverse Populations? Several of the undergraduate and MEd assessments have components that address diversity, ACEI standard 3.2, including the Planning Portfolio, Final Student Teaching Supplement, Teacher Performance Assessment, Vision Unit, and disposition form. In addition, one part of the Screening I process also attends to diversity.

Undergraduate Program. For the Undergraduate Program, the Screening I panel interviews target diversity in one of the panel questions/scenarios. Average overall ratings for 2011-2012 for this question/scenario were 2.3 in the fall and 3.04 in the spring. The Planning Portfolio also targets ACEI standard 3.2 Adaptation to Diverse Learners for each of the content areas. As Table 3 reveals, modal score performance in Social Studies, which is typically completed during the sophomore year, was emergent, but for Literacy and Science the modal scores were proficient, and in Mathematics it was accomplished. The Final Student Teaching Supplement also addresses standard 3.2. Twenty-two candidates were evaluated; no emergent scores were achieved; performance was balanced between proficient and accomplished. The Teacher Performance Assessment addresses diversity through its three academic language categories: Understanding Students’ Language Development and Associated Language Demands, Academic Language, Scaffolding Students’ Academic Language and Deeping Content Learning, and Developing Students’ Academic Language and Deeping Content Learning. On the 5-point rating scale used for the assessment and based on the 11 candidates who completed the TPA in Literacy modal scores for the three areas were 3, 2, 2 (fall; n = 3) and 3, 3, 3 (spring; n = 8). Modal scores for the same three categories in math were 2, 2, 3 (fall; n = 3) and 3, 3, 3 (n = 6). The Unit Plan also targets standard 3.2. The modal score was also proficient, with just one student out of 18 achieving an emergent rating. A final measure that serves to help monitor the dispositions of candidates toward diversity is the dispositional form. Two categories relate to diversity: Commitment to Learning for All Students and Collaboration, which includes consideration for diverse voices in inquiry and decision making. Average ratings for these two areas for Undergraduates for their student teaching experience were 3.67 and 3.73, respectively. For courses the average scores were 3.56 and 3.52, respectively. Scores were relatively lower on field experiences leading up to student teaching. These ranged from 2.1 to 3.2. All these data demonstrate that across the Program candidates develop the ability to work effectively and respectfully with diverse learners.

MEd Program. As Table 4 reveals, modal ratings for all four content areas for standard 3.2 Adaptation to Diverse Students were at the proficient level. The Final Student Teaching Supplement reveals a modal rating of proficient as well, with 100% of the ratings in this category for the 15 candidates. As noted in

9

the Undergraduate section, the Teacher Performance Assessment also addresses diversity, through its three academic language categories: Understanding Students’ Language Development and Associated Language Demands, Academic Language, Scaffolding Students’ Academic Language and Deeping Content Learning, and Developing Students’ Academic Language and Deeping Content Learning. On the 5-point rating scale used for the assessment and based on the nine candidates who completed the TPA in Literacy during fall 2011, modal scores for the three areas were 3, 3, and 3/4, respectively; for Mathematics (n = 6), modal scores for the three areas were 3, 3, and 3. The Unit Plan modal score was accomplished. Finally, dispositional data for spring 2012 for the 17 students who will student teach during fall 2012 show that these candidates are developing ability to implement their understandings about diverse learners through field work. Course averages are stronger than those for the spring practicum; the two categories, Commitment to Learning for All Students and for Collaboration reveal course overall averages of 3.34 and 3.32 and field experience average ratings of 2.41 and 2.47, respectively.

2. What Changes Are Needed to Improve Candidate Performance in Working with Diverse Populations? As a program, we will continue to work on academic language through coursework and practicum experiences and continue to monitor candidates’ progress in this critical area. The multiple avenues by which the Elementary Education Programs evaluate and monitor candidates’ performance I working with diverse populations add robustness to the interpretation of the results. It will be important to collect dispositional data from the MEd ELL course and from the Undergraduate Language course; these data were not available for this analysis.

Field-Based Experiences

1. What Do Data from Field-Based Experiences Indicate about Candidates’ Ability to Be Successful in the Classroom? In other areas of this report it has been demonstrated that application of knowledge develops across time (for examples, stronger dispositional ratings during student teaching than earlier field experiences; stronger performance on planning in the Vision Unit and TPA than on the Planning Portfolio. As a result, the expectation is that Field Experience performance may reveal relatively strong percentages at the emergent and proficient levels, rather than proficient and accomplished. The performance of MEd candidates may vary greatly as some of these initial licensure candidates enter the program with considerable experience with children and even teaching in certain capacities; whereas, for others the practicums may be their first in-depth experiences in the classroom working with and teaching children. Performance can also relate to comfort level with the particular subject matter and placement. Field-based experiences are evaluated with the same 4-category rubric that is used for the Final Student Teaching Evaluation: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching; Knowledge of Learners and Learning; Conceptions of the Practice and Profession of Teaching; and Initial Repertoire in Curriculum, Instruction, Management, and Assessment. Data for the undergraduates and MEd candidates (see Tables 6-7) reveal they are developing abilities; however, the data also point to the need to discuss practicum expectations in relation to the evaluation categories to ensure that the variation is not due to differences in evaluator interpretation of the rubric. As a result, specific interpretations of the data will not be made at this time, other than to note that for each practicum and Program candidates do show areas of greater and less strength. Dispositional data related to the Field Experiences also reveal candidates’ development of professional characteristics that will contribute to effective teaching and learning. Overall average scores for the two practica across the six categories (Professional Conduct, Receptive and Expressive Language, Professional Habits of Mind, Capacity for Collaboration, Commitment to Learning for All Students, and Reflection and Continuous Growth) ranged from 2.10 to 3.20 for the Undergraduate Program, and from 2.41 to 2.94 for the MEd Program, based on spring data. Here, too, with dispositions, it is important to hold discussions to ensure that evaluators hold similar views about the process and interpretation of rubric categories.

10

2. What Changes Are Needed to Improve Candidate Performance During Their Field-Based Experiences? Discussions are needed to ensure clarity regarding evaluation. This will aid reliability of the results. Information stemming from the discussions can be integrated into the handbook. Furthermore, effort is underway to improve our placements and the mentor teachers and university supervisors that support our candidates in their practicum experiences and student teaching. This effort needs to continue; though it is recognized that it will take time to build the types of relationships we desire for the Programs, headway has been made.

Mentor Teacher/University Mentor

1. What Do Data Indicate About the Effectiveness of the Mentoring Teachers and University Mentors?At the end of the spring 2012 semester, teacher candidates and University Mentors were asked to provide feedback related to their Mentor Teachers, and Mentor Teachers and candidates were asked to provide feedback on University Mentors via a dichotomously rated (no = 1; yes = 2) survey. The survey addressed the following eight traits: introduced candidate to school personnel, was typically available to discuss concerns and issues, was typically available to provide lesson plan feedback prior to the lesson, formally observed and provided effective feedback, typically used effective teaching behaviors, typically used effective classroom management, typically used appropriate collaborative skills, and modeled appropriate communication skills in working with parents. In other words, feedback was sought about the effectiveness of the mentor teachers and university mentors.

No MEd teacher candidates student-taught in spring 2012, so no data are available for that Program. Although 14 undergraduate teacher candidates completed their student teaching in the spring, just one candidate, a Dual Major, submitted evaluations for the form. Although this candidate expressed satisfaction with her Mentor Teacher, it cannot be assumed that other candidates would have had a similar experience, despite our strong efforts to find excellent teachers and teaching situations. Data are available from three of the four University Mentors for 11 of the 14 teacher candidates. Across all categories and all 11 teacher candidates, there was only a single “1” rating. Although the rating reflected a lack of formally observing the teacher candidate, the accompanying comments indicated other serious issues as well, such as “did not always have effective teaching strategies” and “did not appear to have strong skills teaching reading” and “There was a lot of wasted time.” This type of feedback points to the need to find an alternative mentor teacher for next year. A sampling of comments by University Mentors about other Mentor Teachers include: “one of the most amazing teachers I have observed in the field,” “modeled a very positive classroom environment. She gave constructive feedback, collaborated frequently with [Candidate], and guided her but gave the freedom to create her own lessons.”

The survey used to gain feedback from Mentor Teachers about the University Mentors included five dichotomously rated (no = 1; yes = 2) questions: UM reviewed expectations with my teacher candidate was typically supportive of the teacher candidate’s field-based endeavors, provided written feedback and teaching strategies to support candidate’s professional growth, provided oral feedback and teaching strategies to support candidate’s professional growth, and fairly evaluated the candidate. In addition, to the five closed questions, there were four open-ended questions related to the number and duration of observations by the University Mentor, the number of post-conferences with the Mentor Teacher, and ways the University Mentor supported or hindered the teacher candidate’s development. Just five of the Mentor Teachers provided feedback about the University Mentors; four of the evaluations were for the same University Mentor. All numerical ratings were “yes” responses. Observation times ranged from 6-8, with durations of 30-60 minutes. The number of follow-up conferences varied from 1 to every lesson,

11

even for the same University Mentor. This may well have to do with schedules and being able to find a common time to talk. There is no way of knowing whether email exchanges may have been used in lieu of one-on-one meetings. Common ways that the University Mentors supported the candidates’ development were specific feedback and suggested strategies. No hindrances were noted.

2. What Changes Are Needed to Improve the Effectiveness of Mentoring Teachers and University Mentors? Because this was the first semester to collect this type of data, there was some confusion as to what and how it would be collected and the hurdle of all evaluators needing to have access to TaskStream. As a result, data gathering was incomplete. This is another area that needs to be worked on to ensure that evaluations can be easily accessed by not only University Mentors and teacher candidates, but also Mentor Teachers, and there needs to be a system (and point person) for verifying that the necessary data have been entered. Deadlines should also be set for when this is to occur and this information needs to be sent out early so that all evaluators involved know what their responsibilities and by when they should have carried them out. In addition, all persons being evaluated should have access to the criteria on which they will be evaluated early in the semester. It may be that certain expectations conveyed by the various evaluation forms are different from those in the past; for everyone to have opportunity to optimize their performance, access to the forms is a necessity. Furthermore, one Mentor Teacher received an evaluation from the University Mentor that suggests that she may not be the best person to serve in this capacity. In the future, having evaluations from teacher candidates, as well, will provide a second and valuable perspective regarding the strengths and limitations of Mentor Teachers and University Mentors. Information about the sites will provide further insights.

Activities and Timeline for Implementing Needed Changes

1. TaskStream. Changes are needed in TaskStream data gathering: a) in how TaskStream assessments are structured, b) in the ease with which data are entered and c) access to data and the level of utility provided by that access. Some of these changes can occur over the summer; all need to be completed by early in the fall, if they are to be in place for programs, such as Elementary Education, that includes fall student teaching, and thus the need for the Final Student Teaching Evaluation, the Final Student Teaching Evaluation Supplement, the Teacher Performance Assessment, the Vision Unit, and all the various evaluations of persons involved in student teaching—teacher candidate, University Mentor, Field Mentor—and the site itself. Changes in rubrics that are currently on TaskStream need to be submitted, to the Teaching and Learning manager of TaskStream by early August, at the latest.

a. A significant change is needed in the Final Student Teaching Evaluation for Elementary Education. The nearly 30 items that comprised the PGP this year need to be collapsed into the 11 items originally intended.

b. Directors need to discuss possibilities for streamlining the process of providing Field Mentors and University Mentors with access to evaluating with TaskStream.

c. Also, Directors need easy access to data on TaskStream; it would be most helpful to have a discussion with the Teaching and Learning Manager of TaskStream about the needs of programs—similarities and differences, his and TaskStream’s needs/limitations, and how what needs to get done can be accomplished. Some data this spring were not available until very late and some not in an optimal form. Also, although the system may not make it possible, it would be excellent to have teacher candidates entered in the system by program, or at least accessible via a drop-down box, so that, searching through hundreds of candidates to find those needed for a particular evaluation is unnecessary. Also, perhaps there is commonality across programs regarding the specific data desired from the evaluations. Discussion of this would be helpful, as it might add cohesion to our final report writing before the accreditation visit.

2. Rubrics and the Assessment Guidelines. This discussion encompasses a) changes that are needed, and b) dissemination of the information about the changes. Revisions for fall assessments will be needed by

12

the end of August. Program discussions will occur in early fall or throughout the fall semester, as designated.

a. The Mathematics CCA needs to be revised; several other rubrics need minor changes made. Mathematics faculty will discuss the possible rubric changes in early August, when a new faculty member joins the team. For the Planning Portfolio, clarification is needed in syllabi to ensure that candidates are aware of the need to address certain information more thoroughly. During fall semester the Elementary Education Program Committee(s) will discuss how to integrate the TPA rubrics into field experiences, so that candidates are familiar with them before they have to use them for their TPA. The integration will be piloted in fall and continue through spring as necessary so that by fall 2013 a clear and workable system is in place. Perhaps the biggest need in this section is that of having discussion around the interpretation of category ratings. Although such discussions have been held previously, the matter needs to be revisited and the decision made explicit to all involved in teaching the related courses.

b. To ensure that candidates and others know what to expect with regards to the NCATE evaluations, assessment rubrics and the disposition rubric will be distributed to candidates and others via posting on OAK, handbook, and/or through meetings, such as seminars or course sessions. The dissemination will occur during the first month of classes, except in the case of second placement Mentor Teachers. They will receive the information at the start of the second placement. This dissemination of information will also include the need for written comments when evaluating a candidate’s performance on TaskStream that is outside the typical level of expectation. For example, for Social Studies at the Undergraduate level, it is expected that candidates will perform at an emergent level on many categories of the Planning Portfolio lesson plan because that class is where candidates are first really exposed to lesson planning. Emergent ratings would not require explanation; whereas, accomplished would. Similarly, for Final Student Teaching Supplement, ratings of emergent need clarification.

3. Other Program Related Changes. Additional changes pertain to a) CCA administration and expectations and b) lesson plan template revisions

a. Early during fall semester, the Elementary Education Program Committee(s) will discuss the pros and cons of providing two, two-hour blocks of time on separate days for candidates to complete the CCA. At present, candidates are asked to reserve two days, so if decision can be reached early in the semester, the change will be put into place for the fall administration, which will be in November. The Program Committee(s) will also discuss expectations for ratings of proficient and accomplished—what percentage is expected of candidates in each content area?

b. Revisions to the lesson plan template discussed earlier in this report, will be circulated to appropriate faculty in early August for feedback so that the new version can be used in the fall.

13

Tables Referenced in the Text

Notes: * The n differs because all subtests have not yet been completed by all teacher candidates. ** The PLT K-6 test code was changed from 522 to 622 on 9/1/11. Both codes are in effect this year. Next year the code will be just 622 (n for 522 = 8; n for 622 = 13).

14

Table 1: Praxis II Performance for Teacher Candidatesin the Undergraduate (UG) and MEd Elementary Education Programs, 2011-2012

UG Program MEd ProgramState of

TN

Assessment nAverage Score n

Average Score

Required Score

Curriculum Instruction, and Assessment 20* 188 21 192 159

Elementary Education Content Knowledge 20* 185 21 187 140

Reading Across the Curriculum 21 181 20* 184 151Principles of Learning and Teaching, K-6 2/18** 184/183 21** 185 158

Table 2 CCA: Percentage of Ratings for Each Category,As a Factor of Content Area and Program/Semester

(Undergraduate Program— Fall 2011 n = 14; Spring 2012 n = 8)(MEd Program—Spring 2012 n = 17)

Not Evident Emergent Proficient AccomplishedLiteracy

UG F11 0 12.5 87.5 0UG SP 12 0 9 88 3

MEd SP12 0 16 75 9Math

UG F11 7 50 21 21UG SP 12 12.5 37.5 50 0

MEd SP12 0 24 47 29Science

UG F11 0 7 50 43UG SP 12 0 12 47 41

MEd SP12 6 24 35 35Social Studies

UG F11 0 9 89 2UG SP 12 0 7 89 4

MEd SP12 0 0 71 29

Table 3 Undergraduate Planning Portfolio: Percentages for Each Rating by Standard and Across Content Areas

Undergraduate n = Literacy 24, Mathematics 27, Science 27, Social Studies 26

StandardNot Yet Evident Emergent Proficient

Accomplished Modal Scores

1.0 Development, Learning, and MotivationLiteracy 0 17 60 23 Proficient

Mathematics 0 19 59 22 ProficientScience* 0 15 56 30 Proficient

Social Studies 0 65 35 0 Emergent3.2 Adaptation to Diverse Students

Literacy 0 35 50 15 ProficientMathematics 0 19 37 44 Accomplished

Science 0 15 70 15 ProficientSocial Studies 0 58 42 0 Emergent

3.3 Critical Thinking and Problem SolvingLiteracy 0 10 75 15 Proficient

Mathematics 0 15 44 41 ProficientScience 0 7 63 30 Proficient

Social Studies 0 73 27 0 Emergent3.4 Active Engagement in Learning

Literacy 0 4 65 31 ProficientMathematics* 0 7 44 48 Accomplished

Science* 0 4 67 30 ProficientSocial Studies 0 69 31 0 Emergent

4. Assessment for InstructionLiteracy 0 15 62 23 Proficient

Mathematics* 0 11 44 44 Proficient/Accomplished

Science* 0 7 85 7 ProficientSocial Studies 0 77 23 0 Emergent

Note: *Numbers do not equal 100% due to rounding.

15

Table 4 MEd Planning Portfolio: Average Percentages for Each Rating, Across Content Areas

MEd n = 17 (all content areas)

StandardNot Yet Evident Emergent Proficient

Accomplished Modal Score

1.0 Development, Learning, and MotivationLiteracy 0 3 41 56 Accomplished

Mathematics 0 6 70 24 ProficientScience 0 0 41 59 Accomplished

Social Studies 0 0 41 59 Accomplished3.2 Adaptation to Diverse Students

Literacy 0 0 85 35 ProficientMathematics 0 12 88 0 Proficient

Science 0 0 76.5 23.5 ProficientSocial Studies 0 29 71 0 Proficient

3.3 Critical Thinking and Problem SolvingLiteracy 0 0 71 29 Proficient

Mathematics 0 6 88 6 ProficientScience 0 0 35 65 Accomplished

Social Studies 0 0 35 65 Accomplished3.4 Active Engagement in Learning

Literacy 0 0 88 12 ProficientMathematics 0 47 41 12 Emergent

Science 0 0 35 65 AccomplishedSocial Studies 0 0 47 53 Accomplished

4. Assessment for InstructionLiteracy 0 3 70.5 26.5 Proficient

Mathematics 0 0 76 24 ProficientScience 0 0 76.5 23.5 Proficient

Social Studies 0 0 94 6 Proficient

16

17

Table 5 Unit Plan: Percentage of Ratings for Each Category,As a Factor of ACEI Standard and Program

(Undergraduate Program— n = 18; MEd Program n = 15)

Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished Modal Score

Standard 1.0 Development, Learning, & MotivationUG 0 0 44 56 Accomplis

hedMEd 0 0 47 53 Accomplis

hedStandard 2.1 Curriculum: Reading, Writing, & Oral Language

UG 0 0 56 44 ProficientMEd 0 0 20 80 Accomplis

hedStandard 2.2 Curriculum: Science

UG 0 11 56 33 ProficientMEd 0 7 33 60 Accomplis

hedStandard 2.3 Curriculum: Mathematics

UG 0 0 67 33 ProficientMEd 0 7 20 73 Accomplis

hedStandard 2.4 Curriculum: Social Studies

UG* 0 6 56 39 ProficientMEd 0 0 13 87 Accomplis

hedStandard 2.5 Curriculum: The Arts

UG 0 0 72 28 ProficientMEd 0 0 37 73 Accomplis

hedStandard 2.6 Curriculum: Health Education

UG* 6 6 83 6 ProficientMEd 0 0 20 80 Accomplis

hedStandard 2.7 Curriculum: Physical Education

UG 0 11 56 33 ProficientMEd 0 0 13 87 Accomplis

hedStandard 3.1 Instruction: Integrating & Applying Knowledge

UG 0 6 56 39 ProficientMEd 0 0 13 87 Accomplis

hedStandard 3.2 Instruction: Adaptation to Diverse Students

UG* 0 6 67 28 ProficientMEd 0 0 27 73 Accomplis

hedStandard 3.4 Instruction: Active Engagement for Instruction

UG* 0 6 39 56 Accomplished

MEd 0 0 33 67 Accomplished

Standard 3.5 Instruction: Communication to Foster LearningUG 0 6 50 44 Proficient

MEd 0 0 27 73 Accomplished

Standard 4.0 Assessment: Assessment for InstructionUG* 0 6 67 28 ProficientMEd 0 0 27 73 Accomplis

hedStandard 5.1 Professionalism: Professional Growth, Reflection, & Evaluation

UG 0 0 44 56 Proficient

Note: *Numbers do not equal 100% due to rounding.

18

Table 6 Undergraduate Field Experiences:Percentage of Ratings for Each Category, as a Factor of Practicum

(Social Studies n = 26; Literacy n = 24; Math/Science = 27)Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished

Subject Matter Knowledge for TeachingSocial Studies 0 0 100 0

Literacy 0 0 100 0Math/Science 0 89 11 0

Knowledge of Learners and LearningSocial Studies 0 31 69 0

Literacy 0 4 88 8Math/Science 0 81 19 0

Conceptions of the Practice and Profession of TeachingSocial Studies 0 0 100 0

Literacy 0 4 75 21Math/Science 0 70 30 0

Initial Repertoire in Curriculum, Instruction, Management, and AssessmentSocial Studies 0 0 100 0

Literacy 0 4 88 8Math/Science 0 100 0 0

Table 7 MEd Field Experiences:Percentage of Ratings for Each Category, as a Factor of Practicum

(n = 17)Not Evident Emergent Proficient Accomplished

Subject Matter Knowledge for TeachingLiteracy/SS 0 0 18 32

Math/Science 0 12 80 0Knowledge of Learners and Learning

Literacy/SS 0 0 82 18Math/Science 0 47 53 0

Conceptions of the Practice and Profession of TeachingLiteracy/SS 0 0 47 53

Math/Science 0 0 100 0Initial Repertoire in Curriculum, Instruction, Management, and Assessment

Literacy/SS 0 0 29 71Math/Science 0 100 0 0