Continuous Review Process Report Wisconsin Lutheran College October 2015 PART I - Core Questions 1 & 2 1. What is your program learning from your existing assessment system and what are you doing in response to this information/data? 2. Have you made any major/meaningful changes to your *program? What changes have you made? Why? Why not?

1. What has your school done for assessment of your school goals? STAGE 1: ENTRY We use the PPST/PRAXIS I as a screening device also mandated in PI34. Additionally, we monitor the scores to identify which area(s) (reading, writing, mathematics) is the weakest for our students in order to provide additional tutoring assistance through the Student Success Center.

The process for admission into Teacher Education includes a portfolio checklist that requires a personal interview with an EDU faculty member as a first step to full admission. This preliminary documentation evidences: 1.) Artifacts as proof of readiness to enter upper level coursework; 2.) Ability to articulate an initial philosophy of education; 3.) Ability to express one’s self, using language related to the profession; and, 4.) Knowledge of the ten teacher standards. This entry-level portfolio (student sample) and process provide the framework for the expanded “high stakes” portfolio and presentation required prior to teacher candidacy. Additionally, the portfolio itself is scored according to a rubric. STAGE 2: IN-PROGRESS The Pre-Teacher Candidacy (PTC) Clinical experience is monitored with a rubric and weighted with specific requirements. The designated clinical is offered concurrently with specified methods courses and serves to provide tangible evidence of professional growth for each pre-service teacher. Clinical assessment activities include: 1.) Feedback and evaluation of a lesson by an EDU faculty member, cooperating teacher, and the pre-service teacher; 2.) A written in-depth reflection demonstrating the ability to connect practical experience with EDU course work; 3.) An interview by the pre-service teacher of the cooperating teacher, describing particular elements of curriculum and instruction related to the methods course; and, 4.) Site evaluation completed by the pre-service teacher.

1

STAGE 3: “HIGH STAKES” TO TEACHER CANDIDACY Pre-service teachers prepare a “high stakes” portfolio during their program and specifically during the semester prior to their professional semester. This portfolio (template, student sample) is presented before a team of EDU faculty members, invited evaluators, and guests. During the presentation, the evaluators score the portfolio based on the traits identified on the rubric. Each student then receives a compilation of the averaged scores and combined comments, generated by the evaluators. Additionally, one education professor summarizes the strong and weak points of the portfolio, standard by standard, and provides comments and suggestions for improvement of the portfolio presentation in a narrative format. The school uses the portfolio/presentation rubric for assessment of the program. Each year the focus is on the two-fold format of the rubric: primary trait analysis and holistic response. The school examines the average rubric scores to identify standards with high or low scores. Based on that analysis the school evaluates its academic strengths and areas for improvement. Additionally, these scores are used to examine inter-rater reliability of the rubric and process. The PRAXIS II subject-knowledge based test is used to assess respective content areas. EDU annually assesses the first time passing rate and overall passing rate each year. If there are “concern” areas, those results are communicated with that respective school or department. The Student Success Center has resources to assist students in preparing for the test. STAGE 4: TEACHER CANDIDACY TO COMPLETION The EDU Directors conduct an exit interview with each completer during which they ask for honest feedback and evaluation of the education program: course work, clinicals, professional semester, supervisors, placement sites and assessment process. They also ask graduates to indicate which area of the liberal arts was under-represented in their preparation and development of an adequate knowledge base for teaching. At the end of the professional semester, teacher candidates develop a modified professional development plan. There is a twofold response: one, it provides practice for developing the student’s first PDP; and secondly, it provides the EDU school with information about which standards might possibly need further analysis. STAGE 5: POST-BAC EDU continues to use the survey response from the first, third, and fifth year graduates/completers and their respective administrators. A goal of the School of Teacher Education is to stay in touch with and track our graduates’ progress through the early years of their career. This is done through The Lifeline Assistance Program (LAP) which assists our graduates with preparing their Professional Development Plan (PDP). The PDP assists with licensure renewal after five years in the classroom. Comments from students centered on two prompts: “Please suggest at least one way the teacher education program could be improved and please mention one aspect of the teacher education program that was particularly effective or beneficial to you.” Comments from administrators/supervisors offered information in response to these two prompts: “What in your opinion are the most important knowledge areas that a beginning teacher should have?” and “What specific skill(s) would you most desire in a potential candidate for your staff?”

2

2. What results/data did your school find? STAGE 1: ENTRY PPST (PRAXIS I) Results for 09/01/2013-08/31/2014 Reading Reading Writing Writing Math Math PPST C-PPST PPST C-PPST PPST C-PPST High Score * 186 * 185 * 190 Low Score * 163 * 169 * 167 Median Score * 179 * 176 * 179 Number Tested 40 41 40 Required Score 175 175 174 174 173 173 *ETS does not provide test score statistics for any group that includes fewer than 5 examinees. The Application for Admission statistics: 09/01/2014-08/31/2015 20 applications for consideration 20 applicants admitted 4 applicants admitted with reservation 0 applicant denied for specific reason 0 applicant deferred

STAGE 2: IN-PROGRESS COOPERATING TEACHER DATABASE UPDATE - 9/2015

As of 9/15

As of 9/14

1614

1557

658

653

38

38

208

187

137

131

243

235

330

313

48

27

11

8

6

7

28

47

TOTAL IN DATABASE INACTIVE - RETIRED, MOVED, LOST UNUSABLE - WOULD NOT RECOMMEND NEVER USED OR NOT EVALUATED FAIR - WOULD STILL RECOMMEND GOOD GREAT NEW CLINICAL CTs NEW TC CTs NEW SCHOOLS (Cl and TC) CT TRAINING SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS

3

Evaluation of Clinical and Teacher Candidacy Cooperating Teachers Used in Fall 2013 and Spring of 2014 Student Evaluations - Clinicals Number Cooperating Teachers Used (some counted twice because used twice) = 129 POOR = 0 FAIR = 22 GOOD = 43 GREAT = 61 NO EVALUATION = 3 Student Evaluations – Teacher Candidates Number Cooperating Teachers Used (some counted twice because used twice) = 28 POOR = 0 FAIR = 2 GOOD = 7 GREAT = 19 NO EVALUATION = 0

5

Building School/Teacher Relationships-2014-2015 Actions Taken Visited to establish contact; 13 Elementary Schools, 4 Middle Schools, 6 High Schools Placed Teacher Candidates or Clinical Students Communication; Invited to CT training seminar; Invited to WLC Graduates Teaching in Cooperating Teacher database serve as CT; Sent LAP and PDP info to grads of last three years Communication; Sent LAP and Recent WLC Graduates (2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014) PDP info to grads of last three years WLC Graduates Attended CT Training Seminar

17

WLC Graduates Teaching in Greater Milwaukee

28

Area Teachers who took WLC Cooperating Teacher training class

8

New Principals in schools we have used in greater Milwaukee

15

Urban Schools/Teachers

# 23

104

53

School/Teachers

Used as CTs for Clinicals or Teacher Candidacy 11 of these were used for Teacher Candidacy placements Identified as potential for visits soon to establish/confirm relationships. Identified as potential cooperating teachers for clinicals and teacher candidacy

4

STAGE 3: “HIGH STAKES” TO TEACHER CANDIDACY

Portfolio Rubric Averages of Faculty Scorers-2014-2015 Fall, 2014 Primary Trait Mean = 2.86 Holistic Score = 2.85 10 students Spring, 2015 Primary Trait Mean = 2.45 Holistic Score = 2.38 12 students

Holistic Portfolio Scores—Inter-rater Reliability Information Jan. 15 Completers Bitter Brightsman Burow Collyard Holman Miller Murphy Schulz Wolle June 15 Completers Bitter Brightsman Burow Holman Miller Murphy Schulz Ziesemer

Average 3.20 2.60 2.50 3.00 2.50 2.80 3.20 2.50 3.20 Average 3.00 2.40 2.67 2.50 3.33 2.67 3.67 3.25

PRAXIS II Report All WLC Students (Undergraduate) tested during this time: 09/01/2014-08/31/2015 # Tested # Passed Ave Score Range H/L Req Score EC/MC MC/EA Art Eng/Lang Math Music Science Social Studies Theatre Total Tested

5 15 0 1 0 5 1 3 0 30

5 14 0 1 0 5 1 3 0 29

162.6 183/147 163.8 187/141 N/A N/A 188 188/188 N/A N/A 171.6 186/160 173 173/173 161 159/163 N/A N/A Total Passing Score rate = 96.67%

147 146 158 167 160 150 154 153 157

5

PRAXIS II Report All WLC Students (Adult & Post Bac) tested during this time: 09/01/2014-08/31/2015 # Tested # Passed Ave Score Range H/L Req Score EC/MC MC/EA Art Eng/Lang Math Music Science Social Studies Theatre Geography Total Tested

8 14 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 28

6 13 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 25

156.4 191/122 170.9 193/119 N/A N/A 177 178/176 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 161.3 168/153 N/A N/A 178 178 Total Passing Score rate = 89.3%

147 146 158 167 160 150 154 153 157 153

*Student took the Geography Praxis test – but this is an add-on to his original 2009 license

STAGE 4: TEACHER CANDIDACY TO COMPLETION UNDERGRADUATE

EC/MC MC/EA Music Mathematics Social Studies Science English Total Tests EC/MC MC/EA Music Social Studies English Total Tested

PRAXIS II Report for (Undergraduate) Completers of January 2015 # Tested # Passed Ave Score Range H/L 1 1 175 175/175 6 6 171.8 190/149 0 0 N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A 1 1 163 163/163 0 0 N/A N/A 1 1 168 168/168 9 9 Total Passing Score rate = 100% PRAXIS II Report for (Undergraduate) Completers of June 2015 2 2 162 159/165 5 5 174 192/157 3 3 170 174/162 1 1 161 161/161 1 1 176 176/176 12 12 Total Passing Score rate = 100%

Req Score 147 146 150 160 153 154 160

147 146 150 153 160

6

TEACHER CANDIDACY TO COMPLETION AGS - Transition to Teaching PRAXIS II Report for (Adult & Graduate Studies) Completers of January 2015 # Tested # Passed Ave Score Range H/L Req Score EC/MC 2 2 165.5 170/161 147 MC/EA 3 3 166 173/157 146 Eng/Lang Arts 3 3 186.7 200/171 160 Science 1 1 155 155/155 154 Social Studies 1 1 153 153/153 153 Math 1 1 191 191/191 160 Total Tests 11 11 Total Passing Score rate = 100% PRAXIS II Report for (Adult & Graduate Studies) Completers of June 2015 EC/MC 3 3 180.3 192/158 147 MC/EA 2 2 179.5 191/168 146 Social Studies 2 2 168 173/163 153 Science 1 1 163 163/163 154 Speech/Comm 1 1 176 176/176 160 Total Tested 9 9 Total Passing Score rate = 100% *9 students were counted as Adult and Graduate studies completers for January 2015, but 2 students took two Praxis exams. Total of 11 exams taken. *7 students were counted as Adult and Graduate studies completers for June 2015, but 2 students took two Praxis exams. Total of 9 exams taken.

TEACHER CANDIDACY TO COMPLETION AGS – Post-Bac PRAXIS II Report for Post-Bac Completers of January 2015 & June 2015 # Tested # Passed Ave Score Range H/L EC/MC 1 1 149 149/149 MC/EA 5 5 186.8 193/181 Music 0 0 N/A N/A Mathematics 0 0 N/A N/A English 0 0 N/A N/A Total Tests 6 6 Total Passing Score rate = 100%

Req Score 147 146 150 160 160

LTI Report for Undergraduate Completers January 2015 # Tested # Passed Req Score Total Tests

Spanish Oral Spanish Written German Oral German Written Total Tested

0 0 Total Passing Score rate = NA LTI Report for Undergraduate Completers June 2015 1 1

1 1

1

1

Total Passing Score rate = 100%

7

Note: Beginning in the 2013-14 school year, Act 166 requires each teacher preparatory and education program to prominently display and annually update the passage rate on first attempt of recent graduates of the program on examinations administered for licensure as an educator and any other information required by DPI to be reported on the program’s website. The program must provide this information to persons receiving admissions materials to the program. [s. 115.28 (7g), Stats.] This information is included with the Department of Public Instruction’s Annual Report on Educator Preparation Programs and linked with Program Review items on our website.

Wisconsin Foundations of Reading Test (Undergraduate)

Semester

Score

Attempt

1

2

3

4

License

Subject

Fall 14

248

2

3

3

3

3

MC/EA

Fall 14

284

1

4

4

4

4

MC/EA

ART

Fall 14

278

1

4

4

4

3

MC/EA

PSY, ADED

Fall 14

268

2

4

3

4

3

MC/EA

SPED

Fall 14

245

1

2

3

3

3

EA/A

SPA

Fall 14

245

2

3

3

3

3

MC/EA

Spring 15

248

3

3

3

3

3

MC/EA

SPED

Spring 15

257

1

4

4

2

2

MC/EA

ENG

Spring 15

272

1

4

4

4

2

MC/EA

SPA

Spring 15

270

1

4

3

4

2

EC/MC

Spring 15

264

2

4

3

2

4

MC/EA

ENG

Spring 15

258

1

4

3

4

2

MC/EA

ENG

Spring 15

248

1

3

4

4

1

MC/EA

MTH

Spring 15

247

5

2

4

2

3

EC/MC

Spring 15

251

2

3

3

2

3

MC/EA

Spring 15

260

2

3

3

4

3

EC/MC

Spring 15

240

1

2

3

2

2

EC/MC

Spring 15

206

4

2

2

2

2

MC/EA

SPED

Spring 15

241

2

3

4

3

2

MC/EA

GRM

Spring 15

253

1

3

4

3

2

MC/EA

SPED

ENG

8

Wisconsin Foundations of Reading 2014-2015 Averages 3.50 3.00

3.07

3.29

1 Foundations of Readng Development

2.93

2.50

2 Development of Reading Comprehension

2.29

2.00

3 Reading Assessment and Instruction

1.50

4 Integration of Knowledge and Understanding

1.00 0.50

0.00

Number of Students/Attempts to Pass 12

Students

10 8 6 4 2 0 1

2

3

Attempts

4

5

9

Wisconsin Foundations of Reading Test (AGS)

Semester Fall 14 Fall 14 Fall 14 Fall 14 Spring 15 Spring 15 Spring 15 Spring 15 Spring 15 Spring 15 Spring 15 Spring 15 Spring 15 Spring 15 Spring 15 Spring 15 Spring 15 Spring 15

Score 255 280 251 261 243 221 232 251 288 263 250 244 277 269 242 272 249 248

Attempt 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 4 2 3 3 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 3 2 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 3.09 3.09 3.27 2.55

Wisconsin Foundations of Reading 2014-2015 Averages 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00

2.92

3.08

3.25

1 Foundations of Readng Development 2.50

2 Development of Reading Comprehension 3 Reading Assessment and Instruction 4 Integration of Knowledge and Understanding

0.50 0.00

10

Students

Attempts to Pass/Number of Students 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Attempts

Program Completers

January 2015 Undergraduate Completers = 9 Students June 2015 Undergraduate Completers = 12 Students January 2015 AGS Transition to Teaching Completers = 9 Students June 2015 AGS Transition to Teaching Completers = 7 Students January 2015 and June 2015 Post-Bac Completers = 6 Students

11

Student

Program

Certification Areas Descriptions

Completion Date M/D/YYYY

Program Completion Code

1

UG

1/15/2015

2

UG

3

UG

4

UG

5

UG

72-777 859 334 72-777 859 72-777 859 740 73 300 72-777 CC 801 LD 811 334

6

UG

7

UG

8

UG

9

UG

MC/EA Adaptive Ed minor Language Arts minor MC/EA Adaptive Ed minor MC/EA Adaptive Ed minor Psych minor EA/A English Major MC/EA CC Special Ed Major Learning Disabilities Conc. Language Arts minor MC/EA Natural Science minor MC/EA Adaptive Ed minor Psych minor EA/A BFSS Major History Major Coaching minor EC/MC Adaptive Ed minor

1

UG

MC/EA Spanish Minor

06/15/2015

72-777 365

2

UG

MC/EA Language Arts Minor

06/15/2015

72-777

3

UG

06/15/2015

4

UG

EA/A BFSS History Major Psychology Conc. Sociology Conc. MC/EA Adaptive Ed Minor Science Minor

5

UG

EC/MC

06/15/2015

71-777

6

UG

MC/EA Math Minor

06/15/2015

72-777 400

1/15/2015 1/20/2015

1/20/2015 1/20/2015

1/20/2015

72-777 634

1/20/2015

72-777 859 740 73 701 725 540 71-777 859

1/20/2015

1/20/2015

06/15/2015

334 73 701 725 740 745 72-777 859 634

12

7

UG

8

UG

9

UG

10

UG

11

UG

12

UG

1

AGS Transition to Teaching

2

AGS Transition to Teaching AGS Transition to Teaching AGS Transition to Teaching AGS Transition to Teaching AGS Transition to Teaching AGS Transition to Teaching

3

4

5

6

7

WR General Music Major Instrumental Major Choral Major MC/EA English Minor

06/15/2015

74 515 506 511

06/15/2015

72-777 300

EC/MC Adaptive Ed Minor EA/A English Major WR General Music Major Instrumental Major Choral Major WR General Music Major Instrumental Major Choral Major

06/15/2015

71-777 859 73 300 74 515 506 511

06/15/2015 06/15/2015

06/15/2015

74 515 506 511

EA/A BFLA Major ENG Major COMM Major JOURN Conc. EA/A ENG Major BFSS Major History minor MC/EA History minor

01/15/2015

MC/EA ENG Major

01/15/2015

72-777 300

EA/A BIO Major CHEM minor

01/15/2015

73 605 610

MC/EA Psychology minor Social Studies minor

01/15/2015

72-777 740 734

EA/A MATH major

01/15/2015

73 400

01/15/2015

01/15/2015

73 301 300 320 310 73 300 701 725 72-777 725

13

8

9

AGS Transition to Teaching AGS Transition to Teaching

EC/MC

01/15/2015

71-777

EC/MC Also has MC/EA:

01/15/2015

71-777

1

AGS Transition to Teaching

EA/A BFSS Major Cross Cat-Sp. Ed Major Learning Disabil. Conc MC/EA

06/15/2015.

73 701 801 811

2

AGS Transition to Teaching AGS Transition to Teaching AGS Transition to Teaching AGS Transition to Teaching AGS Transition to Teaching

EC/MC Speech Comm. Major

06/15/2015

71-777 320

MC/EA Social Studies minor Psychology Major

06/15/2015

72-777 734 740

EC/MC Science minor

06/15/2015

71-777 634

EA/A Speech/Comm Major

06/15/2015

73 320

EA/A BFSS Major History Minor PSYCH Major BFS CHEM Minor BIO Minor

06/15/2015

73 701 725 740 601 610 605

AGS Transition to Teaching

EC/MC

10/2015

71 777

3

4

5

6

7

14

Student

Program

1

AGS Post-Bac

Certification Areas Completion Descriptions Date M/D/YYYY MC/EA 06/15/2015 Social Studies Minor

Program Completion Code 72-777 734

2

AGS Post-Bac

MC/EA Social Studies Minor

06/15/2015

72-777 734

3

AGS Post-Bac

MC/EA Social Studies Minor

07/24/2015

72-777 734

4

AGS Post-Bac

07/24/2015

72-777 515 511

5

AGS Post-Bac

MC/EA General Music Major Choral Music Major MC/EA History Minor Social Studies Minor

06/15/2015

72-777 725 734

6

AGS Post-Bac

EC/MC

08/21/2015

71-777

Exit Interview Questions—Teacher Candidate Responses Fall 14 – Spring 15 Teacher Candidate Prompt 4 “What was the most helpful aspect of our teacher education program? Why?” Student responses focused on the following areas:  Availability of professors  Early and varied clinical experiences  Residency opportunities  Thorough preparation for classroom instruction  Individualized attention and small class sizes remain a plus  Future Teachers Education Association (FTEA) assistance  Assessment of student learning Teacher Candidate Prompt 5 “What do you recommend for improvement for our program? Why?” Students made the following suggestions for improvement:  Broaden understanding of assessment and grading—i.e. exceptional education students  Expand focus on instructional technology  Provide an EDU tutor through the Center for Academic Excellence  Provide a stronger focus on “Adaptations” in the Modified Differentiated Lesson Plan  Explore ways to adjust methods courses to meet the needs of students majoring in Music Education  Integrate features of Next Generation/Personalized Learning

15

Teacher Candidate Prompt 14 “What other insights do you have to offer that will improve our program? What are we currently doing that should be continued?” Student responses included:  Maintain high expectations of students enrolled in the teacher education program  Continue emphasis on reflection in field experiences  Develop an abbreviated lesson plan for the later stages of teacher candidacy  Continue to integrate more technology  Expand the residency program  Make sure assignments have validity in relation to course objectives

Professional Development Plan (PDP)/Teacher Candidacy Completion Stage 2014-2015 Standards Student Responses 1. Knowledge of Content 5 2. Human Growth and Development 5 3. Diversity of Learner 6 4. Instructional Planning 10 5. Positive Instructional Planning 13 6. Communication 5 7. Foundations 3 8. Assessment 9 9. Christian Integrity 2 10. Collaboration 0

E 5: GRADUATE FOLLOW-UP

Grad Year 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

Participation in the Lifeline Assistance Program (LAP) (since its inception in Spring of 2006) # of Grads Responses Responses (1st Contact) (2nd Contact) 30 27 26 15 28 20 26 19 14 20

15 7 9 6 22 9 24 19 14 20

2 14 9 -2 7 2 9 5 9

Total Individuals Responding 24 21 19 6 24 16 26 19 14 20

16

Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Name 1 (Not Approved) 2 3 4 5 6 Name 1 Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

2014-2015 Academic Year: PDP Goal Approval Team Bitter Type of School/Dist. Standards WELS 4,6 ArchMil 4,6 WELS 2,4 WELS 4,8 WELS 3,4 WELS 2,4 ArchMil 2,5 WELS 1,4 ArchMil 7,8 LCMS 4,7 WELS 2,4 WELS 3,4,7 ArchMil 1,4 ArchMil 1,4,7 WELS 1,4 WELS 1,4 WELS 1,2 LCMS 4,8,9 PW-Saukville 1,4 WELS 3,4 WELS 1,2 ArchMil 2,4 ArchMil 3,7 WELS 1,2 ArchMil 4,5 Miller Type of School/Dist. Standards Not Given 1,3,4,7,8,10 WELS 7,9,10 Pewaukee PS 3,8 Franklin PS 3,4,7 WELS 4,8 WELS 8,9,10 Brightsman Type of School/Dist. Standards WELS 2,4 Murphy Type of School/Dist. Standards WELS 2,4 WELS 4,8 WELS 2,4 WELS 1,4 ArchMil 7,8 LCMS 4,7 WELS 2,4 ArchMil 1,4 ArchMil 1,4,7 WELS 1,4 WELS 1,4

WLC

AGS AGS

UG AGS

AGS AGS AGS UG AGS

AGS

WLC UG UG

WLC UG WLC AGS AGS

UG

AGS AGS

17

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

WELS LCMS PW-Saukville ArchMil WELS WELS WELS Slinger Public ArchMil

1,2 4,8,9 1,4 1,2,3 3,4 1,2 1,2 3,5,6 4,5

AGS UG

AGS AGS

2014-2015 PDP Goal Approval Standards Number of Times Chosen 1. Knowledge of Content 20 2. Human Growth and Development 16 3. Diversity of Learner 10 4. Instructional Planning 37 5. Positive Instructional Planning 4 6. Communication 3 7. Foundations 11 8. Assessment 10 9. Christian Integrity 4 10. Collaboration 3 Findings: Standards 4, 1, 2, and 7 were priorities in order of frequency

Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2014-2015 Academic Year: PDP Plan Verification Bitter Type of School/Dist. Standards MPS Charter 1,4,6 MPS Charter 2,3,8 WELS 2,3 West Allis/West Milw 1,4,7 WELS 3,6,8 ArchMil 5,6,9 WELS 2,3,5 ArchMil 5,8,10 MPS Charter 2,3

10 11 12 13

WELS WELS ArchMil WELS

Name 1 2 3 4 Name

3,4,9 3,4,5 1,3 3,4 Miller Type of School/Dist. Standards WELS 5,7 WELS 7,9,10 WELS 4,8 WELS 5,9 Brightsman Type of School/Dist. Standards

WLC

AGS AGS

AGS UG AGS WLC UG UG

WLC

18

1 2 3

West Allis/West Milw WELS Racine United

Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1,2,9,10 2,5 3,4 Murphy Type of School/Dist. Standards WELS 4,7 MPS Charter 1,4,6 West Allis/West Milw. 1,4,7 WELS 3,6,8 ArchMil 5,6,9 ArchMil 5,8,10 WELS 8,9,10 WELS 3,4,5 WELS 3,4

UG UG UG WLC

AGS

UG AGS

2014-2015 PDP Plan Verification Standards Number of Times Chosen 1. Knowledge of Content 6 2. Human Growth and Development 6 3. Diversity of Learner 13 4. Instructional Planning 12 5. Positive Instructional Planning 10 6. Communication 7 7. Foundations 5 8. Assessment 7 9. Christian Integrity 7 10. Collaboration 5 Findings: Standard 3, 4, and 5 were priorities in order of frequency

3. What did your school learn as a result of this assessment process? STAGE 1: ENTRY  Student exit interview comments indicate that the decision to intentionally identify EDU 221 as the course to focus primarily on lesson planning and implementation of the Modified Differentiated Lesson Plan focusing on adaptation of classroom instruction is an appropriate first step to preparing pre-service teachers for lesson planning and differentiated instruction.  EDU 292 (General Clinical) is a strong indicator of initial teaching ability in the classroom and an opportunity for assessment of dispositions regarding teaching and learning.  EDU 292 (General Clinical) serves as a platform for supervisor discussion with pre-service teachers about how to meet the needs of diverse learners through their lessons; therefore, the supervisor’s clinical evaluation of teaching and the pre-service teacher’s self-evaluation and reflection need to address issues of differentiation.  Students admitted with reservations need to consider an alternative degree choice and be monitored with specific check points.

19

STAGE 2: IN-PROGRESS  More partnerships continue to be needed for clinical sites.  Residency opportunities have received positive feedback from students, cooperating teachers, and administrators.  Clinical students in urban settings benefit from assistance from the Center for Urban Teaching (CfUT).  Student exit interview comments indicate some inconsistency how professors explain the Modified Differentiated Lesson Plan.  Students responded positively to management strategies incorporated in methods courses and used them in clinical settings. STAGE 3: “HIGH STAKES” TO TEACHER CANDIDACY  The close means of the primary and holistic scores of the “high stakes” portfolio indicate fair and consistent scoring.  The FTEA serves as a valuable means through which both pre-admission and admitted EDU majors learn about the portfolio process and the program requirements; their “portfolio and praxis nights” in particular have been beneficial to the students. STAGE 4: TEACHER CANDIDACY TO COMPLETION  Teacher Advisory Council topical presentations have been well received. We need to expand the list of candidates to serve on the Teacher Advisory Council.  Our teacher candidates are well-prepared and genuinely well-respected in their school buildings in which they teach.  Students, cooperating teachers, and administrators have responded positively to residency opportunities in which students complete teacher candidacy in the same classroom as their residency.  Student exit interviews reveal support for high expectations of the program. STAGE 5: GRADUATE FOLLOW-UP  Continued effort to maintain communication with graduates.  The school needs to create a means to interview graduates, cooperating teachers, and administrators for the purpose of assessing our program effectiveness.  Develop a pool of candidates from qualified graduates to fill future needs on the School of Education faculty.

4. What changes did your school make or identify to be made as a result of what you learned? GENERAL  Look for additional opportunities to highlight the special programs and activities of the teacher education majors through other communication tools (website, Sword, President’s Newsletter, Alumni eNews).  Updated website to provide a clearer summary of testing requirements and program review.  Established the student-worker position of education tutor as part of the Student Success Center.  Revise the Modified Differentiated Lesson Plan to reflect areas of emphasis in edTPA, and to ensure consistency in how the MDLP is taught.  Began process to replace a faculty position after Prof. Burow’s retirement with an emphasis on identifying people of color within our church body that meet the qualifications for the position.

20

STAGE 1: ENTRY  Continue to use the Modified Differentiated Lesson Plan to add additional questions regarding differentiation on the clinical lesson evaluation form.  Continue to assess to what extent entry and testing requirements have prohibited students from applying for teacher education. STAGE 2: IN-PROGRESS  Develop a dispositional assessment component for clinical experiences.  Follow-up on leads, graduates, and cooperating teaching seminar completers to expand the pool of clinical sites.  Continue to use the advising process to encourage students into the high-need areas of math and science, with a goal of admitting two student in each area each school year.  Use the advising process to encourage students to consider licensing in special education with the goal of admitting four students each school year.  Explore ways for students to teach two or more sequential lessons in clinical placements rather than one stand-alone lesson.  Adopted a policy that requires the Wisconsin Foundations of Reading Test (FoRT) at the completion of EDU 333 to provide for early identification of students who may need to consider a career path other than education. The policy also requires the students successfully complete FoRT before teacher candidacy.  Assess reasons why some students who do not pass FoRT on the first attempt and provide appropriate follow-up support.

STAGE 3: “HIGH STAKES” TO TEACHER CANDIDACY  Identify and develop examples of good artifacts, rationales, themes, and portfolio presentations to be shared in EDU 493 Portfolio Seminar.  Moved portfolio presentations one week earlier so they occur during exam week. STAGE 4: TEACHER CANDIDACY TO COMPLETION  Continue to assess and revise the assessment instruments used with teacher candidates.  Continue resume/WECAN/mock interview process in teacher candidacy seminar to prepare teacher candidates for the job market.  Introduce WECAN earlier in the teacher candidacy seminar schedule to allow students to identify and apply for open positions.  Revised Stage 4 portfolio to reflect DPI’s determination that edTPA is sufficient to demonstrate proficiency in Standards 1-8. STAGE 5: GRADUATE FOLLOW-UP  Develop focus groups consisting of our program completers, cooperating teachers and administrators for the purpose of assessing our program effectiveness. Note: Because of the addition of the Transition to Teaching program through the College of Adult and Graduate Studies, we developed and reviewed an Assessment Report template that includes separate sections for AGS data, decisions, and goals. We adopted that template for use beginning with the 20152016 school year.

5. How did your school address the Academic Goals of Wisconsin Lutheran College? On the exit interview questionnaire (item #15) students are asked to identify a goal area in which they had made the greatest amount of growth and the least amount of growth. 

Revised WLC Academic goals have been incorporated as part of the exit interview questionnaire.

21

6. Key Questions for the School of Education and its Measurement of Student Learning Follow-up with our graduates   

Are our graduates being gainfully employed upon completion of their studies at WLC? (Graduate employment at nearly 100 %) How do we as the School of Teacher Education track employment verification of our graduates? (LAP and alumni director) How can we communicate/publish employment rate to show those who are employed in private schools in addition to those identified with DPI’s ELO system for tracking graduate employment?

STAGE 1: ENTRY  Continue to use the advising process to encourage students into the high-need areas of math and science, with a goal of admitting two students in each area each school year.  Continue to use the advising process to encourage students to consider licensure in special education, with a goal of admitting four students each school year. STAGE 2: IN-PROGRESS  More partnerships continue to be needed for clinical sites.  Residency opportunities have received positive feedback from students, cooperating teachers, and administrators.  Clinical students in urban settings benefit from assistance from the Center for Urban Teaching (CfUT). STAGE 3: “HIGH STAKES” TO TEACHER CANDIDACY  The close means of the primary and holistic scores of the “high stakes” portfolio indicate fair and consistent scoring.  The FTEA serves as a valuable means through which both pre-admission and admitted EDU majors learn about the portfolio process and the program requirements; their “portfolio and praxis nights” in particular have been beneficial to the students. STAGE 4: TEACHER CANDIDACY TO COMPLETION  Teacher Advisory Council topical presentations have been well received. We need to expand the list of candidates to serve on the Teacher Advisory Council. We’ve recognized early educator and mentor teacher award winners at the Teacher Advisory Council and invited them to be members of the group.  Our teacher candidates are well-prepared and genuinely well-respected in their school buildings in which they teach.  Students, cooperating teachers, and administrators have responded positively to residency opportunities in which students complete teacher candidacy in the same classroom as their residency.  Student exit interviews reveal support for high expectations of the program. STAGE 5: GRADUATE FOLLOW-UP  Continued effort to maintain communication with graduates.  The school needs to create a means to interview graduates, cooperating teachers, and administrators for the purpose of assessing our program effectiveness.  Develop a pool of candidates from qualified graduates to fill future needs on the School of Education faculty.

22

Growing School of Teacher Education   

How can we as a school improve our supervisory skills? How can we support an organized sequence for faculty members to attain terminal degrees? Identify adjunct faculty to teach select special education courses.

Assessment   

Are our teacher candidates properly prepared to assess student learning in a variety of teaching/learning contexts? Does the School of Education clearly communicate the connection between teacher disposition and success in classroom and school settings? How does the School of Education integrate classroom management strategies in methods courses in addition to Teach Like a Champion in EDU 324?

23

PART II - Core Questions 3 & 4 3. What progress have you made in implementing edTPA in your initial teacher preparation program? Training and implementation: 

  

Three students participated in edTPA with vouchers distributed by DPI. (Scores: fall 14 -41, spring 15 – 49, 59). These results helped us establish a baseline for our students and provided “real-life” data on what scorers expect in the edTPA rubrics. Students in EDU 431 completed a mock-edTPA in preparation for the fall 2015 teacher candidacy session. The School of Education conducted a two-day workshop in August to familiarize faculty with the edTPA process. The School of Education adjusted the teacher-candidacy seminar to include elements of edTPA in the regular sessions and added two workshop days during teacher candidacy.

Questions and actions for faculty consideration:   

Define how we will build local scoring into the program review process. We will need to incorporate the edTPA process of planning, instruction, and assessment (including recording) in student clinical placements. We will need to prepare schools that host students for clinicals and teacher candidacy with the features (including recording) of edTPA.

4. What technical assistance could DPI provide your campus?

24