College of Education & Organizational Leadership

University of LaVerne

College of Education & Organizational Leadership

Commission on Teacher Credentialing

Biennial Report 2010

Credential Programs: Education Specialists: Mild-Moderate, Level One, Level Two

I. Credential Program Specific Information’s Contextual Information

The Special Education program offers a Mild-Moderate Educational Specialist Level One for traditional candidates and for those on an Intern Credential. It also currently offers the Level Two Credential.Level One and Level Two credentials are currently being re-designedto address the 2010 CCTC standards. With CCTCapproval, the new Educational Specialist Preliminary credential is planned to be implemented in fall 2011 and the university’s response to the Clear Credential Standards will be implemented by fall 2012.The Autism Authorization will be attached to the Preliminary and a new Early Childhood credential is also in the process of being completed and submitted. These two items are addressed in this portion of the report as opposed to Section Fourof this report to emphasize that the current program is undergoing standards-based shifts. Information about the program should be considered from the point of view that at this time some information may be sparse as energy in this three-faculty program has been redirected to meeting the requirements of planning for the new programs.

Candidates can attach a Masterof Science in Special Education to either Level One or Level Two by adding additional courses. The Masterof Science in Special Education was revised in 2008.

The Level One Credential is comprised of four General Teacher Education courses and one five week general education student teaching. Educational Specialist candidates are exposed to reading instruction, English as a second language instruction, general education standards and lesson planning with their general education peers. Educational Specialists are responsible for all requirements in these courses including Teacher Performance Assessments (TPA) 1, 2 and 3. They are also required to pass the Reading Instruction Competency Assessment (RICA). The University of La Verne Educational Specialists are in a quasi blended program; with just a few additional courses and field work candidates can receive both credentials, and have had these shared experiences for years prior to the new CCTC requirements of2010.

The specific Educational Specialist Level One training includes four specialized courses in diversity, communication and collaboration (SPED 405), assessment (SPED 406), caseload management and planning (SPED 407) and specialized instruction and behavior support (SPED 408). Level One culminates in a ten week student teaching experience that emphasizes the demonstration of mastery instructional practices, professional reflection, and analysis and use of technology, and the creationof a professional portfolio (SPED 409). Level One also includes an in-depth course designed by special education program faculty and shared by several other program (General Education, Child Life, Early Childhood and as a general elective) (SPED 457). This is of interest because it represents the idea of reversed mainstreaming where non special education professionals seek expertise and inclusion from special education personnel. This courseprovides opportunities for the candidates in special education to practice listening and communicating with non special education peers; an ability they will need in their teaching practice. In addition to the pre-service training previously described in Level One,candidates also present a half day conference for the community on special education issues. They are trained to plan and conduct specialized meetings, in-services, and workshops through the experiences in the presentation and diversity in communication course (SPED 405).

Level I candidates may also apply for an internship credential. The internship program is a two year program with pre-requisites that include, among specific state and university pre-requisites, two specific courses; one in special education, and one in cultural-linguistic diversity and secondlanguage learner instructional strategies. Students are contracted to teach special education with school districts who partner with the university and provide appropriate and ongoing support personnel for the intern candidate. The internship program has the enhanced component requiring added training in working with second language learners, as well as more time communicating and learning from on-site mentors. Interns take the same courses and follow the same course sequence as non-intern (traditional) teacher candidates, with one additional course (intern seminar, SPED 459), which is a scholarship course for interns only.

Level Two is comprised of five core seminars in which candidates pursue specific individual professional goals within the course context of legal issues ( SPED 504), advanced behavior issues (SPED 505),advanced assessment(SPED 506), advanced curriculum issues(SPED 507) and life cycle issues(SPED 508). The candidates’ professional goals are determined at the beginning of each seminar. In each seminar the goals from planning meetings at the beginning of Level Two (SPED 503) are reviewed for relevancy in the seminar and the culminating projects in the seminars are reflective of these goals. The candidates’ projects also include requirements for discussion with appropriate community members identified as stakeholders in the particular issues raised in the seminar. These stakeholders can be district personnel, parents, students and outside experts. At the end of Level Two candidates present their Level Two experience to invitees who may also have been stakeholders involved in the various projects. The district support providers are asked to attend and are asked to complete an evaluation surveyrelative to the preparation of the candidate with whom they worked.

The Educational Specialist candidates at the University of LaVerne include Caucasians, Africans Americans, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, and Asians.

The Educational Specialists programs are offered at two campuses: the mainLaVerne campus and the Bakersfield campus. There are two full time tenured faculty and one administer-faculty person,who primarily supports the Bakersfield campus.

General Program Information

Level I / Number of candidates active in the program (fall 2008 to spring 2010) / Number of Candidates who completed the program (fall 2008 to spring 2010) / Number of Candidates who filed a credential application (fall 2008 to spring 2010)
Main Campus / 52 / 23 / 17
RCA (Bakersfield) / 32 / 15 / 15
Total / 84 / 38 / 32
Level II / Number of candidates active in the program (fall 2008 to spring 2010) / Number of Candidates who completed the program (fall 2008 to spring 2010) / Number of Candidates who filed a credential application (fall 2008 to spring 2010)
Main Campus / 22 / 11 / 7
RCA (Bakersfield) / 17 / 1 / 0
Total / 39 / 12 / 7

Changes Since Commission Approval of Current Program

The following significant changes have been made since the commission approved the current document:

• Unit and content shifts in Level One courses SPED 405, 406,407 and 408. Based upon student and instructor feedback and needed emphasis, 405 and 405p, and 406/406p each became one 3 unit course, rather than a 3 unit seminar and a 1 unit practicum (p) course.Sped 407 and 407p became one 3 unit course, as well. These changes allowed 408 to change from a one unit practicum to a full 3 unit course with an equal emphasis in academics and behavior support, without adding additional unit requirements to the Level I program;
• Additions and changes to the general educationcourses TPA’s;
• Addition of dispositions activity to each course;
• Addition of technology component to each course;
• Revision of Student Teaching Handbook, and portfolio requirement;
• Change of the Knowledge Key assessment in Level One from the Introduction to Special Education Survey (SPED 457)course to the Academic and Behavior course,(SPED 408). In this way the program can get a better gaugeon the in-depth knowledge of the candidates in the specifics of academics and behavior support;
• Change in Masters structure;
• Recent addition of an admissions coordinator for Special Education due to growth of program and work load of faculty;
• Special Education candidates full participation in the admissions writing assessment previously used by the Teacher Education programs;
• Writing support sessions provided several times a semester;
• End of year student social, planning meeting and dispositions activities;
• Several monthly information sessions for orientation about the programs;
• Systematic introduction of Key Assessments for all Key Assessment courses which includes an extension of full implementation from the previously planned 12/09 to 12/10;
• Task Stream submission of each key assessment;
• Additional pre-requisite of completion of TPA 1 for intern eligibility
• Utilizing Level II candidates as mentors for Level I candidates at specific times during the program;
• Beginning Level II candidates expected attendance at the culminating event in the Level II program;
• Part time admissions coordinator to assist with special education growth;

2008 Biennial Report
Changes since the last Commission Approval of Current Program / 2010 Biennial Report
Current Status
Addition of specific course in specialized behavior and instructional techniques / This course, SPED 408 has had very good reviews. In past evaluations candidates have indicated that they wanted more strategies and techniques. The course does this and evaluations have been good.
Addition and modification of TPA’s per Teacher Education changes / Candidates are informed that they will take all TPA’s in the education courses they take and that there are gates in place to stop their progress if these are not passed.
Structural changes to course syllabi and reorganization of course goals / All courses have been updated with reference to NCATE information and Disposition activities as well as supportive information about the key assessments.
Revised student teaching handbook / To reflect more critical thinking by candidates
Addition of key assessment rubrics throughout both credentials / Key assessments have been fully implemented in most courses. Sped 504 and 507 will be implemented Fall 2010
Revised and updated special education course elements to full CLAD embedded approval / All current students have CLAD embedded .Currently districts ask for verification of CLAD
Proposal developed to restructure the sequence of courses, numbers of courses for anticipation of the new / Students have been using the new sequence since 2008

II. Candidates Assessment/Performance & Program Effectiveness Information

Table 1: Summary of Transition Point 1: Admission Data (For students active from Fall 2007 to Spring 2010)

Main Campus and RCA combined / Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Average of Writing Score / Count of Writing Score / Average of WW1 / Count of WW1 / Average of WW2 / Count of WW2
2007-2008 / 3.181 / 25 / 2.882 / 17 / 3 / 1
2008-2009 / 3.470 / 26 / 2.75 / 16 / 3 / 2
2009-2010 / 3.209 / 28 / 2.931 / 29 / 3 / 1
Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Average of Writing Score / Count of Writing Score / Average of WW1 / Count of WW1 / Average of WW2 / Count of WW2
Main
2007-2008 / 3.141 / 20 / 3 / 16 / 3 / 1
2008-2009 / 3.341 / 11 / 3 / 8 / 3 / 1
2009-2010 / 3.179 / 19 / 3 / 21
RCA
2007-2008 / 3.34 / 5 / 1 / 1
2008-2009 / 3.564 / 15 / 2.5 / 8 / 3 / 1
2009-2010 / 3.271 / 9 / 2.75 / 8 / 3 / 1

• yellow highlights represent statistically significant differences

Table 2: Summary of Key Assessments and Associated Course Grades (For courses completed from Fall 2008 to Spring 2010)

Level I Key Assessment 1 (Knowledge) & Key Assessment 2 (Planning)

Main Campus and RCA combined / Average of Grade 408 / Count of Grade 408 / Average of Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge (408) / Count of Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge (408) / Average of Grade 407 / Count of Grade 407 / Average of Key Assessment 2 - Planning (407) / Count of Key Assessment 2 - Planning (407)
2008-2009 / #DIV/0! / 4 / 3.584 / 19
2009-2010 / 3.973 / 11 / 3.904 / 25 / 3.852174 / 23
Average of Grade 408 / Count of Grade 408 / Average of Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge (408) / Count of Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge (408) / Average of Grade 407 / Count of Grade 407 / Average of Key Assessment 2 - Planning (407) / Count of Key Assessment 2 - Planning (407)
Main
2008-2009 / #DIV/0! / 4 / 3.469 / 13
2009-2010 / 3.95 / 6 / 3.904 / 25 / 3.852 / 23
RCA
2008-2009 / 3.833 / 6
2009-2010 / 4 / 5

• yellow highlights represent statistically significant differences

Table 2 (Cont) Level I Key Assessment 3 (Assessment) & Key Assessment 4 (Diversity)

Main Campus and RCA combined / Average of Grade 406 / Count of Grade 406 / Average of Key Assessment 3 - Assessment (406) / Count of Key Assessment 3 - Assessment (406) / Average of Grade 405 / Count of Grade 405 / Average of Key Assessment 4 - Diversity (405) / Count of Key Assessment 4 - Diversity (405)
2008-2009 / 3.568 / 19 / 3.896 / 27
2009-2010 / 3.712 / 25 / 3.493 / 28 / 3.805 / 19 / 3.56 / 14
Average of Grade 406 / Count of Grade 406 / Average of Key Assessment 3 - Assessment (406) / Count of Key Assessment 3 - Assessment (406) / Average of Grade 405 / Count of Grade 405 / Average of Key Assessment 4 - Diversity (405) / Count of Key Assessment 4 - Diversity (405)
Main
2008-2009 / 3.309 / 11 / 3.9 / 13
2009-2010 / 3.671 / 14 / 3.556 / 18 / 3.805 / 19 / 3.56 / 14
RCA
2008-2009 / 3.925 / 8 / 3.893 / 14
2009-2010 / 3.764 / 11 / 3.38 / 10

Table 2 (Cont) Level I Key Assessment 5 (Technology)

Main Campus and RCA combined / Count of Grade 409 / Average of Key Assessment 5 - Technology (409) / Count of Key Assessment 5 - Technology (409)
2008-2009 / 15 / 3.8 / 1
2009-2010 / 14 / 3.744 / 18
Count of Grade 409 / Average of Key Assessment 5 - Technology (409) / Count of Key Assessment 5 - Technology (409)
Main
2008-2009 / 8 / 3.8 / 1
2009-2010 / 8 / 3.8 / 10
RCA
2008-2009 / 7
2009-2010 / 6 / 3.675 / 8

Level II Key Assessment 1 (Knowledge) & Key Assessment 2 (Planning)

Main Campus and RCA combined / Average of Grade 504 / Count of Grade 504 / Average of Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge(504) / Count of Key Assessment 1 – Knowledge(504) / Average of Grade 505 / Count of Grade 505 / Average of Key Assessment 2 - Planning(505) / Count of Key Assessment 2 - Planning(505)
2008-2009 / 4 / 6 / 3.8 / 5
2009-2010 / 3.98 / 15 / 3.818 / 17 / 3.543 / 7
Average of Grade 504 / Count of Grade 504 / Average of Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge504) / Count of Key Assessment 1 - Knowledge(504) / Average of Grade 505 / Count of Grade 505 / Average of Key Assessment 2 - Planning(505) / Count of Key Assessment 2 - Planning(505)
Main
2008-2009 / 4 / 3 / 3.8 / 5
2009-2010 / 4 / 6 / 3.82 / 10 / 3.543 / 7
RCA
2008-2009 / 4 / 3
2009-2010 / 3.967 / 9 / 3.814 / 7

Table 2 (Cont) Level II Key Assessment 3 (Assessment) & Key Assessment 4 (Diversity)

Main Campus and RCA combined / Average of Grade 506 / Count of Grade 506 / Average of Key Assessment 3 - Assessment(506) / Count of Key Assessment 3 - Assessment(506) / Average of Grade 507 / Count of Grade 507 / Average of Key Assessment 4 - Diversity(507) / Count of Key Assessment 4 - Diversity(507)
2008-2009 / 3.7 / 1 / 3.667 / 3
2009-2010 / 3.813 / 8 / 3.4 / 8 / 3.825 / 4 / 3.52 / 5
Average of Grade 506 / Count of Grade 506 / Average of Key Assessment 3 - Assessment(506) / Count of Key Assessment 3 - Assessment(506) / Average of Grade 507 / Count of Grade 507 / Average of Key Assessment 4 - Diversity(507) / Count of Key Assessment 4 - Diversity(507)
Main
2008-2009 / 3.667 / 3
2009-2010 / 3.82 / 5 / 3.52 / 5
RCA
2008-2009 / 3.7 / 1
2009-2010 / 3.8 / 3 / 3.2 / 3 / 3.825 / 4 / 3.52 / 5

Table 2 (Cont) Level II Key Assessment 5 (Technology)

Main Campus and RCA combined / Average of Grade 509 / Count of Grade 509 / Average of Key Assessment 5 - Technology(509) / Count of Key Assessment 5 - Technology(509)
2008-2009 / 3.475 / 4
2009-2010 / 4 / 8 / 3.8 / 7
Average of Grade 509 / Count of Grade 509 / Average of Key Assessment 5 - Technology(509) / Count of Key Assessment 5 - Technology(509)
Main
2008-2009 / 3.475 / 4
2009-2010 / 4 / 6 / 3.72 / 5
RCA
2008-2009
2009-2010 / 4 / 2 / 4 / 2

1

Table 3: Enrollment Profile (Data inclusive of 2007-2008 through 2009-2010)

Growth of Special Education Program
(Based on new students entering the Program)
Main / RCA / Main & RCA Combined
CRED / MED / MS / Total / CRED / MED / MS / NONDEG / Total / CRED / MED / MS / NONDEG / Total
2007-2008 / 21 / 1 / 1 / 23 / 5 / 1 / 6 / 26 / 1 / 2 / 29
2008-2009 / 12 / 1 / 1 / 14 / 13 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 17 / 25 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 32
2009-2010 / 18 / 1 / 9 / 28 / 9 / 1 / 10 / 27 / 1 / 10 / 38
Grand Total / 51 / 3 / 11 / 65 / 27 / 2 / 3 / 1 / 33 / 78 / 5 / 14 / 1 / 99

• Numbers are based on acceptance dates

Table 3 (cont): Level I Completers (Based on Completion of SPED 409*)

Fall 2007 / Spring 2008 / Fall 2008
Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Count of Term Enrolled 409 / Average of Level 1 Duration / Count of Level 1 Duration / Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Count of Term Enrolled 409 / Average of Level 1 Duration / Count of Level 1 Duration / Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Count of Term Enrolled 409 / Average of Level 1 Duration / Count of Level 1 Duration
Main Total / 2.58 / 2 / 2 / 456.5 / 2 / 2.859 / 8 / 8 / 1060.5 / 6 / 2.795 / 4 / 5 / 877 / 3
CRED / 2.58 / 2 / 2 / 456.5 / 2 / 2.739 / 7 / 7 / 1165.6 / 5 / 2.863 / 3 / 4 / 877 / 3
MED
MS / 3.7 / 1 / 1 / 535 / 1 / 2.59 / 1 / 1
Bakersfield (RCA) Total / 3.96 / 1 / 2 / 630 / 1 / 3.76 / 1 / 1 / 411 / 1 / 3.46 / 5 / 7 / 717 / 2
CRED / 3.96 / 1 / 2 / 630 / 1 / 3.76 / 1 / 1 / 411 / 1 / 3.46 / 5 / 6 / 717 / 2
MED / 1
MS
Grand Total / 3.04 / 3 / 4 / 514.33 / 3 / 2.959 / 9 / 9 / 967.71 / 7 / 3.164 / 9 / 12 / 813 / 5

* Assuming successful completion of the course

• Degree codes are based on the data in Banner (CEOL’s student data management system)

Table 3 (cont): Level I Completers (Based on Completion of SPED 409*)

Spring 2009 / Fall 2009 / Spring 2010
Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Count of Term Enrolled 409 / Average of Level 1 Duration / Count of Level 1 Duration / Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Count of Term Enrolled 409 / Average of Level 1 Duration / Count of Level 1 Duration / Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Count of Term Enrolled 409 / Average of Level 1 Duration / Count of Level 1 Duration
Main Total / 3.015 / 4 / 4 / 916.5 / 4 / 3.033 / 3 / 5 / 1526.2 / 5 / 3.458 / 6 / 8 / 832.875 / 8
CRED / 3.027 / 3 / 3 / 923.667 / 3 / 2.9 / 1 / 3 / 1450.667 / 3 / 3.41 / 5 / 7 / 909.429 / 7
MED / 3.1 / 2 / 2 / 1639.5 / 2
MS / 2.98 / 1 / 1 / 895 / 1 / 3.7 / 1 / 1 / 297 / 1
Bakersfield (RCA) Total / 3.63 / 1 / 1 / 1487 / 1 / 3.733 / 7 / 7 / 311.333 / 3 / 3.54 / 1 / 1 / 757 / 1
CRED / 3.63 / 1 / 1 / 1487 / 1 / 3.833 / 6 / 6 / 311.333 / 3
MED / 3.54 / 1 / 1 / 757 / 1
MS / 3.13 / 1 / 1
Grand Total / 3.138 / 5 / 5 / 1030.6 / 5 / 3.523 / 10 / 12 / 1070.625 / 8 / 3.47 / 7 / 9 / 824.444 / 9

Table 3 (cont): Level II Completers (Based on Completion of SPED 509*)

Fall 2007 / Spring 2008 / Fall 2008
Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Count of Term Enrolled 509 / Average of Level II Duration / Count of Level II Duration / Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Count of Term Enrolled 509 / Average of Level II Duration / Count of Level II Duration / Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Count of Term Enrolled 509 / Average of Level II Duration / Count of Level II Duration
Main / 3.493 / 4 / 4 / 932.5 / 2 / 2.9725 / 4 / 4 / 1420.8 / 4 / 3.54 / 1 / 1 / 1470 / 1
CRED / 3.285 / 2 / 2 / 547 / 1 / 2.67 / 1 / 1 / 1813 / 1 / 3.54 / 1 / 1 / 1470 / 1
MS / 3.7 / 2 / 2 / 1318 / 1 / 3.073 / 3 / 3 / 1290 / 3
RCA
CRED
MS
Grand Total / 3.493 / 4 / 4 / 932.5 / 2 / 2.973 / 4 / 4 / 1420.8 / 4 / 3.54 / 1 / 1 / 1470 / 1

* Assuming successful completion of the course

Table 3 (cont): Level II Completers (Based on Completion of SPED 509*)

Spring 2009 / Fall 2009 / Spring 2010
Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Count of Term Enrolled 509 / Average of Level II Duration / Count of Level II Duration / Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Count of Term Enrolled 509 / Average of Level II Duration / Count of Level II Duration / Average of GPA / Count of GPA / Count of Term Enrolled 509 / Average of Level II Duration / Count of Level II Duration
Main / 3.77 / 1 / 3 / 1149 / 3 / 2.877 / 6 / 6 / 1119 / 6
CRED / 3.77 / 1 / 2 / 1193.5 / 2 / 2.743 / 4 / 4 / 1286.5 / 4
MS / 1 / 1060 / 1 / 3.145 / 2 / 2 / 784 / 2
RCA / 2
CRED / 1
MS / 1
Grand Total / 3.77 / 1 / 3 / 1149 / 3 / 2.87667 / 6 / 8 / 1119 / 6

• Degree codes are based on the data in Banner (CEOL’s student data management system)

Table 4: Post Program Data (Conducted by Center for Teacher Quality, Sacramento, California)

Table 4-A
General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs
as Evaluated by the Employment Supervisors of the Programs' First-Year Teaching Graduates
2008-2009
Evaluation Questions Answered by the Special Education Employment Supervisors of Teaching Graduates of Education Specialist Programs: / This University: / Eight Participating Universities:
Education Specialist Programs / Education Specialist Programs
Based on your observations of and conferences with this teacher (who was named in the survey), please assess how well s/he was prepared to . . . / -1 / -2 / -3 / -4 / -5 / -6 / -7 / -8 / -9 / -10
N / Well or Adequately Prepared / Somewhat or Not Prepared / Mean / SD / N / Well or Adequately Prepared / Somewhat or Not Prepared / Mean / SD
12 / . . . understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools. / 2 / 100% / 0% / 2.5 / 0.71 / 32 / 78% / 22% / 2.16 / 0.77
13 / . . . understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning. / 2 / 100% / 0% / 3 / 0 / 31 / 84% / 16% / 2.19 / 0.7
14 / . . . learn about students’ interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly. / 2 / 100% / 0% / 3 / 0 / 32 / 78% / 22% / 2.06 / 0.8
15 / . . . get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior. / 2 / 100% / 0% / 2.5 / 0.71 / 32 / 75% / 25% / 2 / 0.8
16 / . . . use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects. / 1 / 100% / 0% / 3 / . / 29 / 72% / 28% / 1.97 / 0.73
17 / . . . use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records. / 2 / 100% / 0% / 2.5 / 0.71 / 32 / 91% / 9% / 2.22 / 0.71
18 / . . . monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods. / 2 / 100% / 0% / 2.5 / 0.71 / 31 / 84% / 16% / 2.16 / 0.69
19 / . . . assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores. / 2 / 100% / 0% / 2.5 / 0.71 / 30 / 83% / 17% / 2.1 / 0.66
20 / . . . assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math. / 1 / 100% / 0% / 3 / . / 30 / 73% / 27% / 2.03 / 0.76
21 / . . . adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn. / 2 / 50% / 50% / 2 / 1.41 / 32 / 63% / 38% / 1.84 / 0.85
22 / . . . adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students. / 2 / 100% / 0% / 3 / 0 / 32 / 84% / 16% / 2.19 / 0.69
23 / . . . use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions. / 2 / 100% / 0% / 2.5 / 0.71 / 31 / 84% / 16% / 2.13 / 0.76
24 / . . . know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families. / 2 / 50% / 50% / 2 / 1.41 / 30 / 73% / 27% / 2.03 / 0.85
Table 4-B
General Concepts and Practices of Teaching: The Effectiveness of Education Specialist Level I Credential Programs
as Evaluated by thePrograms' First-Year Teaching Graduates While They Taught in Special Education
2008-2009
Evaluation Questions Answered by Special Education Teachers Who Completed Education Specialist Credential Programs: / This University: / Eight Participating Universities:
Education Specialist Programs / Education Specialist Programs
Once you finished your credential program , and when you were a special ed. teacher, how well prepared were you to . . . / -1 / -2 / -3 / -4 / -5 / -6 / -7 / -8 / -9 / -10
N / Well or Adequately Prepared / Somewhat or Not Prepared / Mean / SD / N / Well or Adequately Prepared / Somewhat or Not Prepared / Mean / SD
12 / . . . understand child development, human learning and the purposes of schools. / 4 / 100% / 0% / 2.75 / 0.5 / 73 / 88% / 12% / 2.3 / 0.72
13 / . . . understand how personal, family & community conditions may affect learning. / 4 / 100% / 0% / 2.75 / 0.5 / 73 / 82% / 18% / 2.26 / 0.75
14 / . . . learn about students’ interests and motivations, and how to teach accordingly. / 4 / 100% / 0% / 3 / 0 / 73 / 79% / 21% / 2.26 / 0.78
15 / . . . get students involved in engaging activities and to sustain on-task behavior. / 4 / 100% / 0% / 3 / 0 / 72 / 78% / 22% / 2.18 / 0.81
16 / . . . use computer-based applications to help students learn curriculum subjects. / 4 / 75% / 25% / 2.25 / 0.96 / 71 / 66% / 34% / 1.89 / 0.89
17 / . . . use computer-based technology in class activities and to keep class records. / 4 / 75% / 25% / 1.75 / 0.5 / 71 / 70% / 30% / 1.97 / 0.89
18 / . . . monitor student progress by using formal and informal assessment methods. / 4 / 75% / 25% / 2.5 / 1 / 72 / 78% / 22% / 2.15 / 0.9
19 / . . . assess pupil progress by analyzing a variety of evidence including test scores. / 4 / 100% / 0% / 2.75 / 0.5 / 72 / 79% / 21% / 2.08 / 0.88
20 / . . . assist individual students in areas of their instructional needs in reading/math. / 4 / 100% / 0% / 2.75 / 0.5 / 73 / 82% / 18% / 2.11 / 0.83
21 / . . . adjust teaching strategies so all pupils have chances to understand and learn. / 4 / 100% / 0% / 2.75 / 0.5 / 73 / 81% / 19% / 2.3 / 0.81
22 / . . . adhere to principles of educational equity in the teaching of all students. / 4 / 100% / 0% / 2.75 / 0.5 / 73 / 86% / 14% / 2.32 / 0.81
23 / . . . use class time efficiently by relying on daily routines and planned transitions. / 4 / 100% / 0% / 3 / 0 / 73 / 81% / 19% / 2.29 / 0.94
24 / . . . know about resources in the school & community for at-risk students/families. / 4 / 100% / 0% / 2.5 / 0.58 / 71 / 65% / 35% / 1.83 / 1.04

1