The Alumni Research Project collected a small amount of data and the information was used to make adjustments to faculty teaching practice. One such adjustment was implementing more project based learning in EDU course and another was making needed adjustments to clinical field hours and the lesson plan rubric used to assess teacher candidates learning. We will continue this practice and monitoring of the data. Since some of the adjustments were recently implemented, we will have to use the data from this year as a benchmark and compare it to the data over the next cycle.
After further review of last year's data, we have also made some personal changes. We created and filled a new full time position, The Coordinator of Clinical Placement & Student Teaching. We created and filled, The Director of Data & Assessment position, and Assistant Professor of Education. Both the Coordinator of Clinical Placement & Student Teaching and Director of Data and Assessment position have been vital in enhancing our program.
Measures are widely shared. All information about the program can be found either on our website or the Educational Professional Standards Boards website. We share this information with the Teacher Education Council which includes faculty and staff from Kentucky State University, teachers, and administrators from surrounding districts, and students. In short, all stakeholder have access to each aspect of our program and are able to make suggestions for improvement on any aspect of our program.
Aside from the quarterly meetings with the TEP, we were afforded insight from a consultant as well. The consulting organization was able to meet with faculty, staff, students, administrator, alumni, and teachers in the district. The results from the feedback will be disused and strategically implemented.
Although our numbers are small, we have a 100% employment rate for this cohort of graduates. We are glad to continue the work of enhancing a program to better support the Commonwealth and nation.
Section 5. Areas for Improvement, Weaknesses, and/or Stipulations
Summarize EPP activities and the outcomes of those activities as they relate to correcting the areas cited in the last Accreditation Action/Decision Report.
Section 6. Continuous Improvement
CAEP Standard 5
The provider maintains a quality assurance system comprised of valid data from multiple measures, including evidence of candidates' and completers' positive impact on P-12 student learning and development. The provider supports continuous improvement that is sustained and evidence-based, and that evaluates the effectiveness of its completers. The provider uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhance program elements and capacity, and test innovations to improve completers' impact on P-12 student learning and development.
EP Standard 5, Component 5.3
The provider regularly and systematically assesses performance against its goals and relevant standards, tracks results over time, tests innovations and the effects of selection criteria on subsequent progress and completion, and uses results to improve program elements and processes.
6.1 Summarize any data-driven EPP-wide or programmatic modifications, innovations, or changes planned, worked on, or completed in the last academic year. This is an opportunity to share targeted continuous improvement efforts your EPP is proud of. Focus on one to three major efforts the EPP made and the relationship among data examined, changes, and studying the results of those changes.
Describe how the EPP regularly and systematically assessed its performance against its goals or the CAEP standards.
What innovations or changes did the EPP implement as a result of that review?
How are progress and results tracked? How will the EPP know the degree to which changes are improvements?
The following questions were created from the March 2016 handbook for initial-level programs sufficiency criteria for standard 5, component 5.3 and may be helpful in cataloguing continuous improvement.
What quality assurance system data did the provider review?
What patterns across preparation programs (both strengths and weaknesses) did the provider identify?
How did the provider use data/evidence for continuous improvement?
How did the provider test innovations?
What specific examples show that changes and program modifications can be linked back to evidence/data?
How did the provider document explicit investigation of selection criteria used for Standard 3 in relation to candidate progress and completion?
How did the provider document that data-driven changes are ongoing and based on systematic assessment of performance, and/or that innovations result in overall positive trends of improvement for EPPs, their candidates, and P-12 students?
The following thoughts are derived from the September 2017 handbook for advanced-level programs
The following thoughts are derived from the September 2017 Handbook for advanced-level programs How was stakeholders' feedback and input sought and incorporated into the evaluation, research, and decision-making activities?