===== PAGE 1 =====

2020 EPP Annual Report

CAEP ID: 10174	AACTE SID: 1730
Institution: Kentucky State University
Unit: School of Education

### Section 1. EPP Profile After reviewing and/or updating the Educator Preparation Provider's (EPP's) profile in AIMS, check the box to indicate that the information available is accurate. 1.1 In AIMS, the following information is current and accurate...

	Agree	Disagree
1.1.1 Contact person	☑	☐
1.1.2 EPP characteristics	☑	☐
1.1.3 Program listings	☑	☐

1.2 [For EPP seeking Continuing CAEP Accreditationâ€" applies to CAEP eligible EPPs] Please provide a link to your webpage that demonstrates accurate representation of your Initial Licensure and/or Advanced Level programs as reviewed and accredited by CAEP (NCATE or TEAC). ### Section 2. Program Completers 2.1 How many candidates completed programs that prepared them to work in preschool through grade 12 settings during Academic Year 2018-2019? Enter a numeric value for each textbox. 2.1.1 Number of completers in programs leading to initial teacher certification or licensure1 2.1.2 Number of completers in advanced programs or programs leading to a degree, endorsement, or some other credential that prepares the holder to serve in P-12 schools (Do not include those completers counted above.)2

Total number of program completers 101 For a description of the scope for Initial-Licensure Programs, see Policy 3.01 in the Accreditation Policy Manual2 For a description of the scope for Advanced-Level Programs, see Policy 3.02 in the Accreditation Policy Manual ### Section 3. Substantive Changes Have any of the following substantive changes occurred at your educator preparation provider or institution/organization during the 2018-2019 academic year? 3.1 Changes in the established mission or objectives of the institution/organization or the EPP

3.2 Any change in the legal status, form of control, or ownership of the EPP.

3.3 The addition of programs of study at a degree or credential level different from those that were offered when most recently accredited

3.4 The addition of courses or programs that represent a significant departure, in terms of either content or delivery, from those that were offered when most recently accredited

3.5 A contract with other providers for direct instructional services, including any teach-out agreements

3.5 A contract with other providers for direct instructional services, including any teach-out agreements ===== PAGE 2 =====

Any change that means the EPP no longer satisfies accreditation standards or requirements:

3.6 Change in regional accreditation status

3.7 Change in state program approval

### Section 4. Display of Annual Reporting Measures

Annual Reporting Measures (CAEP Component 5.4 \| A.5.4)
Impact Measures (CAEP Standard 4)	Outcome Measures
1. Impact on P-12 learning and development (Component 4.1)	5. Graduation Rates (initial & advanced levels)
2. Indicators of teaching effectiveness (Component 4.2)	6. Ability of completers to meet licensing (certification) and any additional state requirements; Title II (initial & advanced levels)
3. Satisfaction of employers and employment milestones (Component 4.3 \| A.4.1)	7. Ability of completers to be hired in education positions for which they have prepared (initial & advanced levels)
4. Satisfaction of completers (Component 4.4 \| A.4.2)	8. Student loan default rates and other consumer information (initial & advanced levels)

4.1 Provide a link or links that demonstrate data relevant to each of the Annual Reporting Measures are public-friendly and prominently displayed on the educator preparation provider's website.

Link:

https://wd.kyepsb.net/epsb.webapps/admissionsexit/ApprovedPrograms/ApprovedPrgReport.aspx?pOrgId=6544&pRoute=&pType=&pType=&pCat=

Description of data accessible via link:

Division of Educator Preparation, Assessment, and Internship Guest access The Division of Educator Preparation, Assessment, and Internship ensures that preparation programs for Kentucky educators meet established standards of quality. It facilitates the accreditation process, reviews programs and continuous assessment materials, and provides technical assistance for program improvement. This division maintains the array of assessments required for teacher and administrator certification. It oversees the Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP) and the Kentucky Principal Internship Program (KPIP), designed to provide assistance to new teachers and principals.

Tag the Annual Reporting Measure(s) represented in the link above to the appropriate preparation level(s) (initial and/or advanced, as offered by the EPP) and corresponding measure number.

Level \ Annual Reporting Measure	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.
Initial-Licensure Programs	☑	☑	☑	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐
Advanced-Level Programs			☐	☐	☐	☐	☐	☐

4.2 Summarize data and trends from the data linked above, reflecting on the prompts below. What has the provider learned from reviewing its Annual Reporting Measures over the past three years? Discuss any emerging, long-term, expected, or unexpected trends? Discuss any programmatic/provider-wide changes being planned as a result of these data? Are benchmarks available for comparison? Are measures widely shared? How? With whom? In reviewing the Annual Reporting Measures over the last three years, we noticed similar results. As an EPP we maintain the exit of qualified candidates, yet we learned we need to continue the enhancement of our recruiting and retention efforts. Our programs number and completers decreased, yet this is in step with the national decrease in new teacher candidates. Our EPP program along with other offices on campus such as the Office of Institutional Research, The B.R.E.D.S Office for Enrollment and Scholarship, and Career Services and Professional Development are working tirelessly to recruit and retain more teaching candidates. ===== PAGE 3 ===== 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? ===== PAGE 4 =====

We regularly assess our performance. For initial preparation programs, KSU EPP has identified ten key assessments to assure quality of our program. The key assessments areas and name for our quality assurance system are listed below. 1. Content Assessment, Praxis II 2. Other Content Assessment, Major GPA & PRAXIS I 3. Assessment of Professional Capabilities, Praxis PLT 4. Clinical Experiences Measure of Teaching Proficiency, Teacher Candidate Clinical Evaluation 5. Measure of Assessment Proficiencies, Candidate Assessment Objective 6. Ability to Diagnose Student Learning, Instructional Assessments 7. Application of Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Skills, Teacher Work Sample (Unit) 8. Assessment of Literacy Outcomes, Literacy Assessment 9. Dispositions & Values & Behaviors, Dispositions Form 10. KSU Graduate/Exit Survey, KSU Graduate/Exit Survey

As a program we regularly and systematically assess performance in various ways. Our EPP meets regularly to look at the quality assurance system and how each component of the system is being impacted by the policies and procedures in place. During these EPP meetings we are able to disaggregate data and suggest and make improvements. In addition, the director of institutional effectiveness monitors progress throughout the academic year. At the end of each semester we look at data and are required to make the necessary adjustments for improvement. In addition we use our program learning outcomes and student learning outcomes.

Below is our quality assurance system. Each semester our EPP reviews each of the 10 areas within our quality assurance system. One area of difficulty at this time is the numbers within each of our programs. We do hope in the future that our program numbers are robust enough that we will have enough students to adequately assess how our programs are doing. With have collected the data from the small number of students we have and will continue to make improvements using the data.

We enhance the way in which we allow students to prepare for the Praxis exam. Throughout the course of the year we have a total of eight practice test for the practice one. In addition we offered multiple training and practice test for the principles of learning and teaching in the practice to. In addition in order to enhance the way the teacher candidates demonstrate effective pedagogy in the elementary school we have workshops for how to develop a unit plan. Previously we used our all majors meetings as an opportunity to disseminate information. However, as we look at the disposition and values of the characters of our students we begin to use our all majors meeting as a time to offer professional development for the majority of the time we were together.

One way in which we explicitly investigated selection criteria used for standard three was the enhancement of the way we use the assessment of professional disposition, values, and behaviors questionnaire. We took course time in EDU 202 to walk through students through each criteria on the rubric and gave them explicit Examples on what it meant to be exemplary in each of the areas. Afterwards, we allowed students to access themselves and then gave peer to peer feedback as well as faculty to peer feedback. Our desire is that students have a better understanding of what, “ineffective”, “developing”, “accomplished”, and “exemplary” are as it relates to their dispositions.

The school of education and human development are in an ongoing relationship on how to enhance our systems of assessment and performance. We continue to work with the office of institutional research to create the type of systems we need in order to track and disaggregate the data for improvement of our program. Once the systems are in place we will be able to monitor for improvement for the EPP, our candidates, and our P 12 students.

Tag the standard(s) or component(s) to which the data or changes apply.

Not finished yet

Upload data results or documentation of data-driven changes. ===== PAGE 5 ===== 6.2 Would the provider be willing to share highlights, new initiatives, assessments, research, scholarship, or activities during a CAEP Conference or in other CAEP Communications?

### 6.3 Optional Comments One area to highlight is the Center for Research on the Eradication of Academic Disparities (CREDD Center), whose mission statement is below. This center housed in the School of Education has benefitted students in our program, throughout the campus, and state. Sponsoring speakers, lunch and learns, and professional development has will have a measurable effect on students in the coming years. The Center for Research on the Eradication of Educational Disparities (CREED) will promote a critical, collaborative research agenda which brings PK-12, postsecondary educators, field-based educational leaders, educational policymakers, and community members together to assess, analyze, and remove educational barriers and disparities in the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Globally. The CREED center will develop and support a more vigorous and robust research agenda that addresses educational disparities in our schools and our universities. The center will promote a scholarly focus aligned with Ke ## Section 7: Transition In the transition from legacy standards and principles to the CAEP standards, CAEP wishes to support a succeed transition to CAEP Accreditation. The EPP Annual Report offers an opportunity for rigorous and thoughtful regarding progress in demonstrating evidence toward CAEP Accreditation. To this end, CAEP asks for the fo information so that CAEP can identify areas of priority in providing guidance to EPPs. 7.1 Assess and identify gaps (if any) in the EPPâ€™s evidence relating to the CAEP standards and the progre on addressing those gaps. This is an opportunity to share the EPPâ€™s assessment of its evidence. It may hel the Readiness for Accreditation Self-Assessment Checklist, the CAEP Accreditation Handbook (for initial lev programs), or the CAEP Handbook: Guidance on Self-Study Reports for Accreditation at the Advanced Level If there are no identified gaps, click the box next to "No identified gaps" and proceed to question 7.2.

No identified gaps If there are identified gaps, please summarize the gaps and any steps planned or taken toward the gap(s) to be prepared by your CAEP site visit in the text box below and tag the standard or component to which the text a Tag the standard(s) or component(s) to which the text applies. Not applicable 7.2 I certify to the best of my knowledge that the EPP continues to meet legacy NCATE Standards or TEAC (Principles, as applicable.

7.3 If no, please describe any changes that mean that the EPP does not continue to meet legacy NCATE Stand TEAC Quality Principles, as applicable. ===== PAGE 6 ===== Preparer's authorization. By checking the box below, I indicate that I am authorized by the EPP to complete the 2020 EPP Annual Report. ## I am authorized to complete this report ## Report Preparer's Information Name: ___ Position: ___ Phone: ___ E-mail: ___ I understand that all the information that is provided to CAEP from EPPs seeking initial accreditation, continuing accreditation or having completed the accreditation process is considered the property of CAEP and may be used for training, research and data review. CAEP reserves the right to compile and issue data derived from accreditation documents. CAEP Accreditation Policy ### Policy 6.01 Annual Report An EPP must submit an Annual Report to maintain accreditation or accreditation-eligibility. The report is opened for data entry each year in January. EPPs are given 90 days from the date of system availability to complete the report. CAEP is required to collect and apply the data from the Annual Report to: 1. Monitor whether the EPP continues to meet the CAEP Standards between site visits. 2. Review and analyze stipulations and any AFIs submitted with evidence that they were addressed. 3. Monitor reports of substantive changes. 4. Collect headcount completer data, including for distance learning programs. 5. Monitor how the EPP publicly reports candidate performance data and other consumer information on its website. CAEP accreditation staff conduct annual analysis of AFIs and/or stipulations and the decisions of the Accreditation Council to assess consistency. Failure to submit an Annual Report will result in referral to the Accreditation Council for review. Adverse action may result. ### Policy 8.05 Misleading or Incorrect Statements The EPP is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of all information submitted by the EPP for accreditation purposes, including program reviews, self-study reports, formative feedback reports and addendums and site visit report responses, and information made available to prospective candidates and the public. In particular, information displayed by the EPP pertaining to its accreditation and Title II decision, term, consumer information, or candidate performance (e.g., standardized test results, job placement rates, and licensing examination rates) must be accurate and current. When CAEP becomes aware that an accredited EPP has misrepresented any action taken by CAEP with respect to the EPP and/or its accreditation, or uses accreditation reports or materials in a false or misleading manner, the EPP will be contacted and directed to issue a corrective communication. Failure to correct misleading or inaccurate statements can lead to adverse action. Acknowledge