CAEP: Areas for Improvement (ITP) 5 Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement

The EPP provided limited evidence that its' quality assurance system relies on relevant, verifiable, representative, cumulative and actionable measures, and produces empirical evidence that interpretations of data are valid and consistent. (Component 5.2)

The School of Education Human Development and Consumer Sciences provides the following response for areas of improvement specified within CAEP Standard 5 (5.2). The EPP attached evidence documents prior to the on-sight virtual visit, and resubmitted the documents electronically during the sight visit, of which were shared with the on-sight team. After reviewing the concern by CAEP, it was deemed as an oversight due the vast amounts of documents reviewed in three days. To address these concerns, the EPP provided the rubrics indicating how Kentucky Teachers Standards/InTASC Standards align to each of the specific assessment areas on the EDU 202 and Instructional Assessment Rubrics. The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) EDU 454 rubric was replaced by the Instructional Assessment rubrics, to reduce redundancy. The CAO and Dispositions, Values and Behaviors non-proprietary assessments were aligned to the ten InTASC standards. They are grouped into four general categories including:1- The Learner and Learning2- Content Knowledge3- Instructional Practice, and4- Professional ResponsibilitiesThe TCCE assessment was replaced by the CAO to reduce redundancy. The addition and alignment of the InTASC standards to the rubrics, assessments, and survey's provides the EPP with actionable measures that are cumulative, and produces empirical evidence that intercepts data that is valid and consistent. Each of the rubric and assessment changes were discussed with the TEC and SEHDCS committees to provide rationale and meet the minimal standards of CAEP.

CAEP: Areas for Improvement (ITP) 5 Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement

The School of Education Human Development and Consumer Sciences provides the following response for areas of improvement specified within CAEP Standard 5 (5.4). The EPP months before the CAEP Accreditation visit linked the eight annual measures on the EPP's webpage, along with EPP data to support the annual measures. In addition, the evidence files provided accurate analysis of trends aligned to the measures. The week of the on-site review, the campus IT department launched the new university website. The untimely launch was due to the CAEP virtual visit dates being changed, and the campus IT unit being unable to reschedule the new website launch, as the launch had been pushed back several times. Unfrontunately, the transition caused some items on the EPP website to be deleted and misplaced. In addition, some of the links were lost simultaneous to the on-site visitor's review of the webpages. The EPP staff did not detect the changeover until the concern was addressed during a scheduled meeting with the site visitors, and interviewers. All of the links should have been reestablished prior to the close of exit interviews. Consequently, the untimely issues with the webpage were cited as an area of improvement, evethough they were addressed with the site-team by multiple administrators. The EPP's webpage has been fully restored by the campus IT department and all data is currently available.

The eight CAEP Annual Reporting measures restored to the webpage, provided reviewers accurate data on P-12 student growth. The content included the eight program impact and outcome measures aligned with evidence instruments (reports, case study, non-proprietary assessment instrument, and survey's used to address each measure. The program outcome measures are aligned with various data reports that provide students and candidates detailed evidence for EPP growth and development in reference to candidate annual cohort data (graduation rates), praxis exam results, educator preparation feedback, and employment information.