San Francisco State University Biennial Report, Fall, 2012 · 2020-01-05 · San Francisco State...

San Francisco State University Biennial Report, Fall, 2012

October 15, 2012 1

Graduate College of Education

1600 Holloway Avenue, BH 156

San Francisco, CA 94132-4161

(415) 338-2687/[email protected]

COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING

BIENNIAL REPORT

(For Institutions in the Yellow, Blue, and Violet Cohort Due Summer/Fall 2012)

ACADEMIC YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12

Institution: San Francisco State University

Graduate College of Education

Burk Hall, Room 501

1600 Holloway Ave.

San Francisco, CA 94132

Submission Date: October 15, 2012

Unit Website: http://coe.sfsu.edu/

Unit Evaluation Website: http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/

Unit Head: Betsy Kean, Ph.D., Interim Dean

415.338.2687

[email protected]

Unit Evaluation Director: Nicholas J. Certo, Ph.D., Professor

Department of Special Education

415.338.3328

[email protected]

http://coe.sfsu.edu/

http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/

mailto:[email protected]



October 15, 2012 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

Introduction 3

Section A: Credential 100, Single Subject 5

Section A: Credential 200, Multiple Subject 15

Section A: Credential 305, Adult Education 23

Section A: Credential 410, Reading Specialist 29

Section A: Credential 435 & 436, Early Childhood Special Education 35

Section A: Credential 468 & 481, Mild-Moderate Disabilities 41

Section A: Credential 469 & 482, Moderate-Severe Disabilities 50

Section A: Credential 471 & 483, Visual Impairments 59

Section A: Credential 472 & 484, Physical & Health Impairments 66

Section A: Credential 501, Educational Administration, Tier I 72

Section A: Credential 802, Pupil Personnel Services, School Counseling 84

Section A: Credential 803, Pupil Personnel Services, Social Work 89

Section A: Credential 804, Pupil Personnel Services, School Psychology 92

Section A: Credential 901 & 912, Speech-Language Pathology Services 102

Section A: Credential 904, Orientation & Mobility 113

Section B: Unit Level Summary And Recommendations 123


October 15, 2012 3

INTRODUCTION

The data reviewed in this Biennial Report and collected in the summative component of the

Graduate College of Education (GCOE) Unified Credential Evaluation System were based on

faculty scoring of key assignments associated with each seminar and practicum course that were

part of a particular credential (for a complete listing of all courses, evaluation categories and key

assignments refer to the NCATE Evaluation Master Matrix or Individual Program Area Charts.

Both can be found at: http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/matrix-courses-key-assignments).

Data for key assignments were scored on a 4 point scale with 4 being the highest score. As a

frame of reference, a score of 1 = not mastered; 2 = partially mastered; 3 = mastered; and, 4 =

exceeds mastery. Our Credential Evaluation Committee set a policy that a score of 3 or better

demonstrated mastery of the skills involved in a key assignment.

The results discussed in this section of the Biennial Report were culled from data collected in

fall, 2010, spring, 2011, fall, 2011 and spring, 2012 terms1, summarized in tables from each term

that fall into the following categories of data analysis:

1. unit-level aggregated data that integrates all credentials and courses for a term;

2. program-level aggregated data that integrates all courses for a term for each credential, but

maintains each credential's identity; and,

3. program-level data that summarizes results for each course offered in a term for a particular

credential.

These tables are too numerous to include in this report, so Section A of each individual program

area biennial report, as well as the summary provided in Section B presents some of the more

salient findings. For a complete set of data tables from which the results presented in this report

were selected, it is highly recommended that COA/CTC reviews these tables posted by semester

at: http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/data.

Reading the data tables. Below, as an example, is the Fall, 2010 table posted for Credential

472, Physical and Health Impairments (PHI). The columns listed across the top of the table are

as follows: CRED (i.e., refers to CSU credential number), COURSE (i.e., refers to abbreviation

for SFSU department offering course), NUMBER (i.e., refers to the course numerical

designation), AS CAT [2-7] (i.e., Assessment Category, or the areas of knowledge or

dispositions that each course’s key assignment addresses; for a listing see:

http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/evaluation-system-forms-and-example) and Total (i.e., total number of

data points included in table).

This table includes data from five courses offer by PHI credential in fail, 2010: SPED 601,

SPED 740, SPED 746, SPED 763, SPED 772. Next to the course number is the term, KEY

1 Note: Due to the fact that very few credential programs offer summer courses, data for Summer, 2011 session is

not review consistently in this report since it is not representative of the unit. Reviewers interested in this data can

find it at: http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/data.

http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/matrix-courses-key-assignments

http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/data

http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/evaluation-system-forms-and-example



October 15, 2012 4

ASSIGN. This refers to ―Key Assignment,‖ the course assignment that was selected as the most

important or representative of that credential course. The name of the Key Assignment is not

listed in the table, but the next column lists the score for that assignment for each course offered.

As mentioned above, the Key Assignment is scored from 1 to 4 with 4 as the highest score, and

each assignment for each course included in each credential is found at:

http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/matrix-courses-key-assignments.

In the table provided below, some candidates received a score of 3 and some a score of 4 for the

five courses listed. Their scores of 3 or 4 are repeated across each Assessment Category (i.e., AS

CAT) to which that course relates, so a score can occur multiple times. The number inside each

AS CAT column refers to the number of candidates receiving that particular score and the

percentage indicates the portion of the total candidates in that course that number represents. For

example, in SPED 601, there were 2 candidates enrolled and each received a score of 3 on their

key assignment for 100%. Whereas, for SPED 740, one candidate received a score of 3 and one

candidate received a score of 4, so each score accounts for 50% of the data collected.

CREDENTIAL 472: PHYSICAL & HEALTH IMPAIRMENTS, LEVEL I & II; FALL, 2010 DATA

KEY-ASSIGN * AS_CAT * NUMBER * COURSE * CRED Crosstabulation

CRED COURSE NUMBER

AS_CAT

Total 2 3 4 5 6 7

472 SPED 0601 KEY-

ASSIGN

3 Count 2 2 2 2 2 10

% within

AS_CAT

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total Count 2 2 2 2 2 10

% within

AS_CAT

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0740 KEY-

ASSIGN

3 Count 1 1 2

% within

AS_CAT

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

4 Count 1 1 2

% within

AS_CAT

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

Total Count 2 2 4

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0746 KEY-

ASSIGN

3 Count 2 2 2 2 2 2 12

% within

AS_CAT

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total Count 2 2 2 2 2 2 12

% within

AS_CAT

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

0763 KEY-

ASSIGN

4 Count 1 1 1 1 4

% within

AS_CAT

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

Total Count 1 1 1 1 4

% within

AS_CAT

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0%

0772 KEY-

ASSIGN

4 Count 1 1 1 1 4

% within

AS_CAT

100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0%



October 15, 2012 5

CRED COURSE NUMBER

AS_CAT

Total 2 3 4 5 6 7

Total Count 1 1 1 1 4

% within

AS_CAT

100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0%

100.0%


October 15, 2012 6

Commission on Teacher Credentialing

Biennial Report (For Institutions in the Yellow, Blue, and Violet Cohort Due Summer/Fall 2012)

Academic Years 2010-11 and 2011-12

Institution San Francisco State University

Date report is submitted October 15, 2012

Program documented in this report Single Subject Credential Program

Name of Program Single Subject Credential Program

Please identify all delivery options through

which this program is offered

(Traditional, Intern, Other)

Regular (Traditional) and Intern

Other: Off campus single subject credential

program

Credential awarded Preliminary Single Subject Credential

Is this program offered at more than one site? Yes

If yes, list all sites at which

the program is offered

Bay Area Teacher Center**

Teacher Education Institute*

**No longer operational after 2011-2012

*No longer operational

Program Contact Dr. Natalio Avani

Title Professor/Chair, Department of Secondary Education

Phone # 415-338-6442

E-Mail [email protected]

If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact information for that

person below:

Name

Title

Phone #

E-mail


October 15, 2012 7

SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION

PART I – Contextual Information

In the spring of 2012, the Department of Secondary Education completed its fourth year of the

PACT – Performance Assessment for California Teachers. The number of single subject

candidates completing the PACT is displayed below.

2008-2009 89 candidates




This assessment report will cover academic years: 2010-2011 and 2011-2012.

The Department has made tremendous gains in embedding components of the PACT in each of

its credential courses. Example: in SED 701 Historical, Social and Cultural Education,

candidates begin to look at the demographics of their student teaching field site and document

specific data about their students and the classes they will be doing their student teaching in. The

work they do in SED 701 supports the work they do in TASK 1 of the PACT, Context for

Learning. In their Adolescent Development Course, SED 800 they learn about the physical,

emotional, intellectual and social development of the adolescent. Through this course they apply

their learning to the understanding of the adolescents in the classrooms where they do their

student teaching. Further, our candidates show evidence in their PACT Teaching Events (PACT

TEs) that they are able to design and implement lessons that access their students’ prior

knowledge and are built on appropriate experiential, developmental and cultural needs.

The Department has taken the position that everyone has a responsibility and role to play in the

support of the single subject candidates in the understanding and submission of their PACT TE.

The Department has a faculty member who serves as PACT Coordinator. As PACT

Coordinator, he is there to support faculty in answering any of their questions and/or issues that

arise. The Department Chair serves as the TASKSTREAM Coordinator and provided the initial

TASKSTREAM training for candidates and well as the managing of scoring and reporting. The

implementation of a model of PACT support that includes everyone in the Department has

served the Department well in achieving full implementation of the PACT, embedding

preparation for the PACT TE into coursework and assignments, and in the interpretation and use

of PACT data for program improvement.

Specific Department policies are in place that supports our candidates’ success. Two of these

policies are: All tenured/tenure track faculty, lecturers, and university supervisors are all trained

and calibrated PACT scorers in their specific content areas, and all lecturers hired must be

willing to be trained and calibrate as a PACT scorer in their specific content area. These two

specific policies help ensure that our candidates are getting the right answers/support to

questions they may have during their participation in the credential program.


October 15, 2012 8

Please include the following chart in your response.

Program Specific Candidate Information

Numbers of candidates and completers/graduates for two years reported

2010-11 2011-2012

Site (If multiple sites)

Delivery Option

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

On-site program SFSU 114 114 118 118

Off-site program BATC

Off-site program TEI

TOTAL # CANDIDATES

13

14

141

13

14

141

20

0

138

20

0

138

• SFSU = San Francisco State University (Program delivery model is the same for regular

and INTERN candidates.

• BATC = Bay Area Teacher Center (Program to be discontinued 2013)

• TEI = Teacher Education Institute (Program discontinued 2011)

Changes Since Last Accreditation Activity (Biennial Report, Program Assessment or Site

Visit).

Program assessment changes made in 2008-2009. Major change reflects the

implementation of the PACT – Performance Assessment for California Teachers.

Previous to this change the Department was using an in-house developed portfolio that

reflected student proficiency in the TPE’s

All teacher education faculty in the single subject program are trained and calibrated

PACT scorers. (2011)

Review of all credential courses was initiated fall 2011 for refinement and greater

programmatic alignment of coursework and candidate activities.

Review of signature/major course assignments is currently taking place.


October 15, 2012 9


PART II – Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program

Effectiveness Information

The chart below reflects data from 2009 – 2010 and 2010-2011sorted by the twelve PACT tasks.

2009 – 2010 and 2010-2011 PACT Data by Rubric


October 15, 2012 10

The chart below reflects PACT data for the 2009 – 2010 and 2010-2011sorted by academic

subject/special program areas.

2009 – 2010 and 2010-2011 PACT Data by Subject Area

a) What are the primary candidate assessment(s) the program uses up to and through

recommending the candidate for a credential?

PACT - Performance Assessment for California Teachers

EROD – Evaluation Report of Observation and Demonstration instrument used

during student teaching

Course work and key/major assignment

b) What additional information about candidate and program completer performance

or program effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic

decision making The CSU Teacher Quality Report

Student course evaluations


October 15, 2012 11

c) Include aggregated data from 4-6 instruments that were described in (a) and (b). Once

the assessments and data collection methods have been described, report aggregated data

from 4-6 of those assessments.

In the data summary, identify the number and percent of candidates in the cohort that

were assessed by each tool, the range of response options, the maximum and minimum

responses, and descriptive statistics that are appropriate to the type of data being reported,

including the mean and standard deviation, the % passed, the distribution (number and

percentage) of responses to categorical prompts, etc.

Biennial reports for Multiple Subject or Single Subject programs must include the

following assessor information related to the implementation of the TPA in addition to data

for 4-6 key assessments:

1) Number of Assessors: The total number of assessors the program uses and the number

of assessors who scored in the years for which the biennial report data is being

submitted.

For 2010-2011 we had a pool of 46 TPA assessors across nine content areas. We used all 46

assessors for 2010-2011.

For 2011-2012 we also had a pool of 46 TPA assessors across nine content areas. We used all

46 assessors for 2011-2012.


October 15, 2012 12

2) Assessor Initial Training and Recalibration: The number of assessors who successfully

completed initial training and the number who recalibrated for the applicable biennial

report years.

For 2010-2011 we had 13 TPA assessors successfully complete initial training and calibration,

and 33 TPA assessors successfully complete re-calibration.

For 2011-2012 we had 12 TPA assessors successfully complete initial training and calibration,

and 33 TPA assessors successfully complete re-calibration.

3) Data on Reliability Related to Double Scoring (% of score agreement).

For 2010-2011 we had 23% of our candidate’s TPA’s double scored. For 2011-2012 we had

21% of our candidate’s TPA’s double scored.

All double scored TPA assessments were evaluated for scorer agreement based on the PACT

calibration standard of at least 6 exact matches and no scores 2 or more apart. An analysis of

double scored TPAs showed an average of 9 out of 12 matches for 75+% agreement between

scorers.

4) Modifications made to assessor selection, training, recalibration. (May also be addressed in

Section A, Part IV)

We have not made any modifications to our assessor selection, training, and recalibration

process.


PART III – Analyses and Discussion of Candidate and Program Data

Each program provides analyses of the information provided in Section II. Please do not

introduce new types of data in this section. Note strengths and areas for improvement that

have been identified through the analyses of the data. Describe what the analyses of the

data demonstrate about your program relative to: a) candidate competence; and b)

program effectiveness.

a). Candidate Competence

Strengths: –

High passing rates for our candidates - successful PACT TEs. rubric scores in planning and

instruction consistently stronger than rubric scores in other PACT tasks. All of our instructors

are trained and calibrated scorers with identified PCK in a specific content area.


October 15, 2012 13

Areas for Improvement:

The PACT data charts show two general trends - lower scores for candidate competency in

effectively using assessments and lower scores supporting student academic language

development

Continue to improve the Validity and Reliability of our PACT TE scoring process.

b). Program Effectiveness

Strengths:

Effective focus on content and context centered instructional planning and instruction across all

program coursework with an emphasis in meeting the needs of diverse, urban student

populations.

Areas for Improvement:

Assessment

Academic Language Development

Working with Students with Special Needs


October 15, 2012 14


Part IV – Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance

Each program describes how it used the data from analyses of candidate assessments and

program effectiveness to improve candidate outcomes and program effectiveness. The

focus of this section should not be on the process employed by the institution to discuss

changes (although it can be mentioned briefly), but on the actual considered, proposed, or

implemented programmatic changes specific to the data. If proposed changes are being

made, please connect the proposed changes to the data that stimulated those modifications

and to the Program and/or Common Standard(s) that compels program performance in

that area. If preferred, programs may combine responses to Sections III (Analysis of the

Data) with Section IV (Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program

Performance) so long as all the required aspects of the responses are addressed.

Data

Source

Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made Applicable Program or

Common Standard(s)

PACT Data

and CSU

Teacher

Preparation

Report

Special education modules are being developed

to specifically address the areas of improvement

needed in this area. Faculty development

around the modules will also take place.

Single subject credential

program

PACT Data

and CSU

Teacher

Preparation

Report

Second language development - a review of our

second language development course is taking

place. Improvements in course content and

delivery

Adding signature assignments in all C&I

courses focusing on assessment

Starting academic year 2009-10, we have

increased percentage of PACT scorers trained

by our institution and who are in our scoring

pool, who are not directly engaged with our

candidates as instructors or supervisors. We are

also training more Master Teachers as PACT

assessors.

Single subject credential

program.

In addition, sponsors of Multiple or Single Subject programs should include the following

information if they have not already done so in Section A, Part II. :

4) Modifications made to assessor selection, training, recalibration.

See section A part II


October 15, 2012 15






Program documented in this report Multiple Subject Credential Program

Name of Program Multiple Subject Credential Program




Traditional

Credential awarded Preliminary Multiple Subject Credential




SF State campus

Elk Grove, CA

BATTI - Independent schools – Bay Area

Program Contact Debra Luna

Title Chair & Associate Professor, Department of Elementary Education

Phone # 415/338-7636


If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact

information for that person below:

Name

Title

Phone #

E-mail


October 15, 2012 16



The SB 2042 Preliminary Multiple Subject Credential (PMSC) Program, housed in the

Department of Elementary Education, offers various pathways of completion, all of which utilize

a cohort model. After selecting a pathway, candidates are placed in a cohort and move through

the credential program together. The majority of students in our campus-based cohorts follow a

three-semester sequence (fall-spring-fall), including candidates interested in obtaining bilingual

authorization2. An intensive one-calendar year program is also available (summer-fall-spring).

Given the nature of our student population, which is often comprised of working-adults and

parents, candidates in the three-semester program are given an option of completing the program

at a slower pace, usually four semesters. Candidates on an internship credential complete the

program in four semesters3. Candidates in the Bay Area Teacher Training Institute (BATTI)

complete the program in four-semesters and one summer (http://www.ba-tti.org/). Candidates in

the Teacher Education Institute (Elk Grove, CA) complete the program in one-calendar year.4

On Campus Programs Off Campus Programs

Three-semester program (includes bilingual

authorization)

Teacher Education Institute, Elk Grove, CA)

Bay Area Teacher Training Institute, (BATTI)

One calendar year program

The following chart lists the number of candidates enrolled in the various pathways and the

subsequent number of graduates.



2010-2011 2011-2012

Programs No. of

Candidates

No. of

Graduates

No. of

Candidates

No. of

Graduates

SF State 66 60* 16** 15

Elk Grove 10 10 Program terminated

BATTI (Independent

Schools)

28 > > > 2-year program (new cohort begins each fall) > > > 25

* includes 19 (1-cal year) and 41 (3-semester – graduation fall 2011).

**not shown: approx. 60 entering 3-semester candidates, who will end fall 2012

Important note: The traditional ―school year‖ dates in the above chart does not allow for an accurate representation

of the program’s 3-semester program, which runs fall-spring-fall.

Significant changes since last major accreditation activities, biennial report (fall 2009) and site

visit (2007).

2 The MSC program was not authorized to admit ―bilingual emphasis candidates‖ in fall 2011, as the program was awaiting CTC

approval. The program received approval and resumed admitting candidates in fall 2012. 3 Interns numbers are low, the two interns in this report are included w/ the 3-semester candidates. 4 Due to budgetary constraints, the BATTI program left SF State in Summer 2012. Due to a reduction in program applications

and budgetary constraints, the program in Elk Grove was terminated in Summer 2011.

http://www.ba-tti.org/


October 15, 2012 17

Both the BATTI and Elk Grove programs are no longer with SF State. BATTI moved to

another institution (Summer 2012) and the Elk Grove program was terminated due to

funding issues (Summer 2011).

Reduction in applications to the MSC program, i.e. Typically 5 cohorts (approx. 25

students each or 125 candidates) would be admitted each fall, whereas in fall 2010 and

2011, only 3 cohorts were admitted, 70 to 80 candidates.

Reduction in interns, e.g. 0 admitted fall 2011, 2 admitted fall 2010, 6 admitted fall 2009.

TPA is in full operation with candidates completing the Content Area Tasks (CATs) in

literacy, social studies and science, and the Performance Assessment for California

Teachers (PACT) teaching event in mathematics education.

Noted trend: Graduates complete all program requirements, but delay application of the

preliminary credential in order to prevent entering the five-year window to earn clear

credential. Reason: Graduates do not think they will find a job.

SF State is no longer participating in NCATE accreditation.

MSC program submitted Standards in December 2011, received ―preliminary aligned

approval‖ in spring 2012. CTC placed scheduled site visit (spring 2013) on hold,

rescheduled for spring 2014.


PART II – Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information

Candidates in the MSC program are assessed according to the Teaching Performance

Expectations (TPEs). The following instruments are used to evaluate candidates; they are

based on the TPEs, see Tables 1 and 2:

Course letter grades. No grade lower than C, must maintain ―B‖ average.

Embedded Signature Assignments (ESAs) in each course and seminar, scale of 1 (lowest

score) to 4 (highest score). Instructor evaluates ESA and reports score along with

course/seminar grade at end of semester.

Seminar grades. Credit/No credit, must receive ―CR‖ for each seminar.

Teaching performance in elementary classroom. Evaluation scores (by phase) in Table 2.

Credit/No credit, must receive ―CR‖ for each phase.

Teacher Performance Assessment: Performance Assessment for California Teachers

(PACT)

PACT CATs in literacy, social studies and science. Submitted during completion of

course. Candidate must meet minimal passing score.

PACT Teaching Event in mathematics. Submitted in last semester. Candidate must meet

minimal passing score.

Table 1: Assessment Tools: Courses, Seminars, ESAs & TPA (CATs & PACT Teaching Event).

Course/Seminar - grades ESA PACT CATs PACT TE

EED 701: Social, Cultural and

Historical Foundations of Education

Community Research Paper (TPEs 7,8,12)

PACT

Teaching

Event in

Mathematics

takes place in

EED 783: Developmental Teaching

and Learning in Diverse School

Settings

Teaching in the Zone of Proximal

Development (TPE 2,3)


October 15, 2012 18

Course/Seminar - grades ESA PACT CATs PACT TE

EED 749: Second Language

Acquisition

English Learner Case Study (TPEs 1,4,7)

last semester

of the program.

Candidates are

guided in EED

758: Teaching

Practicum

Seminar –

Phase III

EED 782: Teaching Reading &

Language Arts, grades K-3

Connected Lessons: Literacy (TPEs 1-4,6-10,12, ESA = CAT)

Planning-Task 2 (TPEs 1-4,6-10,12)

EED 784: C & I in Mathematics

Connected Lessons: Mathematics (TPEs 1-4,6-10,12)

EED 777: C & I in Science

Connected Lessons: Science (TPEs 1-4,6-10,12, ESA = CAT)


EED 737: Teaching Social Studies,

Social Justice & Literacy, grades 3-6

Connected Lessons: Social Studies (TPEs 1-4,6-10,12, ESA = CAT)


EED 756: Teaching Practicum

Seminar, Phase I

Context for Learning – prep for

PACT, Task 1 (TPEs 7,8)


Seminar, Phase II

Arts/P.E./Health Lesson(s) &

Reflection (TPE 1A-11,13)


Seminar, Phase III

Analysis of Math Instruction in

Fieldwork Placement

Table 2: Assessment Tool: Performance in the Elementary Classroom, acceptable scores.

Evaluative Areas

TPEs

Phase I – scores

(eval = end of sem)

Phase II – scores

(eval = end of sem)

Phase III – scores

(eval = mid/end of sem)

Interaction with students

(TPE 11)

2, 3 2, 3 3 3, 4

Planning Skills

(TPE 8,9,10)

0, 1, 2 2, 3 3 3, 4

Instructional Skills

(TPE 1 through 11)

0, 1, 2 2, 3 3 3, 4

Presentation Skills

(TPE 10,11)

0, 1, 2 2, 3 3 3, 4

Assessment Skills

(TPE 2,3)

0, 1, 2 2, 3 3 3, 4

Professionalism

(TPE 12,13)

2, 3 2, 3 3 3, 4

Scale of Ratings

>>>>>>>>>

Competent (3); Making Good Progress (2);

Needs Improvement (1); Not able to determine

(0) – Phase I only; Note: No more than 2 “0s”or 2

“1s”

Strong (4); Competent

(3); Needs

Improvement (2);

Weak (1)

Description of Ratings for Phase III (Ratings assigned at mid-semester & end of semester)

“1 – Weak”: Candidate not currently meeting program objectives. Rating denotes serious concern.

“2 – Needs improvement”: Candidate not currently meeting program objectives, however, progress

has been noted and improvement is necessary. Candidate shows potential, improvement will move

candidate to competency.

“3 – Competent”: Candidate meets and sometimes surpasses intended program objective(s).

“4 – Strong”: Candidate meets and clearly surpasses intended program objective(s).

a) Candidate assessments listed in Tables 1 and 2. With the exception of the Embedded Signature

Assignments, all assessments have a minimal passing grade or score in order for a candidate to

be recommended for a credential.

During the semester, instructors/supervisors are asked to speak with the chair of department

about any candidate who appears to be struggling with a course, seminar, and/or field

experience. In addition, the placement coordinator (PC) checks in periodically with candidates,

master teachers, and university supervisors to ensure that programmatic requirements are being


October 15, 2012 19

addressed. When problems arise, interventions are applied. Special attention is applied to

candidates entering full time student teaching, in order to ensure that they are prepared to take on

all teaching responsibilities.

b) In addition to the assessment tools described above and data stemming from them (c - below),

the program also reviews data from the following sources:

Center for Teacher Quality data, such as the employment supervisors’ evaluation below,

is examined by a departmental committee and then action plans are noted in the

―Improvement and Accountability Plan‖ (May 2011).

Table 3: Evaluation 2011 by Employment Supervisors of Program‟s 1st Yr. Teaching Graduates, 2009-2010.

Percentages represent averages of evaluative levels (“Well + Adequately

Prepared”) as listed in CTQ Tables. N = average of 3, with N = 2, 3, or 4.

SFSU CSU

1 General concepts and practices of teaching 79% 86%

2 Concepts and practices for MS Teaching A (preparation for teaching subject-specific

pedagogies).

95% 80%

3 Concepts and practices for MS Teaching B (general preparation for teaching multiple

subjects).

84% 86%

4 Concepts and practices for MS Teaching A (preparation for reading instruction). 100% 85%

5 Concepts and practices for MS Teaching B (preparation for teaching mathematics). 100% 86%

6 Concepts and practices for MS Teaching C (preparation to use technology for

instruction).

100% 89%

End of semester meetings with Supervising Teachers (STs) and University Supervisors

(USs). Feedback recorded from open discussions and addressed in following semesters.

Recent agenda:

Requirements/expectations for candidates

What is working/not working?

What to do with candidates not ready for full time student teaching?

Concerns with candidate performance.

How to support STs? (Agenda items, May 2012)

c) Aggregated data includes: 1) Embedded signature assignment/assessment (ESAs), b) Content

area tasks (CATs) in literacy, science and social studies, and c) PACT teaching event in

mathematics.

Table 4: Percentages of aggregated scores, based on candidate performance per each ESA rubric. Evaluative

scores: 1 – less than adequate; 2 – adequate; 3 – good; 4 – excellent.

Embedded Signature Assignment/Assessment 1 2 3 4 3 & 4

Community Research Paper 3% 11% 40% 46% 86%

Teaching in the Zone of Proximal Development 5% 7% 20% 68% 88%

English Learner Case Study 3% 5% 51% 41% 92%

Connected Lessons: Literacy 2% 11% 27% 60% 87%

Connected Lessons: Mathematics - 34% 56% 10% 66%*

Connected Lessons: Science - 6% 61% 33% 94%

Connected Lessons: Social Studies 2% 10% 42% 56% 98%

Context for Learning - 22% 41% 37% 78%*

Arts/P.E./Health Lesson(s) & Reflection - 36% 64% - 64%*

Analysis of Math Instruction in Fieldwork Placement - 7% 45% 48% 93%


October 15, 2012 20

*area of concern

Table 5: Content Area Tasks: Aggregated scores from “Planning” rubrics.

CAT Data, 2010-12 Planning rubrics: 1-balanced instruction; 2-content accessible; 3-designing assess.

Programs EL1 EL2 EL3 Avg. ES1 ES2 ES3 Avg. EH1 EH2 EH3 Avg.

SF State, N=79 2.81 2.79 2.50 2.70 2.62 2.71 2.44 2.59 2.85 2.84 2.43 2.70

Elk Grove, N=10 2.40 2.50 2.20 2.37 2.80 3.20 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.60 2.40 2.50

BATTI, N=25 2.93 2.89 2.93 2.92 2.88 2.68 2.76 2.77 3.08 3.12 2.72 2.97

All programs 2.66 2.79 2.72

EL= Elementary literacy; ES=Elementary science; EH=Elementary history/social studies

Passage of CATs from candidates in Table c.3, N=114

Number/Percentage of candidates not passing initially – 18 (16%)

Number/Percentage of candidates who remediated and passed – 14

Number/Percentage of candidates who have not remediated – 4

Table 6: PACT Teaching Event in Mathematics: Aggregated scores by program & overall scores.

PACT Data

2010-2012

Aggregated Rubric Scores for PACT Teaching Event in Mathematics, Tasks 2 – 5

Planning Instructing Assessing Reflecting Acad.Lang. Program

Averages Programs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SF State, N=79 2.59 2.55 2.45 2.30 2.25 2.30 2.26 2.03 2.45 2.27 2.05 2.09 2.30

Elk Grove,

N=10

2.70 2.70 2.90 2.40 2.40 2.30 2.10 2.90 2.40 2.00 1.80* 2.10 2.39

BATTI, N=25 2.72 2.52 2.72 2.48 2.20 2.44 2.40 2.20 2.48 2.52 2.12 2.20 2.42

Overall

averages per

rubric

2.65 2.62 2.66 2.37 2.23 2.31 2.22 2.32 2.42 2.25 2.00 2.12 2.37

* area of concern

Passage of PACT Teaching Event from candidates in Table c.3, N=114

Number/Percentage of candidates not passing – 12 (10.53%)

Number/Percentage of candidates who remediated and passed – 10

Number/Percentage of candidates who have not remediated – 2

Percentage and number of candidates assessed by each assessment tool.

Table 4 – Includes 79 candidates in ―SF State‖ program from N=114. Data could not be

disaggregated to extract only the scores for the 79 candidates. However, the data is

informative to program as it includes all current candidates in program.

Table 4 does not include Elk Grove (N=10) and BATTI (N=25) as the system for data

collection could not be set up. These programs went through College of Extended

Learning. Note: These programs are no longer with SF State, explanation in Part I.

Table 5 – Includes 114 candidates, all candidates responded to all prompts.

Table 6 – Includes 114 candidates, all candidates responded to all prompts.

Assessor Information

# of assessors the program uses: 29

# of assessors who scored in years for which biennial report data is being submitted: 20


October 15, 2012 21

100% of the 20 assessors used in the biennial report completed initial training and

recalibrated for the applicable biennial report years. Note: This is a requirement of the

TPA.

Data on reliability related to double scoring (includes failing PACT teaching events)

% of score agreement: 95%

Modifications to assessor selection

The various programs mentioned in this biennial report allows for a diverse pool of assessors.

Assessors are assigned in such a way that they do not assess candidates in their programs. Now

that the programs, Elk Grove and BATTI, are no longer with SF State, it is not certain that the

pool of assessors will remain as broad.



The following analyses and discussions of candidate and program data are handled in the

order that the data appears in PART II.

Expectations for acceptable candidate performance in the elementary classroom have

been established (Table 2). However, at the time of this report the program has no way of

compiling aggregated data; the placement coordinator scrutinizes the scores as the

evaluations are submitted. Thus, the program needs to collect such information

electronically so that the data can be used to analyze fieldwork.

The scores for the embedded signature assignments/assessments reflect the SF State

program only. Candidates show high scores (3 & 4 = 86-98%) in most assessments

except for three: ―connected lessons: mathematics‖ (3 & 4 = 66%), ―context for learning‖

(3 & 4 = 78%), and ―arts/PE/Health …‖ (3 only = 64%). Ideas: a) The same instructor

evaluated most of the mathematics assignments, which might have resulted in consistent

lower scores, mainly 2s and 3s; b) The ―context for learning‖ challenges candidates to

describe their students’ academic and social development; the assignment is completed in

the first semester of the program when candidates are new to the elementary classroom;

and c) Candidates do not have sufficient exposure to developing lessons in these subject

areas, partly due to the dominance of literacy and mathematics instruction in the

elementary classrooms.

CATs, Table 5: Even though different instructors taught in each program, aggregated

program scores are comparable and no one program scored the highest all the time. For

example, in literacy the lowest to highest was Elk Grove (2.37), SF State (2.70), BATTI

(2.92); in science, SF State (2.59), BATTI (2.77), Elk Grove (3.00); in social studies, Elk

Grove (2.50), SF State (2.70), BATTI (2.97). Since all CATs use the planning task of the

PACT (TPA), the program needs to use the other tasks (instructing, assessing, reflecting

& academic language) in order to better prepare candidates.

Teaching event in mathematics, Table 6: As noted by the lower scores, academic

language continues to challenge candidates. Program needs to explicitly teach candidates


October 15, 2012 22

about academic language, i.e. What is academic language? What are the different levels

of language proficiency with regard to productive and receptive modalities? How is the

program preparing candidates to understand English learners and their challenges at

various levels of proficiency? The needs of English learners at the higher levels of

proficiency get overlooked and taken for being fully proficient.

Given the number of candidates that begins and completes the program, as well as aggregated

scores in Table 5 (CATs) and Table 6 (PACT teaching event), candidate competence is at a level

that meets the expectations of individuals exiting a teacher education program. Although this

implies that the program is effective, there are definite areas of improvement as noted in Table 7.



Table 7: Proposed programmatic changes, based on data presented in Tables 4 through 6.

Data Source Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made Applicable Program

Fieldwork

Evaluation, Table 2

Explore the use of electronic data collection so that aggregated

data can be generated.

MSC Program

SF State

ESA-Mathematics,

Table 4 (EED 784)

Meet with instructors about scoring – review rubric for this ESA. MSC Program

SF State

ESA-Context for

Learning, Table 4

(EED 756)

Convene EED 756 instructors and share how they guide

candidates in preparing this assignment-identify best practices

MSC Program

SF State

ESA-Arts/PE/Health,

Table 4 (EED 757)

Convene EED 757 instructors and explore ideas about improving

preparation of candidates in these subject areas.

MSC Program

SF State

CAT data, Table 5 Consider using assessing and academic language tasks to improve

candidates’ knowledge & skills.

MSC Program

SF State

PACT data,

assessment, Table 6*

Examine credential courses: a) How is assessment being taught?

What tools (rubrics, criteria, etc.) are used? b) Are candidates

receiving sufficient practice with interpreting assessment

outcomes? Are candidates prepared to respond with feedback that

furthers students’ understanding?

MSC Program

SF State

PACT data, academic

language, Table 6

Examine credential courses: How is the program preparing

candidates to understand English learners and their challenges at

various levels of proficiency?

MSC Program

SF State

Assessor selection &

training

How will the assessor pool be impacted by the absence of satellite

programs (Elk Grove & BATTI)? Program needs to identify

assessor trainings in area for new faculty and others who would

like to be trained.

MSC Program

SF State

* Although not listed in Part III, assessment had been a concern in the PACT implementation and the program

would like to continue monitoring its progress as a task.


October 15, 2012 23






Program documented in this report Adult Education Credential

Name of Program Adult Education Credential




Traditional

Credential awarded Designated Subjects in Adult Education

Is this program offered at more than one site? No



Program Contact Dr. Doris Flowers and Dr. Ming-yeh Lee

Title Co-coordinators

Phone # (415) 338-2614 / (415) 338-1081

E-Mail [email protected] / [email protected]



Name

Title

Phone #

E-mail




October 15, 2012 24



The Adult Education program at San Francisco State University offers the Designated Subjects

Teaching Credential and a Master of Arts Degree in Adult Education. Both, the credential and

the MA degree program are housed in the Department of Equity, Leadership Studies and

Instructional Technology (ELSIT), formerly the Department of Administration and

Interdisciplinary Studies (DAIS).

The students who choose to apply for the credential in Adult Education are usually working

adults, who pursue this program on the part-time bases. Our program is unique in that the

Designated Subjects Credential Program courses are presented as both regular, matriculated

university offerings at the graduate- level and options offered through the College of Extended

Learning. Therefore some of our students enter the credential program as an extension of their

MA Degree courses and others enter the credential program with the specific goal of obtaining a

teaching credential. The Designated Subjects Teaching Credential is earned through a series of

courses and practicum. Because students may enter the program and apply for the program

during both semesters, a cohort effect does not apply to our program.

A preliminary teaching credential (Tier 1) is earned once students have successfully completed

two courses of 4 units offered by the credential program: ISED 706: Seminar in Principles and

Methods of Adult and Vocational Education (3 units) and ISED 783: Introduction to

Technologies for Adult Learners (1 unit). The full Credential (Tier 2) is earned once students

have successfully completed two 3-unit courses: ISED 781: Seminar in Teaching Improvement

and ISED 782: Teaching Practicum for Adult Education in addition to completing two (2) years

of teaching experiences in an institution requiring an adult education teaching credential in order

to teach. Our students are generally part-time and usually complete their academic requirements

in an average of 2 and more years.



2010-11 2011-2012


Delivery Option

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

SFSU 10 4 (3

preliminary

and 1 clear

19 3 preliminary


October 15, 2012 25



The candidates for the Designated Subjects credential in Adult Education are assessed using the

Teaching Performance Expectations (TPE’s) set by program and state credentialing board.

Assessments of candidates’ performance and program effectiveness are made on a continual

basis throughout the academic year.

Program Area Data Collection Plan

Adult Education Teaching Credential

Assessment

Category

Examples/Target

Population

Types of Assessments:

1. Foundational

Knowledge

Laws, ethics,

theories, research,

socio-cultural

knowledge

ISED 706, Course Based Curriculum Activity

ISED 781: Course Assignments, Curriculum Folder

2. Discipline Specific

Knowledge

Curriculum &

Instruction

ISED 781: Course based Curriculum Folder

ISED 782: Supervised Field Experience

ISED 783: Technology-oriented Lesson Plans

3. Needs Assessment

Student

ISED 706, Course Based Evaluation of Adult Education

Program,

Micro Teaching Task 1 and 2

ISED 781, Curriculum Folder

ISED 782, Field Based Teaching Assessment

4. Goal Setting Student

ISED 706, Micro Teaching Task 3 and 4,

ISED 781, Curriculum Folder

ISED 782, Adapted Curriculum Lessons (CB)

Student Teaching Evaluation

5. Managing Service

Delivery

Student

ISED 781, Field-Based Teaching Activity

ISED 782: Student Teaching Evaluation

6. Evaluating

Outcomes

Student

ISED 781, Student-Student Evaluation, Curriculum Folder

ISED 782, Field Based Curriculum Activity, Field Based

Lesson Plan

for Adult Learner, Student Teaching Evaluation

7. Professional

Dispositions

Reflective, respects

diversity, social &

economic contexts

Written Reflection of Experience in Field,

ISED 781, ISED 782 Student Teaching Evaluation

a) The key assessments used to make critical decisions about candidate competence

include the following:

1) Course letter grades. No grade lower than B is accepted

2) Embedded Signature Assignments (ESAs) in each course are evaluated based on the 1-4

scale with 1 being lowest score and 4 being the highest score.


October 15, 2012 26

Instructors evaluate ESAs and other assignments, (such as papers, micro-teaching tasks in

ISED 706 and teaching demonstration in ISED 781, see chart above) indicated on the syllabi

to determine students’ course grades at end of semester.

3) Field Supervision: Teacher observations of candidates’ teaching performance during the

teaching practicum (ISED 782) by using a checklist of critical components of teaching

effectiveness.



decision making?

1) Individual advisement is provided all students when they enter and enroll in the

required Tier 1 preliminary credential courses (ISED 706 & ISED 783).

2) A checklist of program requirements is provided to students for credential application

advising after completion of Tier 1 courses.

3) Follow-up advising for Tier II credential is provided to students who enter and enroll

in the required Tier II clear credential courses (ISED 781 & ISED 782)

4) Course evaluations are conducted with all courses once a semester.








PROGRAM‟S RESPONSE:

Course Completion

10 candidates were enrolled in the courses required for Tier I and Tier II Designated

Subjects Adult Education Teaching Credential program in AY 2010-2011. Of the 10

candidates, 3 applied and were recommended for preliminary teaching credential and 1

student applied for clear teaching credential.

All 10 candidates have successfully completed the courses with a grade B or above.

19 candidates were enrolled in courses required for Tier I and Tier II Designated Subjects

Adult Education Teaching Credential in AY 2011-2012. 3 applied for and were

recommended for preliminary teaching credential based on the data collected by the

program.

Of the 19 candidates, 18 have completed the required courses with a grade of B or above.

One had an incomplete.


October 15, 2012 27

As noted earlier, the majority of our students pursuing their Designated Subjects Adult

Education Teaching Credential on the part-time bases while they obtain their M.A.

degrees in Adult Education, Teaching English as a Second Language and Equity and

Social Justice in Education. Their academic records oftentimes do not show their

credential program status but their statuses of regular M.A. students. Therefore, the

current data collection system may not be capable of counting all credential applicants.

Data for academic years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 presented here are primarily based on

data collected by the program.

Field Supervision

Evidence of satisfactory completion of supervised fieldwork (ISED 782, Practicum in

Adult Learning) is indicated by course grade B and above.

Of the grades received by students enrolled in the field placement courses in AY 2010-

11, all students have completed the course and gotten an A.

Of the grades received by students enrolled in the field placement courses in AY 2011-

12, all but one student have completed the course and gotten an A. The student who has

gotten an incomplete in Spring 2012 has currently worked on the course to make up for

the incomplete in the fall semester of 2012.

Signature Assignment

The Designated Subjects Adult Education Teaching Credential Program implemented our

signature assignments in spring of 2009. Signature assignments were scored based on

requirements indicated on the required course syllabi.

Overall the majority of our students received either a score of 3 or 4 in all signature

assignments within the Designated Subject Adult Education Teaching Credential. There

are no students whose scores are below 3 for AY 2010-11 or AY 2011-2012.

Overall, the program data demonstrated the candidates enrolled in the required program courses

have performed well and the majority of the students have successfully complete their required

courses and field supervision with a grade of B and above. All of their signature assignments

were scored 3 and above. The numbers of the students enrolled in the required courses seemed to

have increased for the past year.

The challenge facing the program is to build the database that can help the faculty closely

monitor the development status of our students. As noted before, many students may not apply

for the credential status, they may not take courses every semester, and they may not apply for

credential after they finish the required courses. So the program faculty needs to be better

informed of, monitor and follow up with our student status in order to provide timely response to

meet the needs of our many part-time students.


October 15, 2012 28




program effectiveness to improve candidate outcomes and program effectiveness. The focus of

this section should not be on the process employed by the institution to discuss changes

(although it can be mentioned briefly), but on the actual considered, proposed, or implemented

programmatic changes specific to the data. If proposed changes are being made, please connect

the proposed changes to the data that stimulated those modifications and to the Program and/or

Common Standard(s) that compels program performance in that area. If preferred, programs

may combine responses to Sections III (Analysis of the Data) with Section IV (Use of

Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance) so long as all the required

aspects of the responses are addressed.

PROGRAM'S RESPONSE:

Data Source Plan of Action or Proposed Changes

Made

Applicable

Program or

Common

Standard(s)

Data combined of

student program

enrollment status,

signature assignment

and field supervision

The program will improve the current,

individual advising process by combining

all the data sources by coordinating

among the faculty members to provide

more systematic data for all students

enrolled in the program courses.

Designated

Subjects Adult

Education

Teaching

Credential

Program Document The program is in the process of

preparing responses to the revised

standards for Designated Subjects Adult

Education Teaching Credential to

streamline the program and to further

enhance candidates’ ability to work with

a diverse adult learner population.

Changes to course curriculum, including

assignments, readings, and professional

knowledge and practice were revised,

and revisited in response to the program

standards. The program document will

be submitted to CTC for review by the

end of fall semester, 2012.

Responses to CTC

Program standards

for Designated

Subjects Adult

Education

Teaching

Credential


October 15, 2012 29






Program documented in this report Reading Specialist Credential

Name of Program Reading Specialist Credential




Traditional

Credential awarded Reading Specialist Credential




Program Contact Marguerite Conrad and Ali Borjian

Title Co-coordinators

Phone # 415/338-1309

E-Mail [email protected], [email protected]



Name

Title

Phone #

E-mail



October 15, 2012 30

SECTION A – CREDENTIAL PROGRAM SPECIFIC INFORMATION5


Please provide general information to help reviewers understand the program and the context in

which it operates. Program may include any information it believes will assist reviewers in

understanding the institution and its programs. As part of your response, please complete the

candidate and program completer table below. Then, please briefly describe what has changed

significantly since your last major accreditation activity (biennial report, program assessment, or

site visit). Include descriptions of program modifications undertaken in response to the previous

biennial report, if any. Responses to this section in the form of bullets, lists, or tables are entirely

appropriate and encouraged.



2010-11 2011-2012


Delivery Option

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

30 13* 24 9*

The majority of candidates are full-time teachers and typically complete the

program in three years.

Changes Since Last Accreditation Activity (Biennial Report, Program Assessment or Site Visit).

Please include approximate date changes were initiated. (Brevity/bulleted format are highly

encouraged).

PROGRAM'S RESPONSE:

The program created a site-based field placement component for supervising program

candidates working with under-performing elementary and middle school students

(2008). Candidates work within a specially designed tutorial program in schools that

serve predominantly low SES, immigrant students. Candidates are provided

instruction and supervision at the school site by program faculty.

Our program was recently revised to meet new program standards developed by CTCC

(2012). Program revisions include: additional assessment tools across courses,

language and literacy theory and practices relevant to pre-K- adult learners, and a

continued enhancement of clinical work in the field. Programmatic changes were

developed based on the new program standards, feedback from program graduates, community partners, and faculty in-put.


5 NOTE: This report replicates the queries from CTC's template and the program's responses to theses queries in the

various sections of this report are inserted in BOLD ITALIC text.


October 15, 2012 31


The program submits information on how candidate and program completer performance are

assessed and a summary of the data. The length of this section depends on the size of the

program and how data is reported. The information and data submitted in this section will be

used by the institution as the basis for the analysis and action plan submitted in Parts III and IV.

There is no minimum or maximum number of pages for this section. Report aggregated data

from 4-6 instruments that measure candidate competence as required in the standards and

program effectiveness data, including TPA data as required. Where possible, include data that

reflect the impact of program modification(s) undertaken in response to the previous biennial

report, if any.


recommending the candidate for a credential? What key assessments are used to make critical

decisions about candidate competence prior to being recommended for a credential? Because

this section is focused on candidate development while enrolled in the program, please do not

include admissions data.

PROGRAM'S RESPONSE:

Course completion

Supervised field work

Signature assignment for each course

Please identify and describe the tool(s) used to assess candidates, the data collection process and

the types of data collected (e.g., TPA, portfolios, observations, other). Program sponsors are

encouraged to consider presenting the description of these assessment tools in a single

comprehensive chart or table together with the information responding to (b) below.

PROGRAM'S RESPONSE:

Course completion: Students must receive a grade no lower than a B- in all of their

coursework. As graduate students, candidates are held to university requirements for

academic scholarship and time limits for completion of satisfactory coursework.

Supervised field work: Students complete their fieldwork under the supervision of

program faculty. Students submit a portfolio at the end of the practicums which are

assessed as part of the coursework.

Signature Assignments: Signature assignments reflect a key or culminating

assignment for each credential course. Signature assignments are scored with the use

of a rubric. Course Number Signature Assignments

E ED 703 Family Literacy Interview

E ED 705 Author Studies

E ED 720 Literature Review

E ED 723 Leadership In-service

E ED 725 Teacher Reflective Practitioners Research


October 15, 2012 32

Course Number Signature Assignments

E ED 726 Case Study

E ED 763 Technology Integration Project

E ED 770 Case Study- Elementary Level

E ED 771 Case Study- Secondary Level

E ED 785 Final Research Paper

E ED 869 Lesson Delivery Scaffolding ELL students

b) What additional information about candidate and program completer performance or program

effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision making? What

additional assessments are used to ascertain program effectiveness as it relates to candidate

competence? Please identify specific tool(s) used to assess candidates and program completers?

Briefly describe the type of data collected (e.g. employer data, post program surveys, retention

data, other types of data) and the data collection process. Program sponsors are encouraged to

consider presenting the description of these assessment tools in a single comprehensive chart or

table with the information responding to (a) above.

PROGRAM'S RESPONSE:

The majority of program candidates also complete the MA program in Language and

Literacy simultaneously. This demands two additional courses within the Graduate

College of Education culminating in a field based research study under the supervision

of two professors in the program.

Each year a Reading Specialist Credential candidate is recognized by the university for

his/her outstanding academic scholarship and contribution to enhancing educational

opportunities in the Bay Area.



from 4-6 of those assessments.

PROGRAM'S RESPONSE:

Candidates in the Reading Specialist Credential Program are assessed primarily through

course grades, satisfactory completion of supervised fieldwork, successful completion of a

complimentary degree, the MA in Language and Literacy, and signature assignments that are

aligned with each course objective. The number of candidates is small and our outcomes are

reflected in the following data:

Course Completion

28 candidates were enrolled in our credential program in AY 2010-2011. The average

GPA for this cohort is 3.90.



Field Supervision

Evidence of satisfactory completion of supervised fieldwork is indicated by course

grade.

Of the grades received by students enrolled in the yearlong field placement courses in


October 15, 2012 33

AY 2010-11, 91% were “A’s” and 9% were “B’s.”


AY 2011-12, 100% were “A’s.”


The majority of our students obtain both Reading Specialist Credential and MA in Language

and Literacy. Data for academic years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are incomplete due to a data

collection system that currently is not capable of accounting for multiple degree designations.


assignments within the Reading Specialist program. For example, in EED 705 fall 2011, two

student scores were reflected in the COE database. Those scores were a 3 and a 4. In spring

of 2011, EED 869 showed two student scores: a 3 and a 4.




introduce new types of data in this section. Note strengths and areas for improvement that have

been identified through the analyses of the data. Describe what the analyses of the data

demonstrate about your program relative to: a) candidate competence; and b) program

effectiveness.

PROGRAM'S RESPONSE:

Course Completion





Field Supervision

Evidence of satisfactory completion of supervised fieldwork is indicated by course

grade.


AY 2010-11, 91% were “A’s” and 9% were “B’s.”


AY 2011-12, 100% were “A’s.”


We implemented our signature assignments in spring of 2009. Signature assignments were

scored based on faculty-designed rubrics.

As noted earlier, the majority of our students obtain both Reading Specialist Credential and

MA in Language and Literacy. Data for academic years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are


October 15, 2012 34

incomplete due to a data collection system that currently is not capable of accounting for

multiple degree designations.


assignments within the Reading Specialist program. For example, in EED 705 fall 2011, two

student scores were reflected in the COE database. Those scores were a 3 and a 4. In spring

of 2011, EED 869 showed two student scores: a 3 and a 4.




program effectiveness to improve candidate outcomes and program effectiveness. The focus of

this section should not be on the process employed by the institution to discuss changes

(although it can be mentioned briefly), but on the actual considered, proposed, or implemented

programmatic changes specific to the data. If proposed changes are being made, please connect

the proposed changes to the data that stimulated those modifications and to the Program and/or

Common Standard(s) that compels program performance in that area. If preferred, programs

may combine responses to Sections III (Analysis of the Data) with Section IV (Use of

Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance) so long as all the required

aspects of the responses are addressed.

An example of how a program might present this information is:

PROGRAM'S RESPONSE:

Data Source Plan of Action or Proposed Changes Made Applicable Program or

Common Standard(s)

Signature

assignments/rubrics

Rubrics developed by program faculty

have enhanced our ability to gauge the

quality of student projects and have been

useful in providing feedback to candidates.

Reading Specialist

Credential

Program Document Revision of Program was undertaken to

enhance candidates’ ability to work with a

pre K-adult population. Changes to course

assignments, readings and advanced

clinical work were formulated. Our

document is currently under review and

we are in our transition year.

CTC Program standards

for Reading Specialist

Credential


October 15, 2012 35






Program documented in this report Early Childhood Special Education

Name of Program Early Childhood Special Education




Traditional, Intern

Credential awarded Preliminary and Clear Credentials in ECSE




Program Contact Summer Hsia

Title Coordinator and Associate Professor, Early Childhood Special

Education

Phone # 415.338.2502




Name

Title

Phone #

E-mail


October 15, 2012 36



The Education Specialist Credential in Early Childhood is designed to prepare professional

educators to provide quality early intervention and early childhood special education to young

children, birth to 5, who are at risk or have disabilities and their families. The program

emphasizes the importance of involving parents as partners in intervention and prepares

candidates to be respectful of the dynamics and values of families. The program views children

as active participants in their learning, and it trains candidates to use evidence-based and

developmentally appropriate practices to foster children’s growth and development in home-

based and inclusive settings. In addition, the program prepares candidates to collaborate with

professionals in other disciplines to meet the individual needs of children and families.

Coursework and fieldwork are closely integrated to facilitate the application of theory to

practice.

The following chart lists the number of candidates enrolled and number of graduates.



2010-11 2011-2012


Delivery Option

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

SFSU 54 42 47 44

Significant changes since last major accreditation activities, biennial report (fall 2009) and

site visit (2007).

In response to the new CCTC standards and to reflect recommended practices in the field of

Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education, the course requirements for the

Preliminary Credential in ECSE have been revised. The following is a summary of the revisions

effective July 2010:

SPED 702 and SPED 803 have been revised and renumbered to SPED 788 and SPED

801, respectively. Both courses are considered common core requirements for all

credential candidates, and they address issues including legal foundations for special

education, technology, universal design, transitions, cultural diversity, and implications

of disability for English-Language Learners.

SPED 747 has been enriched to offer candidates in-depth information and experience in

the area of sensory, health, and physical impairments.

SPED 774 has been added so the candidates are prepared to use positive behavior

supports to address challenging behavior of children at home and in group settings.


October 15, 2012 37

SPED 825 has been added to give training to design and implement effective

instructional programs for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders.

SPED 885 has been added to address the Standard of Collaboration and Teaming.

Health Education has been added to address issues related to personal, family, and

community health for children and youth.





The candidate, prior to being recommended for a credential, is evaluated on an ongoing basis,

and the primary tools include the individual course grades, overall GPA, grades received on Key

Assignments in all required coursework, and Portfolio Evaluation of Student Teaching. The

candidate must obtain a grade of B or better in ECSE core courses and maintain a GPA of 3.0 or

better overall.

The candidate has to complete two student teaching experiences, one with children birth to 3

years and the other with children 3 to 5 years, in two separate semesters. Student teaching

performance is evaluated jointly by the site and university supervisors twice a semester. In

addition to working directly with children and families under supervision, the candidate needs to

complete an intervention portfolio, focusing on assessment, intervention planning, and program

evaluation. The five ratings of the portfolio include Missing Competence (1), Developing

Competence (2), Growing Competence (3), Initial Competence (4), and Mastery Competence

(5). The candidate must receive a 4 or 5 rating on each section in order to pass the section, and

the candidate must pass all sections in order to receive credit for Student Teaching and be

recommended for the credential.

b) What additional information about candidate and program completer performance or

program effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision-

making?

Every semester, the candidate submits evaluations for all the courses enrolled, and the qualitative

and quantitative data generated are used to improve the delivery of the coursework. In addition,

the candidate enrolled in Student Teaching submits placement and supervisor evaluations, and

the data are used to determine the quality of sites and appropriateness of supervision.

c) Include aggregated data from 4-6 instruments that were described in (a) and (b).

The following tables show data collected in 2010 – 2011 and 2011 – 2012 Academic Years


October 15, 2012 38

Table 1: Average Grade Point Average (GPA) Academic Year Number of Candidates Average GPA Range

2010 – 2011 54 3.76

0.00 – 4.00

2011 – 2012 47 3.69 0.00 – 4.00

Table 2: Ratings on Key Assignments by Course and Semester*

*Key assignments were rated by course instructors using a 4-point scale; 4=Excellent,

3=Good, 2=Adequate, 1=Less than Adequate.

Fall 2010

Course Number of Candidates Mean Range

SPED 729 5 4 4

SPED 730 6 3.33 3-4

SPED 740 2 3.67 3-4

SPED 747 11 3.54 2-4

SPED 777 31 3.74 3-4

SPED 779 17 3.71 2-4

SPED 780 20 3.74 2-4

SPED 788 12 3.83 3-4

SPED 801 3 3.33 3-4

SPED 825 2 3.4 3-4

Spring 2011


SPED 729 7 4 4

SPED 730 7 3.86 3-4

SPED 737 19 3.21 2-4

SPED 738 18 3.94 3-4

SPED 740 12 3.25 3-4

SPED 747 15 3.93 3-4

SPED 788 7 4 4

SPED 801 3 3.33 3-4

SPED 885 25 3.16 2-4

Summer 2011


SPED 729 10 4 4

SPED 730 11 3.91 3-4

SPED 788 3 4 4

SPED 801 6 3.67 3-4

SPED 825 4 4 4

Fall 2011


SPED 729 8 3.88 3-4

SPED 730 8 3.25 3-4

SPED 740 5 4 4

SPED 747 13 3.86 3-4

SPED 777 18 2.94 2-4

SPED 779 22 3.18 1-4

SPED 780 12 3 2-4

SPED 788 11 3.64 3-4


October 15, 2012 39

SPED 801 3 3.67 3-4

SPED 825 9 3.89 3-4

Spring 2012


SPED 729 13 4 4

SPED 730 18 3.33 2-4

SPED 737 13 3.62 3-4

SPED 738 14 3.93 3-4

SPED 740 6 3.5 3-4

SPED 747 10 3.8 3-4

SPED 788 3 3.67 3-4

SPED 801 6 3.67 3-4

SPED 885 31 3.10 1-4

Table 3: Ratings of Intervention Portfolio*

* Intervention Portfolios were rated by university supervisors on a 5-point scale; 1=Missing

Competence, 2=Developing Competence, 3=Growing Competence, 4=Initial Competence,

5=Mastery Competence

Semester/Year Number of Candidates Mean Range Fall/2010 6 4.83 4-5

Spring/2011 7 4.86 4-5

Summer/2011 11 4.81 4-5

Fall/2011 8 4.38 4-5

Spring/2012 18 4.67 3-5

Table 4: Ratings of Placement Sites* Semester/Year Number of Candidates Mean Range

Fall/2010 6 1 1

Spring/2011 7 1 1

Summer/2011 11 1.1 1-2

Fall/2011 8 1.29 1-2

Spring/2012 18 1.22 1-2

*Candidates rated the quality of the student teaching sites on a 4 point scale; 1=Excellent,

2=Good, 3=Satisfactory, 4=Poor.


GPA

o The collected GPA data showed the average academic performance of the

program candidates, and it is evident that the majority of the candidates showed

high scholastic ability and achievement.

Key Assignments

o Key Assignments measure candidate achievement of the Standards addressed by

the coursework. Ratings on Key Assignments were collected from course

instructors, and the data show the majority of the candidates were well prepared.

o The courses received lower ratings in Fall 2011 are SPED 777 (2.94), SPED 780

(3), SPED 779 (3.18). This could be due to the fact that most of the students

enrolled in these ECSE core courses were in their first semester or year, and their

knowledge and skills improved as they moved through the program.


October 15, 2012 40

Intervention Portfolio

o Ratings on Intervention Portfolios were collected from university supervisors.

Since candidates have to complete the majority of the coursework before

enrolling in student teaching, the Portfolio represents the culminating experience

of their training. The ratings showed that the majority of the candidates

performed well in the field, and they showed excellent skills in the areas of

assessment, curriculum planning, data collection, and working with families.

Student Teaching Placement

o Ratings on placement sites were submitted by program candidates upon the

completion of the student teaching course. The data showed that the candidates

were highly satisfied with the quality of the sites, competence of site staff, amount

and quality of supervision, and they all recommended the sites for future

placements.



Common Standard(s)

Ratings of

Key

Assignments

Course instructors are working on assessment

tools to determine candidates’ knowledge base

and skill levels at the beginning of the semester.

Information is being used to adjust the level of

support each candidate needs to become

successful.

ECSE faculty meet once a month to discuss

candidate progress in the program.

Program Coordinator contacts course instructors

a minimum of 3 times a semester to identify

candidates who may need additional support.

All Program Standards

addressed in ECSE core courses

Ratings of

Placement

Sites

Continue to place candidates in sites that

consistently receive high ratings.

Closely examine candidates’ feedback and

identify weaknesses of sites that received less

satisfactory ratings.

Work closely with site supervisors and

administrators to clarify roles and responsibilities

of all involved in field experience.

Develop individual handbook for site supervisors

– the current Student Teaching Handbook

contains sections for student, site supervisor, and

university supervisor.

Identify more quality placement sites in various

Bay Area locations.


October 15, 2012 41






Program documented in this report Special Education Mild/Moderate Education

Specialist Credential

Name of Program Mild/Moderate Education Specialist Program




Traditional and Intern

Credential awarded Preliminary & Clear Education Specialist

Is this program offered at more than one site? NO



San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA

Program Contact Susan Courey, Ph.D.

Title Associate Professor/ Mild/Moderate Program Coordinator

Phone # 415 786 6151



October 15, 2012 42



The Mild/Moderate Education Specialist Credential program provides intern* teachers and

preservice teachers with the broad preparation they need to work with the wide range of learners

in (grades K through 12 and adults through age 22) who may be in today's general, inclusive, or

special education settings. Throughout the program candidates learn how to utilize scientifically-

based instructional and behavior strategies for working with children with a wide range of

abilities. Candidates learn how to make data-based decisions and tailor teaching approaches to

the students’ academic, intellectual, emotional, and social needs in order to help them reach their

full potential. The program includes requirements in common core coursework in special and

general education, on-going advisory support, access to new math and reading intervention

technologies, field-based activities, and a student teaching experience. Over the course of the

Preliminary Credential program, candidates will an online portfolio documenting academic work

and student teaching experiences.

Credential Candidates return to San Francisco State University to clear their Preliminary

Credential within five years by developing an Individualized Induction Plan in the first section of

SPED 740 (a 3 unit induction planning class). The Individualized Induction Plan (IIP) is a

professional development road map toward completing professional goals and objective based on

their practice circumstances. The IIP is designed by the candidate, SFSU adviser, school district

mentor and course instructor and seeks to assess and improve the professional teaching practices

of each candidate. In the second section of SPED 740, candidates progress toward meeting IIP

goals and objectives are evaluated and approved by the candidate, SFSU adviser, school district

mentor and course instructor.

The College of Education at San Francisco State University has developed a unified credential

evaluation system. The Department of Special Education participates in this unified evaluation

system which was developed by the Chair of the Department of Special Education in

collaboration with program area faculty from all 30 credential programs on campus. For a

detailed discussion of this evaluation system, as well as access to evaluation data, the reader is

referred to our evaluation website: http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/.

*Due to the fact that the Department of Special Education does not operate under a fixed

cohort model, interns are treated the same as our non-intern candidates and they follow

the same course sequence and pathway to their preliminary credential. As a result, the

information provided in this report does not differentiate between intern and non-intern

candidates. It refers equally to both groups as Education Specialist Credential

candidates.Please provide general information to help reviewers understand the program

and the context in which it operates. Program may include any information it believes

will assist reviewers in understanding the institution and its programs. As part of your

response, please complete the candidate and program completer table below. Then,

please briefly describe what has changed significantly since your last major accreditation

activity (biennial report, program assessment, or site visit). Include descriptions of

program modifications undertaken in response to the previous biennial report, if any.



October 15, 2012 43

Responses to this section in the form of bullets, lists, or tables are entirely appropriate

and encouraged.


October 15, 2012 44



2010-11 2011-2012

Site

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

San Francisco State

University, San Francisco

129 89 115 104


Visit). Please include approximate date changes were initiated. (Brevity/bulleted format are

highly encouraged). Please see Tables 1, 2, & 3



The program submits information on how candidate and program completer performance are

assessed and a summary of the data. The length of this section depends on the size of the

program and how data is reported. The information and data submitted in this section will be

used by the institution as the basis for the analysis and action plan submitted in Parts III and IV.

There is no minimum or maximum number of pages for this section. Report aggregated data

from 4-6 instruments that measure candidate competence as required in the standards and

program effectiveness data, including TPA data as required. Where possible, include data that

reflect the impact of program modification(s) undertaken in response to the previous biennial

report, if any.



The Mild/Moderate Credential program includes requirements in common core coursework in

special and general education, on-going advisory support, access to new math and reading

intervention technologies, field-based activities, and a student teaching experience. Over the

course of the program candidates will create an online portfolio documenting academic work and

student teaching experiences. All courses require a Key Assignment that addresses the Standards

of Quality and Effectiveness for Education Specialist Credential Programs and the primary

California content standards related to each course. As candidates progress through the program,

each key assignment is assessed and added to the electronic portfolio. In addition to the

evaluation of each key assignment, the entire portfolio is evaluated for a thorough understanding

and demonstration of teaching standards and professional dispositions. SEE TABLES 1.


October 15, 2012 45


program effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision

making?

Clearing the Preliminary Credential. Education Specialist teacher with a preliminary credential

develop, implement, analyze and engage in a cycle of continuous improvement related to the

approved content of an IIP in order to clear their credential. As promoted by the standards, the

primary focus of the IIPs is on field-based instruction and instructionally related activities.

Given the needs of students with disabilities, these instructionally related activities involve

various levels of collaboration with staff from other professions, as well as fellow teachers. Co-

teaching, and school-based curriculum development projects that involve collaboration among

teachers and other professionals through participation on site-based task forces are encouraged.

In the development of IIPs, consideration will be given to advanced coursework, if the need

presents itself as a natural outgrowth of addressing instructional goals. However, university

coursework is not universally required, other than the two SPED 740 seminars. In the second

section of SPED 740, candidates’ progress toward meeting IIP goals and objectives is evaluated

and approved by the candidate, SFSU adviser, school district mentor and course instructor using

course work grades, observations, and individualized formative assessments.



from 4-6 of those assessments. PLEASE SEE TABLES 2 and 3 BELOW


October 15, 2012 46

Table 1: Preliminary Mild/Moderate Education Specialist Credential Evaluation and

Improvement Summary Course Units Evaluation/Key

Assignment

Mean

Score*

10/11

Mean

Score

11/12

Data-based Improvements

Additions or Revisions (Date revised)

SPED 770 Intro to

M/M Disability

3 Beginning Student

Teaching Portfolio

3.1

NA

Added UDL training, improved IEP goal

writing, added human rights and

education module; introduction to

Common Core Standards (F’11)

SPED 788 Legal,

Ethics,

Collaboration,

Tech, &

Instructional

Planning

3 Teacher Interview

3.7

4

Added content on laws pertaining to

bilingual education (S’11)

SPED 774

Positive Behavior

Support

3 Positive Behavior

Intervention

3.5

3.3

Added School-wide Positive Behavior

Support (SWPBS) (S’11)

SPED 801

Development,

Diversity and ELL

3 Field-based Case

Study

3.6

4

Improved culturally responsive training

(S’11)

SPED 772

Assessment,

Curriculum, and

Instruction

3 Assessment Case

Study

3.9

NA

Added EL assessment component;

improved progress monitoring and

common core standards (S’12)

E ED 882 Literacy

Instruction K-12

3 O/P Portfolio Case

Study

NA

NA

Added hands-on reading instruction for El

learners and learners with LD in a

classroom setting; Add instructional

interventions; Add assessment (CBM)

(F’11)

E ED 784

Curriculum and

Instruction in

Mathematics

3 Teaching Mini Unit

2.7

2.3

No revisions

SPED 763

Transition

Planning

3 Transition Portfolio

3.8

3.5

Added community services component

(S’12)

HED 630/ 635

Health Education

(Elementary/Seco

nd)

1/3

NA

NA

No revisions

SPED 775 M/M

Advanced

Methods

3 Field-Based

Portfolio Case Study

3.7

3.6

Added field experience (F’10)

SPED 778

Advanced

Literacy and

Instruction

3 Language and

Literary Analysis

3.7

3.6

No revisions

SPED 791 Nature

of Autism

or SPED 794

Autism

3 Autism Case Study 4

3.7

3.6

3.5

No revisions


October 15, 2012 47

Course Units Evaluation/Key

Assignment

Mean

Score*

10/11

Mean

Score

11/12

Data-based Improvements

Additions or Revisions (Date revised)

Comm/Socializati

on/Imagination

or SPED 825

Autism Behavior

3.3

4

SPED 726 Student

Teaching Seminar

3 Completed Teaching

and Formative

Assessment

Portfolio

3.4

4

Revised: Systematic Enquiry and

Analysis of Teaching; Add current

literature on empirically sound strategies

and interventions; Add module on

Common Core Standards (S’11)

SPED 730 Student

Teaching

Experience

9 Student

Teaching/Profession

al Disposition

Evaluation

3.4

3.4

Added student teaching video requirement

(S’11)

Total 46-48 3.5 3.6

* Scoring Key Assignment Score: 1, 2, 3 or 4; 4 = Highest Score

Table 2: Preliminary Mild/Moderate Education Specialist Credential Achievement Data

2010/2011 (includes Summer 11) Course Evaluation/Key

Assignment

Total %

scoring

1

Total %

scoring

2

Total %

scoring

3

Total %

scoring

4

Total N

SPED 770 Beginning Student

Teaching Portfolio

8.8 11.8 41.2 38.2 68

SPED 788 Teacher Interview 28.6

71.4 224

SPED 774 Positive Behavior

Intervention

9.7 6.4 9.7 74.2 124

SPED 801 Field-based Case Study 3.7 33.3 63 81

SPED 772 Assessment Case Study 12.1 87.9 99

E ED 882 O/P Portfolio Case Study

E ED 784 Teaching Mini Unit 52.2 21.7 26.1 92

SPED 763 Transition Portfolio 2.7 13.5 83.8 148

HED 630/ 635

SPED 775 Field-Based Portfolio Case

Study

32.4 67.6 148

SPED 778 Language and Literary

Analysis

4.1 16.7 79.2 224

SPED 791 or

SPED 794 or

SPED 825

Autism Case Study

7.1

8.3

14.3

25

100

78.6

66.7

4

14

12

SPED 726 Completed Teaching and

Formative Assessment

Portfolio

2.8 52.8 44.4 180

SPED 730 Student

Teaching/Professional

Disposition Evaluation

2.7 8.1 37.8 51.4 185


October 15, 2012 48

Table 3 Preliminary Mild/Moderate Education Specialist Credential Achievement Data

2011/2012

Course Evaluation/Key

Assignment

Total %

scoring

1

Total %

scoring

2

Total %

scoring

3

Total %

scoring

4

Total N

SPED 770* Beginning Student

Teaching Portfolio

SPED 788 Teacher Interview 100 8

SPED 774* Positive Behavior

Intervention

SPED 801 Field-based Case Study 100 9

SPED 772* Assessment Case Study

E ED 882* O/P Portfolio Case Study

E ED 784 Teaching Mini Unit 66.7 33.3 12

SPED 763 Transition Portfolio 9.1 27.3 63.6 44

HED 630/ 635

SPED 775 Field-Based Portfolio Case

Study

12.5 12.5 75 32

SPED 778 Language and Literary

Analysis

38.5 61.5 39

SPED 791 or

SPED 794 or

SPED 825

Autism Case Study 6.7 20

50

73.3

50

100

15

6

7

SPED 726 Completed Teaching and

Formative Assessment

Portfolio

100 55

SPED 730 Student

Teaching/Professional

Disposition Evaluation

15.4 30.8 53.8 65

* Data not available








The 2010/11 and 2011/2012 data reflect positively on credential candidate performance: that is,

the increasing ability of credential candidates to implement effective and research-based

educational practices in school settings in the areas of assessment, curriculum, instruction, and

program design for students with mild/moderate disabilities as well as in the implementation of

collaborative activities with school psychologists, families, general education staff. In addition,

our credential candidates are prepared to take on a leadership position in implementing a


October 15, 2012 49

response to intervention (RTI) service delivery model that includes progress monitoring and

school-wide positive behavior support. Finally, our credential candidates are better prepared to

effectively manage increasingly diverse inclusive classrooms and address the more rigorous

Common Core Standards.

How do the data reflect on credential program effectiveness?

These data suggest that the Credential Program in Mild/Moderate Disabilities is effectively

preparing highly qualified teachers to instruct students with disabilities with a focus on closing

the achievement gap between students with disabilities and their typical peers. In addition, our

program teaches and provides opportunity for candidates to work effectively with general

education teachers, school psychologists, and the families of their students. The mild/moderate

program is progressive in its approach to preparing students to implement RTI and train other

teachers in the use of progress monitoring. Our faculty and instructors incorporate the latest

research-based approaches to effective educational practices in courses and provide opportunities

for students to practice using these novel practices with supervision. With the addition of our

custom designed electronic portfolio system and the lesson plan creator embedded within the

portfolio system, our credential candidates have easy access to new technology and research-

based strategies and interventions. In addition, the program can more readily track candidates’

progress through the program and entry into the field. Finally, our program is becoming

increasingly more effective at preparing educational leaders in the local school districts who

understand the necessity of becoming involved in educational policy decision-making and

reform.




program effectiveness to improve candidate outcomes and program effectiveness. The

focus of this section should not be on the process employed by the institution to discuss

changes (although it can be mentioned briefly), but on the actual considered, proposed, or

implemented programmatic changes specific to the data. If proposed changes are being

made, please connect the proposed changes to the data that stimulated those modifications

and to the Program and/or Common Standard(s) that compels program performance in

that area. If preferred, programs may combine responses to Sections III (Analysis of the

Data) with Section IV (Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program

Performance) so long as all the required aspects of the responses are addressed.

Program Improvement Objectives 2010 – 2012

Review and revise all program/course materials to include more intensive core content

instruction so that all students will be en route to become highly qualified teachers

Add and improve upon current clinical experiences (or student teaching experiences) of

students in the M/M program


October 15, 2012 50

Maintain an on-line Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) System for current and

graduating students to use for progress monitoring in their classrooms and for us to track

the quality and effectiveness of our graduates and alumni.

Maintain an on-line system for creating lesson plans that align with Individualized

Education Plan (IEP) goals and California content standards and that provides links to

evidence-based instructional strategies and interventions.

Maintain a dynamic on-line portfolio system, to examine credential students’ pedagogical

and content area competence in an effort to continually evaluate the effectiveness of our

Level I Credential Program.


October 15, 2012 51


Biennial Report




Program documented in this report Moderate/Severe Disabilities Credential

Program

Name of Program Moderate/Severe Disabilities Credential

Program




Traditional; Intern

Credential awarded Education Specialist Credential in

Moderate/Severe Disabilities




Program Contact Pam Hunt

Title Professor, Department of Special Education

Phone # 415-338-7848




Name

Title

Phone #

E-mail


October 15, 2012 52



The Education Specialist Credential in Moderate/Severe Disabilities prepares highly qualified

teachers using research-based curricula and pedagogy to provide quality educational services to

students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The program has as its

foundation the assumption that educational services for students with disabilities should be

implemented in the least restrictive environment; and the goal of those services is to teach skills

and arrange educational and social settings to increase the students’ ability to participate fully in

school, home, and community environments. Credential candidates in this program must

demonstrate their competence in providing quality educational services to students with

moderate/severe disabilities using a systematic, data-based approach to instruction and models of

curricular adaptation and social belonging. Competencies in interacting effectively with families

and in developing IEPs and instructional programs with a transdisciplinary team approach also

are essential components of the training program. In addition, the program addresses the need to

provide extensive, supervised fieldwork experiences to ensure that teacher candidates are able to

apply the knowledge and skills acquired through course content and assignments to the

instruction of students with moderate/severe disabilities in inclusive or integrated urban

educational settings.

The coursework is designed to provide credential candidates with the knowledge and skills

needed to develop competency in all areas addressed by the credential program standards

including educational and social/behavioral assessments that involve families in the assessment

process, curriculum development (including standards-based academic curricula in literacy,

math, and science), data-based instructional planning, program management, and collaboration

with general educators to provide access to general education settings, curriculum, and activities.

In addition coursework addresses the development of multi-model communication systems and

facilitation of successful communicative exchanges with adults and peers in a variety of natural

school and community settings; facilitation of positive social relationships and friendships with

schoolmates and, for older students, positive social exchanges with individuals in community

settings; and functional assessment and the development of positive behavior interventions and

supports. Finally, coursework addresses the instructional and support needs of students with

movement, mobility, and sensory disabilities and specialized health care needs; and strategies to

facilitate the transition from early childhood educational and related services to services provided

in K-12 schools, and the facilitation of self-determined work, post-secondary education, and

community living for secondary-aged students with moderate-severe disabilities.

Fieldwork. Two semesters of supervised, weekly fieldwork experiences (approximately 84 hours

per semester)—in addition to one semester of student teaching (240 hours)—comprise the

experiential bases for candidates to apply theoretical constructs, conduct and interpret assessment

results, and apply curriculum and instructional strategies in educational settings. The fieldwork

sites are inclusive, urban schools in the San Francisco Bay Area that deliver educational services

to students with disabilities in general education classrooms, as well as in the community and

vocational settings for transition programs used as fieldwork sites. All schools used as training


October 15, 2012 53

sites have programs that meet research-based evaluation criteria for programs serving students

with moderate/severe disabilities in the areas of (a) program management, (b) integration

opportunities, (c) curricula development and implementation, (d) social and communication

supports, (e) staff training, (f) collaboration with general educators, (g) ability awareness

activities, and (h) membership in and contributions to the school community. Master Teachers

are highly competent graduates of the credential program in moderate-severe disabilities at SFSU

or programs at other universities that share a common educational philosophy, curricula, and

pedagogy. A university supervisor visits the site six times during the semester to provide

mentoring to individual teacher candidates and to evaluate student performance. All university

supervisors have served as Master Teachers and, therefore, have not only considerable teaching

experience, but also experience mentoring credential candidates. Master teachers meet with the

teacher candidate(s) placed with them for at least 30 minutes during each day of practicum to

answer questions about their experiences at the site, to guide them in completing their

coursework assignments related to assessment and instruction of students at the fieldwork site,

and to discuss issues related to effective educational practices. In addition, they collaborate with

the supervisors to complete the formal student evaluations conducted at midterm and at the end

of the semester.

Intern program. Due to the fact that the Department of Special Education does not operate under

a fixed cohort model, interns follow the same course sequence and pathway to their preliminary

credential. As a result, the information provided in this report does not differentiate between

intern and non-intern candidates. It refers equally to both groups as Education Specialist

Credential candidates.

The figure below identifies the number of candidates enrolled.



2010-11 2011-2012

Site

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

SFSU 75 51 73 70


Visit

Credential programs in the Department of Special Education at San Francisco State University

participated in an in-depth and comprehensive program assessment conducted by the California

Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Committee on Accreditation, during fall 2011 to evaluate

the extent to which the standards related to credential preconditions and the standards for

individual credential programs were being met. The committee judged that all standards specific

to the Education Specialist Credential in Moderate/Severe were being adequately addressed

through coursework and fieldwork. The committee also judged that the formative and evaluative


October 15, 2012 54

assessment systems designed to assess candidate performance relevant to program standards and

to Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) were adequate.



The candidate assessment outcomes used for this biennial report represent candidate

performance on key course assignments (―signature assignments‖) for all credential coursework

across the following semesters: Fall 2010, Spring, 2011, Summer 2011, Fall, 2011, and Spring

2012. Primary emphasis for this biennial report will be on the core methods courses completed

by credential candidates that are specific to the Education Specialist Credential in

Moderate/Severe Disabilities; however, the evaluation data for additional credential-required

coursework will also be reported. All signature assignments for core methods coursework (SPED

745, 773, 821a, 787, 789, 821b, and SPED 723 and 730) were completed in urban educational

settings and represent credential candidate performance in the areas of assessment, curriculum,

instruction, program design, collaboration, and staff training. The assignments required the

credential candidates to translate the knowledge and skills acquired in their credential courses to

their work with students with moderate/severe disabilities in urban educational settings.

Three of the courses are supervised fieldwork—SPED 821(practicum a), SPED 821(practicum

b), and SPED 730 (student teaching). These fieldwork courses are completed across the three-

semester sequence of core methods coursework. Fieldwork evaluations, which serve in the place

of signature assignments for the three fieldwork courses, are completed collaboratively by the

university supervisor and the district master teacher.

The table below presents a summary of the credential candidates’ performance on (a) signature

assignments for core methods coursework for the Education Specialist Credential in

Moderate/Severe Disabilities, (b) fieldwork evaluation scores across the three semesters of

practica, (c) signature assignment scores for additional credential-required coursework, and (d)

signature assignments for the two Induction Plan courses for the Clear Credential Program in

Moderate/Severe Disabilities. The scores fall on a 1 to 4-point scale, with 4 representing the

highest score. Scoring rubrics based on a 4-point scale have been developed for all signature

assignments (and fieldwork evaluations).

Table 1: Moderate/Severe Disabilities Credential Program Evaluation Data

Preliminary Education Specialist Credential in Moderate/Severe Disabilities:

Core Methods Coursework

SPED 745 Environ. Design: M/S Dis. F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0

2 0 0

3 2 1

4 18 9

Total 20 10

SPED 773 Assess. & Instruction: M/S Dis. F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0


October 15, 2012 55



2 0 1

3 0 1

4 20 8

Total 20 10

SPED 787 Adv. Assess. & Instruc: M/S F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 1

2 0 1

3 2 3

4 24 15

Total 26 20

SPED 789 Adv. Environ. Design: M/S Dis. F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 1

2 0 1

3 4

4 22 18

Total 26 20

SPED 723 Student Teaching Seminar F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0

2 0 0

3 4 3

4 19 16

Total 23 19

Fieldwork Courses

SPED 821 Practica A & B F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0 1 0

2 2 1 1 1

3 7 4 7 4

4 17 15 11 5

Total 26 20 20 10

SPED 730 Student teaching F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0

2 0 0

3 3 6

4 20 13

Total 23 19

Additional Credential-Required Coursework

SPED 788 Law, Ethics, Instruc. Planning F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0 0 0

2 0 1 0 0

3 2 1 0 1

4 10 7 5 7

Total 12 9 5 8

SPED 801 Devel., Diversity, and ELL F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

3 5 2 1 2

4 5 6 9 4

Total 10 8 10 6

SPED 763 Transition Planning F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 2 1

3 3 2 1 1 1


October 15, 2012 56



4 12 10 6 10 8

Total 15 12 7 13 10

SPED 747 Physical, Health, & Sensory Dis F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

3 7 2 1 0

4 5 5 3 3

Total 12 7 4 3

SPED 791 Nature of Autism Spectrum Dis. F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0

2 0 0

3 3 2

4 7 2

Total 10 4

E ED 882 Literacy Instruction: K-12 F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0

2 0 2

3 0 2

4 1 3 0

Total 1 3 4

E ED 784 Math Instruction: K-12 F, 2010 S, 2011 Su 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0 0 0

2 0 7 7 2

3 2 1 3 3

4 3 0 1 10 0

Total 5 8 1 20 5

Clear Credential Coursework

SPED 740 Induction Plan Course: A & B F, 2010 S, 2011 Su, 2011 F, 2011 S, 2012

1 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

3 0 1 3 3

4 13 16 13 14

Total 13 17 16 17

An analysis and discussion of these evaluation data are presented in PART III below.



Data Summary

Fall 2010 semester. An average of 88% of the credential candidates enrolled in the two

core methods courses (SPED 787 and 789) received the highest score (4) on the signature

assignments for the two courses (a long range academic plan and an AAC comprehensive

assessment); and the remaining candidates received a 3 rating. In addition 65% of the candidates

received a 4 or a 3 (27%) on the evaluation of their performance at their fieldwork site completed

by their university supervisor and master teacher. Two students received a score of 2, and

follow-up counseling and support was provided to them. Finally, all students enrolled in the


October 15, 2012 57

Induction Plan course for the Clear Credential Program in Moderate/Severe Disabilities received

a 4 on their signature assignment (a standards and research-based instructional plan in the area of

literacy).

The majority of credential candidates enrolled in additional credential-required

coursework received scores of 4 (65%) or 3 (35%) on their signature assignments.

Spring 2011 semester. An average of 95% of the credential candidates enrolled in the two


assignments for the two courses (three activity-based instructional plans and an accessing

inclusive settings site evaluation). In addition 75% of the candidates received a 4 or a 3 (20%) on

the evaluation of their performance at their fieldwork site completed by their university

supervisor and master teacher. One student received a score of 2, and follow-up counseling and

support was provided to him. Eighty-three percent of the students enrolled in the student

teaching seminar received a score of 4 on their signature assignment (student progress data files),

and the remaining students received a score of 3; and 87% of the candidates received a 4 rating

on their student teaching evaluation completed by their university supervisor and master teacher,

with the remaining students receiving a score of 3. Finally, 94% of the students enrolled in the

Induction Plan course for the Clear Credential Program received a 4 on their signature

assignment (a standards and research-based instructional plan in the area of science or math),

with 1 student receiving a score of 3.

The majority of the credential candidates enrolled in additional credential-required


Summer 2011 session. During the summer session, 6 of the 7 candidates enrolled in the

transition course (SPED 763) received a score of 4 on the signature assignment, with the

remaining student receiving a score of 3. All 3 of the students enrolled in the general education

literacy course (E ED 882) receiving a score of 4 on their signature assignment. Finally, the 1

student enrolled in the general education math course received a score of 4 on the signature

assignment.

Fall 2011 semester. An average of 83% of the credential candidates enrolled in the two


assignments for the two courses (a long range academic plan and an AAC comprehensive

assessment); and 8% received a score of 3. One candidate received a score of 2, and 1 received a

score of 1 on the signature assignments. In addition 55% of the candidates received a score of 4

and 35% a score of 3 on the evaluation of their performance at their fieldwork site completed by

their university supervisor and master teacher. One student received a score of 2, and 1 received

a score of 1. The two candidates who received scores of 1 or 2 in both their coursework and

fieldwork received support and counseling from credential program faculty and the department

chair, following a set of procedures developed for students ―at risk‖ for failure to meet

coursework and/or fieldwork requirements. Finally, candidates enrolled in the Induction Plan

course for the Clear Credential Program in Moderate/Severe Disabilities received a 4 (88.9%) on

their signature assignment (a standards and research-based instructional plan in the area of

literacy) or a 3 (11.1%).


October 15, 2012 58



Spring 2012 semester. An average of 85% of the credential candidates enrolled in the two


assignments for the two courses (three activity-based instructional plans and an accessing

inclusive settings site evaluation); and an average of 20% received a score of 3. One student in

SPED 773 received a score of 2. Fifty percent of the candidates received a score of 4 for the

fieldwork evaluation completed by their university supervisor and master teacher, and 40%

received a score of 3. One student received a score of 2; and mentoring was provided to him that

targeted key need areas. Eighty-four percent of the candidates enrolled in the student teaching

seminar received a score of 4 on their signature assignment (student progress data files) or a

score of 3 (16%). In addition 68% of the candidates completing student teaching received a score

of 4 or 3 (32%) for their teaching performance Finally, 82% of the students enrolled in the

Induction Plan course for the Clear Credential Program received a 4 on their signature

assignment (a standards and research-based instructional plan in the area of science or math),

with the remaining students receiving a score of 3.



How do the data reflect on credential candidate effectiveness?

These data reflect very positively on the performance of credential candidates in the

Moderate/Severe Disabilities Program including the ability of candidates to implement effective

and research-based educational practices in urban school settings in the areas of assessment,

curriculum, instruction, and program design for students with moderate/severe disabilities. The

few students whose evaluation outcomes indicated that they were not demonstrating knowledge

of concepts and research-based practice presented in credential courses or who were not

demonstrating their ability to apply the knowledge and skills that they had acquired in their

coursework to their work with students in educational settings received support and counseling

from credential program faculty and the department chair, following a set of procedures

developed for students ―at risk‖ for failure to meet coursework and/or fieldwork requirements.

How do the data reflect on credential program effectiveness?

These data suggest that the Credential Program in Moderate/Severe Disabilities is

effectively preparing highly qualified teachers to serve students with significant disabilities and

to work effectively with the families of those students; however, the program is always moving

forward in incorporating the latest research-based educational practices and the most current

evidence-based pedagogical practices. Program faculty participate in twice-yearly retreats to

reflect on current practices and to make the additions and changes necessary to reflect the most

progressive and evidence-based approaches to educating this population of students and to

developing courses and providing instruction to candidates completing the credential program.



October 15, 2012 59


The evaluation data for our program do not suggest the need for major program revisions

at this time although, as stated above, our faculty participate in day-long retreats two times each

year to review all coursework, assignments, and fieldwork experiences and requirements to

ensure that our coursework, fieldwork, and pedagogical approaches reflect the most recent,

evidence-based practices. Our current efforts are concentrated on expanding course content and

assignments completed in urban educational settings to focus on the development of academic

curricula that both address the Common Core State Standards and reflect research-based ―best

practices‖ in the education of learners with Moderate/Severe Disabilities.


October 15, 2012 60






Program documented in this report Preliminary & Clear Education Specialist

Credential in Visual Impairments

Name of Program Visual Impairments




Traditional

Intern


Credential, Visual Impairments

Is this program offered at more than one site?



Program Contact Dr. Sunggye Hong

Title Assistant Professor

Phone # 415-338-3430




Name

Title

Phone #

E-mail


October 15, 2012 61



The Visual Impairment Program (VI), housed in the Department of Special Education, offers

various types of core courses to guide students in learning appropriate competencies required for

providing services to students with visual impairments (e.g. general education core, special

education core, and VI specific courses). In addition, the program utilizes distance education

model to deliver its VI specific courses. As a result, students can take courses from various

locations. However, since the model utilized for this distance option is hybrid and students are

expected to participate in real-time classrooms, no difference is observed by their physical

locations.

We do not use the cohort model for students in the VI program and thus students take courses

depending upon their schedule. Full-time students are expected to finish their programs in 2

years and a semester and four years are required for those students who participate in part-time

program. It should be noted that the student teaching seminars (Sped723 and Sped730) need to

be taken at the end of their preliminary credential program.



2010-11 2011-2012

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

22 11 26 34

Due to the fact that the Department of Special Education does not operate under a fixed cohort

model, interns are treated the same as our non-intern candidates and they follow the same course

sequence and pathway to their preliminary credential. As a result, the information provided in

the table above does not differentiate between intern and non-intern candidates. It refers equally

to both groups as Education Specialist Credential candidates.

Significant changes since last major accreditation activities (biennial report, Fall 2009), include:

* Approval of preliminary credential and clear credential instead of Level I and level II

* Move two courses (Sped735 and Sped752) into preliminary credential (level I) from Clear

credential (Level II).


The following report covers data collected for AY 2010 and AY 2011 for students who are

currently enrolled in the visual impairment program. The VI program has collected key

assignment score for courses offered during AY2010 and AY2011. The following table

summarizes the courses and corresponding key assignments.

Course Number Key Assignment


October 15, 2012 62

SPED 723 Student Teaching Seminar Assignment

SPED 730 Student Teaching Evaluation

SPED 735 Assistive Technology Project

SPED 655 Auditory Map

SPED 749 Case Study Final

SPED 750 Analysis of Learning Environment

SPED 751 Instruction Project

SPED 752 Literature Review Project

SPED 753 Simulation Experience

SPED 754 Interview Project

SPED 757 Collaboration Project

SPED 758 Abacus Project

SPED 763 Transition Portfolio

SPED 788 Teacher Interview

SPED 801 Case Study

EED 882 O/P Portfolio and Case Study

EED 784 Teaching Mini Unit

SPED 740 Induction Plan

Reported ratings (471)6 for each semesters are 100% for Fall 2010, 98.7% for Spring 2011,

91.7% for Summer 2011, 88.5% for Fall 2011, and 100% for Spring 2012. The program also

collected data on newly revised preliminary/clear credential and reported ratings (483) for these

courses by semesters are 28.6% for Fall 2010, 95% for Spring 2011, 71.4% for Summer 2011,

100% for Fall 2011, and 100% for Spring 2012.

SUMMARY TABLE FOR PROGRAM IN VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS – Fall 2010 TO Spring 2012

SEMESTERS (471) Percentage Receiving Score; Number of Students Reporting

1

2 3 4

F 1 0

S p 1 1

S u 1 1

F 1 1

S p 1 2

F 1 0

Sp 1 1

Su 1 1

F 1 1

Sp 1 2

F 1 0

Sp 1 1

Su 1 1

F 1 1

Sp 1 2

F 1 0

Sp 1 1

Su 1 1

F 1 1

Sp 1 2

SPED 655

33.3% 1

66.7% 2

100% 1

SPED 723

100% 3

100% 2

100% 2

100% 2

SPED 730

50% 1

100% 2

100% 2

100% 2

50% 1

SPED 735

37.5% 3

37.5% 3

25% 2

(471) SPED

100%

100%

100%

6 The VI program has revised its course structure to meet the new preliminary/clear credential guideline by CCTC.

As a result, AY2010 and AY2011 contain both old credential (471) and new credential (483).


October 15, 2012 63

Percentage Receiving Score; Number of Students Reporting

1

2 3 4

F 1 0

S p 1 1

S u 1 1

F 1 1

S p 1 2

F 1 0

Sp 1 1

Su 1 1

F 1 1

Sp 1 2

F 1 0

Sp 1 1

Su 1 1

F 1 1

Sp 1 2

F 1 0

Sp 1 1

Su 1 1

F 1 1

Sp 1 2

740 1 2 2

(472) SPED 740

33.3% 1

66.7% 2

SPED 749

7.1% 1

7.1% 1

7.1% 1

78.6% 11

SPED 750

100% 11

SPED 751

100% 1

6.7% 1

93.3% 14

SPED 752

33.3% 3

33.3% 3

33.3% 3

SPED 753

100% 2

SPED 754

100% 4

100% 3

SPED 757

8.3% 1

91.7% 11

100% 1

SPED 758

100% 3

100% 4

SPED 763

100% 1

SPED 788

100% 1

100% 1

SPED 801

100% 1

100% 2

EED 784

100% 2

100% 1

EED 882

100% 1

100% 2


October 15, 2012 64

SUMMARY TABLE FOR PROGRAM IN VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS – Fall 2010 TO Spring 2012 SEMESTERS (483)

Percentage Receiving Score; Number of Students Reporting

1 2 3

4

F 10

Sp 11

Su 11

F 11

Sp 12

F 10

Sp 11

Su 11

F 11

Sp 12

F 10

Sp 11

Su 11

F 11

Sp 12

F 10

Sp 11

Su 11

F 11

Sp 12

SPED 655

100% 7

SPED 723

100% 3

100% 1

SPED 730

50% 1

100% 3

50% 1

SPED 735

40% 2

20% 1

40% 2

SPED 740

100% 1

100% 1

100% 4

SPED 750

100% 3

SPED 757

100% 1

SPED 758

100% 12

SPED 763

100% 4

SPED 788

25% 1

75% 3

SPED 801

33.3% 1

66.7% 2

EED 784

100% 1

100% 1

100% 1

EED 882

100% 1

100% 2

Common core in general education and special education

Data available for these two categories of courses include SPED763, SPED788, SPED801,

EED882, and EED684. In general, students in the visual impairment program demonstrated

strong performance on the NCATE key assignments across the domain. For instance, four

students obtained highest score (4) on Spring 2012(483) for Sped763, one student received 4 on

Summer 2011 and Spring 2012 for Sped788(471), and two students on Fall 2011(471) received 4

for Sped801. For EED 882, two students received 4 on Spring 2011(471) and Fall 2011(483). On

the other hand, score of 2 was reported for students enrolled in EED784(471 and 483).


October 15, 2012 65

Preliminary credential courses in visual impairment

Available data for the categories include SPED735, SPED655, SPED723, SPED730, sped749,

sped750, sped751, sped752, SPED753, sped754, sped757, SPED740 and sped758. While

variations are observed in student performance ratings throughout the courses and the semesters,

it does appear that the majority of scores are 4 on key NCATE assignments across all semesters

for students in the Program in Visual Impairments. It is not clear at this time if score variations

are related to instruction or student characteristics due to the low number of students reporting

for each course. Trends will be more apparent as more data are collected over time.


Using the current percentages, however, it appears as though the program is strong (defined as

100% key assignment score of 4) for the following courses(471) that were presented for two

semesters or more in the reporting time period: Sped723, Sped730, SPED740, Sped754,

SPED788, SPED801, and Sped758. Courses that were strong and presented once during this time

period are Sped655, SPED750, SPED753, Sped757, and EED882. For the new credential (483),

similar presentation of data is observed. The following courses were presented for two semesters

or more in the reporting time period: SPED723 and SPED740. There were variations in scores

for some courses which received a 100% NCATE key assignment score of 4 on certain semesters

whereas 3 or 2 were reported on other semester the reason for this variation could be due to

student composition or instruction.

It appears that the majority of scores are within the level of strong performance (4 and 3 range).

Scores 4 and 3 reflect that candidates in the VI program demonstrate strong performance across

courses and semesters. It also should be noted that strong performance is being observed in

common core courses as well as VI core courses. However, there are some courses that low

scores are observed. For example, five students received score of 2 on Sped735. This can be due

to the fact that the technology options of students with visual impairments are complex in nature.

Nevertheless, it is important that candidates demonstrate strong performance on technology

needs. The VI program will infuse additional technology lessons through other courses,

providing additional level of training for the candidates. Other instances of low score may be due

to variations such as student composition or instruction. It is interesting to note that EED784

yielded very low score for consecutive semesters. The reason for this gap is not readily

perceived. It must be emphasized that the reason for variations will become clearer over time as

more data is collected through the evaluation system.


The VI program utilizes various methods and sources of data to assess teacher candidates.

Course evaluation: Course evaluations are conducted for all courses scheduled for the VI

program on each semester. Quantitative and qualitative data collected from the evaluation are

used to update course contents, revise delivery methods, and instructional goals for each course

as necessary.


October 15, 2012 66

Student teaching evaluation: For Sped723 and Sped730, candidates are being evaluated by the

district supervisor and the university supervisor for competencies required to work as a teacher

of students with visual impairments. In addition, teaching skills, work ethics, student relations,

and knowledge about expanded core curriculum are being evaluated through observations,

developed rubrics, and assignments.

Needs Assessment: periodic assessment of candidates completing the program is conducted to

gain understandings about the program and its effectiveness.

Community Survey: Annual survey in the community about the program and graduates through

the advisory board meeting provides rich information about performance of the program quality,

level of satisfaction about the program graduates, and course contents applicable to theoretical

and practical applications to educational issues.

In addition to the NCATE key assignments, these multi-level evaluations help the program in

revising and updating course contents, knowledge bases and themes, up-to-date curriculum and

assessment strategies, and reflecting the needs of the field, which, in turn, improve the overall

quality of the program. Effort has been put in reflecting the evaluation data and adjusting the

program as deemed appropriate.


October 15, 2012 67






Program documented in this report Preliminary Specialist Credential in Physical

and Health Impairments

Name of Program Physical and Health Impairments




Traditional

Intern


Credential, Physical and Health Impairments

Is this program offered at more than one site?



Program Contact Dr. Gloria Soto

Title Professor

Phone # 415-338-1757




Name

Title

Phone #

E-mail


October 15, 2012 68



The Preliminary and Clear Education Specialist Credential in Physical and Health Impairments

prepares highly qualified teachers using research-based curricula and pedagogy to provide

quality educational services to students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds

who experience physical and other health impairments. The program has as its foundation the

assumption that educational services for students with PHI should be implemented in the least

restrictive environment; and the goal of those services is to provide students with access to the

general education curriculum and with training on the communication, social and life skills

necessary to participate fully in the same academic and social contexts as their typically

developing peers. Credential candidates in this program must demonstrate their competence in

providing quality educational services to students with physical and health impairments using a

systematic, data-based approach to instruction. Competencies in motor planning and specialized

health care, as well as in assistive technology and augmentative communication are also essential

components of the training program. In addition, the program addresses the need to provide

supervised fieldwork experiences to ensure that teacher candidates are able to apply the

knowledge and skills acquired through course content and assignments to the instruction of

students with physical and health impairments in a range of educational settings.

Due to the fact that the Department of Special Education does not operate under a fixed cohort

model, interns are treated the same as our non-intern candidates and they follow the same course

sequence and pathway to their preliminary credential. As a result, the information provided in

this report does not differentiate between intern and non-intern candidates. It refers equally to

both groups as Education Specialist Credential candidates.

Coursework. The coursework is designed to provide credential candidates with the knowledge

and skills needed to develop competency in all areas addressed by the credential program

standards such as learning characteristics; assessment, curriculum and instruction (including

standards-based academic curricula in literacy, math, and science); movement, and specialized

health care; positive behavior supports; and transition planning. In addition coursework

addresses the development of augmentative and alternative communication systems and

facilitation of successful communicative and social interaction with adults and peers Finally,

coursework addresses the instructional and support needs of students with movement, mobility,

and sensory disabilities and specialized health care needs; and strategies to facilitate the

transition from early childhood educational and related services to services provided in K-12

schools.

Fieldwork. A semester of observation and participation in schools in addition to one semester of

student teaching—comprise the experiential bases for candidates to apply theoretical constructs,

conduct and interpret assessment results, and apply curriculum and instructional strategies in

educational settings. The fieldwork sites are representative of the wide range of educational sites

that serve students with PHI including general education classrooms, special day classrooms, non

public schools and hospital settings. Master teachers are competent and highly trained graduates

of the credential program in physical and health impairments at SFSU or programs at other


October 15, 2012 69

universities. During student teaching, the university supervisor visits the site to provide

mentoring to individual teacher candidates and to evaluate student performance at least four

times during the semester. All university supervisors have not only considerable teaching

experience, but also experience mentoring credential candidates. Master teachers meet with the

teacher candidate(s) regularly to answer questions about their experiences at the site, to guide

them in completing their coursework assignments related to assessment and instruction of

students at the fieldwork site, and to discuss issues related to effective educational practices. In

addition, they collaborate with the supervisors to complete the formal student evaluations

conducted at the end of the semester.

Stakeholder input. The program’s advisory committee is composed of teachers who are

graduates of the program and who serve as master teachers for the fieldwork component of the

program and parents. Project personnel confer with the advisory committee annually to elicit

their feedback regarding (a) the content of the core methods coursework and the course

assignments, (b) the structure and quality of the fieldwork experiences, and the (c) the process

used to evaluate credential candidate teaching performance.

Below are the numbers of candidates and graduates for the two years reported.



2010-11 2011-2012

SFSU/Traditional

Program

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

TOTALS 8 4 9 7

Program modifications undertaken in response to the previous biennial report. As a low

incidence disability, the program in physical and health impairments is a low enrollment

program. Many of our candidates commute from long distances to attend courses and meet with

their advisors. The program has incorporated the use of web-based technologies to ameliorate the

educational experiences for candidates from remote areas. While we are not officially an online

program, we often use video-conferencing for advising and supervising sessions as well as

course streaming to participate in class lectures.

We have increased the frequency with which we communicate with our candidates during

student teaching and we have strengthened our mentoring of teacher candidates through regular

mentoring sessions.

PART II – Candidate Assessment/Performance Effectiveness Information

The data presented in this report represent candidate performance on key course assignments

across several methods courses and student teaching. Each course in the method courses and in

student teaching in the Preliminary Specialist Credential in Physical and Health Impairments has

one key assignment, which must be collected by all students in the course. The assignments are


October 15, 2012 70

designed to serve a bridge between theory and practice. Key assignments are graded with a 4

point rubric defined as 1= Growth Needed; 2=Emerging; 3=Meets Standard; 4=Advanced. A

score of 3 and higher is considered passing.

Below is a table with a description of Key Assignments for the Physical and Health Impairments

program.

SUMMARY TABLE FOR PROGRAM IN PHYSICAL AND HEALTH IMPAIRMENTS–

SPRING 2010 TO SPRING 2012 SEMESTERS

Key Assessments Descriptions Evaluation Tool

Admission File Program Office Prepared Evaluation Tool

Foundational

Knowledge

During completion of SPED 601: Observation

and Participation in Special Education,

candidates are required to complete a log and

reflect on their observations, beliefs and

assumptions related to the range of educational

placements and services available to students

with PHI.

The Reflections Log is

scored with a 4-point

rubric

Discipline

Knowledge

In SPED 801 Communication, Diversity and

Exceptionality – candidates are required to

complete a comprehensive case study,

documenting the educational history and needs

of a student with PHI from a culturally and

linguistically diverse family.

The Case Study is

scored with a 4-point

rubric

Assessment In SPED 743: Issues in Augmentative and

Alternative Communication - candidates

develop a detailed ecological assessment of the

communication needs of a student with

Physical and Health Impairment. Through a

discrepancy analysis process, the candidate

outlines the observed barriers to

communication as well as the proposed

interventions to address them.

The Assessment is

scored with a 4 point

rubric

Curriculum/Assistive

Technology

In SPED 746: Teaching Students with Physical

and Health Impairments, candidates develop

and implement a detailed curriculum-relevant

plan for a language arts/literacy lesson plan

including, assistive technology/ AAC

adaptations and other student supports.

The Curriculum Plan is


rubric

Discipline

Knowledge

In SPED 747: Physical, Sensory and Health

Impairments candidates complete a final exam

to demonstrate their knowledge of

characteristics and specialized health care

needs of students with PHI.

The Final Exam is


rubric

Transition In SPED 763: Transition Planning - candidates

complete a transition portfolio for a student

The Transition

Portfolio is scored with


October 15, 2012 71

Key Assessments Descriptions Evaluation Tool

with PHI to address the transition needs of the

student, his/her family and the receiving team.

a 4 point rubric

Dispositions During their student teaching SPED 730 and

SPED 726 candidates submit a portfolio of

completed field practicum projects and

reflections. The site supervisor and instructor

assess the quality of projects and reflections.

The instructors evaluate candidates’ portfolio

and sign-off on portfolios that adequately

demonstrate mastery of the competencies.

The Student Teaching

Portfolio is scored with

a 4 point rubric

Exit Survey San Francisco State University College of

Education administers an exit survey which is

available at http://coe.sfsu.edu/grad/graduate-

office

Scores in percent and the number of students reporting by course for each semester are

summarized in the table below. The table includes data collected for students in the Physical and

Health Impairments Program for Fall 2010, Spring 2011, Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 semesters.

Percentage Receiving Score

Number of Students Reporting

SCORES 1 2 3 4

Fall

10

Sp.

11

F11 Sp.12 Fall

10

Sp.

11

F11 Sp.

12

Fall

10

Sp.

11

Fall

11

Sp.

12

Fall

10

Sp.

11

Fall

11

Sp.

12

SPED

601

100%

2

SPED

702

SPED

740

50%

1

25%

1

33.3%

1

50%

1

75%

3

66.7%

2

100%

1

SPED

801

100%

1

SPED

726

50%

1

50%

1

100%

1

SPED

743

SPED

747

100%

1

SPED

746

100%

2

SPED

772

100%

1

SPED

730

50%

1

50%

1

100%

1

SPED

763

100%

1

100%

2

100%

1


It does appear that the majority of scores are within the 4 and 3 categories on key NCATE

assignments across all semesters for students in the PHI. Scores 4 and 3 reflect high performance

across assessment categories with expected growth over time.


October 15, 2012 72

From visual analysis, it appears the program is well established and strong, as indicated by 100%

key assignment score of 4 and 3 for most graduate level courses over a four-semester period.

The lowest score of 2 was reported for 1 student in the spring semester of 2011 for SPED 726.

SPED 726 is the Student Teaching Seminar. The reason for this variation during one semester

can be attributed to the lower performance of the student in the assignments associated with this

course. This particular student dealt with a family crisis that affected her ability to complete the

assignments in a timely and effective manner. We advised the student to postpone her graduation

and get an incomplete but she refused and her final grade was affected by a lower than typical

performance.

Overall the Program in Physical and Health Impairments appears to be quite strong across

courses with minimal variation during the reporting period.

For a complete listing of data by term see: http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/data.


We will continue to examine candidate assessment and program effectiveness data to inform us

about necessary changes. As mentioned before, we are a small program and are able to keep

frequent and regular contact with our candidates even when these are geographically distant. We

will continue our efforts to deliver instruction through a mixed approach of face-to-face and

online options. Our key assignments will continue to reflect our commitment to an evidenced-

based practical hands-on approach to teacher training with a strong mentoring component.



October 15, 2012 73






Program documented in this report Preliminary Administrative Services

Credential and Masters in Education

Name of Program Preliminary Administrative Services




Traditional

Intern

Credential awarded Preliminary Administrative Services

Credential




Marin County Office of Education

Program Contact Dr. David Hemphill

Title Professor & Interim Chair, ELSIT, Graduate College of Education

Phone # 415-338-2689




Name

Title

Phone #

E-mail


October 15, 2012 74



San Francisco State University and the Graduate College of Education has maintained a strong

presence in the SF Bay Area and plays an essential role in ensuring the school district’s in the

area have highly qualified educators. The Educational Administration and Leadership program is

committed to advancing social justice and equity.

The San Francisco State University Preliminary Administrative Services Credential Program

provides candidates four program options: (1) courses leading to a Preliminary Administrative

Services Credential, (2) courses leading to a Master’s Degree, (3) a combination of numbers 1

and 2, and (4) and Internship allowing the candidate to work as an administrator in a school or

school district while they are completing their coursework and Field Experiences.

All four options are currently offered currently at both our main campus and through the Marin

County Office of Education program. The credential and Master’s Degree in Education consists

of 33 units of coursework with 6 units of concurrent field practicum/internship. Candidates can

complete the program in 4 semesters by taking 2-3 classes a semester. Coursework and field

practicums/internships are based on the California Professional Standards for Educational

Leaders (CPSELS). The practicums/internships serve as an anchor for the program during the

candidates first and the last semester. The field practicums/internship support our central themes:

―Preparing reflective and innovative professionals as leaders to insure the educational

development of diverse populations within dynamic educational contexts.‖



2010-11 2011-2012


Delivery Option

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

SFSU Traditional 35 32 54 18

Marin Cohort 0 0 19 19 Targeted to

complete the

program Dec.

2012.

Changes Since Last Accreditation Activity (Biennial Report, Program Assessment or Site Visit).

There have not been any substantial changes since the last accreditation activity. As mentioned

previously at the current time all four options offered both at our main campus and through the

Marin program,. However, in the past we have operated a credential program in collaboration

with the San Mateo County Office of Education, during the 2009-2010 academic year. In


October 15, 2012 75

addition the department has historically collaborated with San Francisco Unified School District

to provide a cohort program.



Program Key Assessments Transition Point Key Assessments Descriptions Evaluation Tool

1 Admission File Program Office Prepared Evaluation Tool

2 Foundational

Knowledge

Upon completion of the EDAD 713:

Administrative Processes an introductory

course, candidates are expected to

demonstrate a knowledge of basic theory

and practice and are required to write a

critical analysis of an administrators

decision making process, application of

theory and practice. To accomplish this

candidate’s interview a site or district office

administrator regarding decision-making

processes reflecting the administrator’s

perspective as well as the candidate’s

analysis and critique.

Essay is scored with

a 4-point rubric

3 Discipline

Knowledge

EDAD 733: Curricular Leadership –

Multicultural Education candidates create a

comprehensive research-based plan for

instructional leadership.

The Instructional

Leadership Plan is

scored with a 4-

point rubric

4 Assessment In EDAD 723: School Administration -

candidates are asked to reflect on their

beliefs, values, and assumptions related to

specific issues. Through the use of cases

studies the candidate responds school

leadership or management challenge by

both performs a problem analysis and going

through a decision-making process.

Benchmark

assignment scored

with a 4 point rubric

5 Goals EDAD 743: Education Planning,

Technology & Evaluation candidates

develop a detailed curriculum plan (for

either mathematics, language arts/literacy,

or an integrated plan) outlining teaching

and learning, professional development,

student support, students assessment and

program evaluation referencing the CCSS,

National Education Technology Plan 2010,

Smarter Balance claims, College and Career

Readiness Standards, and next

generation/21st century education.

The Curriculum

Plan is scored with

a 4 point rubric

6 Services EDAD 753: Human Resource

Administration and Education candidates

develop a strategic staffing plan using site

data or fictitious data reflective a school

with diverse student populations.

The Strategic

Staffing Plan is

scored with a 4

point rubric

7 Evaluation In EDAD 774: Change Process and

Education candidates engage in an Action

The Action

Research Project is


October 15, 2012 76

Transition Point Key Assessments Descriptions Evaluation Tool

Research Project to deepen knowledge of a

particular aspect of the change process and

action research as a tool.

scored with a 4

point rubric

Dispositions Candidates submit a portfolio of completed

field practicum projects (artifacts) and

reflections. The site supervisor and EDAD

892 instructor assess the quality of artifacts

and reflections. EDAD 892 instructors

evaluate candidates’ portfolio and sign-off

on portfolios that adequately demonstrate

mastery of the six (6) CPSELS.

GPA

Site Supervisor

EDAD 892

Instructor

4 point Assessment

Rubric

4 Completer Survey San Francisco State University College of

Education administers an exit survey which

is available at

http://coe.sfsu.edu/grad/graduate-office

Types of data collected

Data collected for Key Assessments is of four types:

Benchmark assignments: Each course in the Preliminary Administrative Services

Program has one or more Benchmark Assignments, which must be collected by all

students in the course. The Benchmarks are designed to provide a bridge between the

theory of the classroom and the real world situations encountered in field experiences.

Benchmarks are graded with a 4 point rubric (rubric attached) defined as: 1 = Growth

Needed, 2 = Emerging, 3 = Meets Standard, and 4 = Advanced. A score of 3 or higher is

considered passing.

Summative assignments: Students complete an essay or a project on a selected topic

prepared by the instructor for each course. Each of the assignments is designed to provide

a bridge between the theory of the classroom and the real world situations encountered in

schools and/or school districts. The essay or projects are graded with a 4 point rubric

defined as: 1 = Growth Needed, 2 = Emerging, 3 = Meets Standard and 4 = Advanced. A

score of 3 or higher is considered passing.

Summary of data collected on Transition Point, including Key Assessments from the San

Francisco State University College of Education Assessment System

Table 1: Educational Administration, Tier I; Spring 2010 Data

CREDENTIAL 501; EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION, TIER I; SPRING, 2010 DATA

Case Processing Summary

Cases

Valid Missing Total

N Percent N Percent N Percent

KEY_CS * AS_CAT * NUMBER

* ABBREV * CRED

66 86.8% 10 13.2% 76 100.0%


October 15, 2012 77


KEY_CS * AS_CAT * NUMBER * ABBREV * CRED Crosstabulation

CRE

D

ABBR

EV NUMBER

AS_CAT

Total 1 2 4 5 6 7

501 EDAD 0713 KEY_

CS

4 Count 3 3

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

Total Count 3 3

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

0733 KEY_

CS

2 Count 1 1

% within

AS_CAT

5.3%

5.3%

3 Count 1 1

% within

AS_CAT

5.3%

5.3%

4 Count 17 17

% within

AS_CAT

89.5%

89.5%

Total Count 19 19

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

0743 KEY_

CS

3 Count 2 2

% within

AS_CAT

33.3%

33.3%

4 Count 4 4

% within

AS_CAT

66.7%

66.7%

Total Count 6 6

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

0753 KEY_

CS

1 Count 1 1

% within

AS_CAT

4.0%

4.0%

4 Count 24 24

% within

AS_CAT

96.0%

96.0%

Total Count 25 25

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

0774 KEY_

CS

3 Count 1 1

% within

AS_CAT

20.0%

20.0%

4 Count 4 4

% within

AS_CAT

80.0%

80.0%

Total Count 5 5

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

0892 KEY_

CS

3 Count 1 1

% within

AS_CAT

12.5% 12.5%

4 Count 7 7


October 15, 2012 78



CRE

D

ABBR

EV NUMBER

AS_CAT

Total 1 2 4 5 6 7

% within

AS_CAT

87.5% 87.5%

Total Count 8 8

% within

AS_CAT

100.0% 100.0%

Table 2: Educational Administration, Tier I, Fall 2010 Data

CREDENTIAL 501: EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION, TIER I, FALL 2010 DATA


Cases

Valid Missing Total


KEY-ASSIGN * AS_CAT *

NUMBER * COURSE * CRED

77 60.2% 51 39.8% 128 100.0%



CRE

D

COURS

E NUMBER

AS_CAT

Total 1 4 5 6 7

501 EDAD 0713 KEY-

ASSIGN

4 Count 14 14

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

Total Count 14 14

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

0743 KEY-

ASSIGN

3 Count 1 1

% within

AS_CAT

16.7%

16.7%

4 Count 5 5

% within

AS_CAT

83.3%

83.3%

Total Count 6 6

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

0753 KEY-

ASSIGN

3 Count 2 2

% within

AS_CAT

33.3%

33.3%

4 Count 4 4

% within

AS_CAT

66.7%

66.7%

Total Count 6 6

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

0774 KEY-

ASSIGN

3 Count 12 12

% within

AS_CAT

85.7%

85.7%


October 15, 2012 79



CRE

D

COURS

E NUMBER

AS_CAT

Total 1 4 5 6 7

4 Count 2 2

% within

AS_CAT

14.3%

14.3%

Total Count 14 14

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

0892 KEY-

ASSIGN

2 Count 1 1

% within

AS_CAT

2.7% 2.7%

3 Count 9 9

% within

AS_CAT

24.3% 24.3%

4 Count 27 27

% within

AS_CAT

73.0% 73.0%

Total Count 37 37

% within

AS_CAT

100.0% 100.0%

Table 3: Educational Administration, Tier I, Spring 2011 Data

CREDENTIAL 501: EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION, TIER I; SPRING, 2011 DATA


Cases

Valid Missing Total


KEY_CS * AS_CAT * NUMBER

* ABBREV * CRED

15 34.1% 29 65.9% 44 100.0%



CRED

ABBRE

V NUMBER

AS_CAT

Total 1 4 5 7

501 EDAD 0713 KEY_C

S

4 Count 3 3

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

Total Count 3 3

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

0743 KEY_C

S

3 Count 1 1

% within

AS_CAT

25.0%

25.0%

4 Count 3 3

% within

AS_CAT

75.0%

75.0%

Total Count 4 4


October 15, 2012 80



CRED

ABBRE

V NUMBER

AS_CAT

Total 1 4 5 7

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

0753 KEY_C

S

4 Count 5 5

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

Total Count 5 5

% within

AS_CAT

100.0%

100.0%

0892 KEY_C

S

4 Count 3 3

% within

AS_CAT

100.0% 100.0%

Total Count 3 3

% within

AS_CAT

100.0% 100.0%

Table 4: Educational Administration, Tier I, Fall 2011 Data

CREDENTIAL 501: EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION, TIER I; FALL, 2011 DATA


Cases

Valid Missing Total


KEY-CS * AS-CAT *

NUMBER * ABBREV *

CRED

5 7.8% 59 92.2% 64 100.0%

CREDENTIAL 501: EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION, TIER I; FALL, 2011 DATA

KEY-CS * AS-CAT * NUMBER * ABBREV * CRED Crosstabulation

CRED ABBREV NUMBER

AS-CAT

Total 5

501 EDAD 753 KEY-CS 3.00 Count 2 2

% within AS-CAT 40.0% 40.0%

4.00 Count 3 3

% within AS-CAT 60.0% 60.0%

Total Count 5 5

% within AS-CAT 100.0% 100.0%

Table 5: Educational Administration, Tier I Spring 2012 Data CREDENTIAL 501: EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION, TIER I; SPRING, 2012 DATA


Cases

Valid Missing Total


KEY MEASURE * ASSESS CAT

* NUMB * ABBREV * CRED

35 100.0% 0 .0% 35 100.0%


October 15, 2012 81

CREDENTIAL 501: EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION, TIER I; SPRING, 2012 DATA

KEY MEASURE * ASSESS CAT * NUMB * ABBREV * CRED Crosstabulation

CRE

D

ABBR

EV NUMB

ASSESS CAT

Total 1 2 3 4 5 7

501 EDAD 713 KEY

MEASURE

3 Count 1 1

% within

ASSESS CAT

50.0%

50.0%

4 Count 1 1

% within

ASSESS CAT

50.0%

50.0%

Total Count 2 2

% within

ASSESS CAT

100.0

%

100.0

%

723 KEY

MEASURE

3 Count 2 2

% within

ASSESS CAT

100.0

%

100.0

%

Total Count 2 2

% within

ASSESS CAT

100.0

%

100.0

%

733 KEY

MEASURE

3 Count 1 1

% within

ASSESS CAT

25.0%

25.0%

4 Count 3 3

% within

ASSESS CAT

75.0%

75.0%

Total Count 4 4

% within

ASSESS CAT

100.0

%

100.0

%

743 KEY

MEASURE

4 Count 8 8

% within

ASSESS CAT

100.0

%

100.0

%

Total Count 8 8

% within

ASSESS CAT

100.0

%

100.0

%

753 KEY

MEASURE

1 Count 1 1

% within

ASSESS CAT

9.1%

9.1%

3 Count 1 1

% within

ASSESS CAT

9.1%

9.1%

4 Count 9 9

% within

ASSESS CAT

81.8%

81.8%

Total Count 11 11

% within

ASSESS CAT

100.0

%

100.0

%

892 KEY

MEASURE

3 Count 2 2

% within

ASSESS CAT

25.0% 25.0%

4 Count 6 6

% within

ASSESS CAT

75.0% 75.0%

Total Count 8 8

% within

ASSESS CAT

100.0

%

100.0

%


October 15, 2012 82

Summary of NCATE Evaluation System

Credential 501 – Tier I

Score Spring

2010

Fall 2010 Spring

2011

Fall 2011 Spring

2012

Total

4 41 48 14 2 27 132

3 4 24 1 3 6 38

2 1 1 0 0 0 2

1 1 0 0 0 1 2

Summary of Responses to End of Semester Course Surveys (2010 – 2012)

The End of Course Surveys revealed where the program is considered strong and where it could

be modified and or improved.

Areas of strength included:

1. Current high quality books and research articles

2. Providing a combination of online and in-class discussions formats

3. Effective use of quality videos

4. Flexibility

5. Online learning format as program strengths

6. Social justice and equity as a theme

Where the program could be strengthened and/or modified:

1. Specific instruction in use of online databases and article searchers

2. Saturday classes

3. Clearer understanding of program expectations

4. Additional support from advisors

5. More clarity around the portfolio

6. Clearer communication of key projects early in the program

7. Cohort model



Key Assessments used to ascertain program effectiveness:

Foundational Knowledge: Reflective and critical analysis essay (EDAD 713:

Administrative Processes)

Discipline Knowledge: Comprehensive, research-based plan for instructional leadership

practices (EDAD 733: Curricular Leadership –Multicultural Education)

Assessment: Case study analysis regarding day-to-day school leadership and

management (EDAD 723: School Administration)


October 15, 2012 83

Goals: Curriculum plan that includes teaching and learning, professional development,

student supports, student assessment and program evaluation (EDAD 743: Education

Planning, Technology & Evaluation Education Planning, Technology & Evaluation)

Services: Strategic Staffing Plan and request for budget (EDAD 753: Human Resource

Administration and Education)

Evaluation: Action Research Project (EDAD 774: Change Process and Education)

Dispositions: Field Practicum/Internship Portfolio (EDAD 892: Practicum/Internship

Educational Administration)

Other assessments used:

Benchmark Assignments: Each class in the program has one or more benchmark

assignments that must be completed by all students in the program.

Course Performance assessments: Upon conclusion of each class, the instructor assesses

student performance.

Grade point: A minimum grade point of 3.0 must be maintained.

Field Practicum/Internship Portfolio: In the Field Practicum/Internship Portfolio the

candidates demonstrate ability to apply theory to real life situations. It consists of course

assignments and field experiences which the Site Supervisor and EDAD 892 instructor

has evaluated. The portfolio includes assessment documents from the Site Supervisor and

the EDAD 892 instructor.

Specific tools used to assess candidates and program completers

The Educational Administration Program, Tier I completers are assessed with a questionnaire

developed by the College of Education. Responses are given on a 5 point scale defined as: 1 =

Strongly agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Disagree, 4 – Strongly Disagree, and 5 = Not Observed. This

questionnaire is administered upon conclusion of Field experience.

A second reader/evaluator’s survey is administered upon conclusion of all of the classes for the

Masters in Education.

The data presented were collected starting in Spring 2010 through Spring 2012 regarding the

Transition Point and Key Assignments. The data only represent students seeking a Preliminary

Administrative Services Credential (Non Credential M.A. student data are not included). As

evidenced by NCATE Evaluation System Cross tabulation tables above, there was a range in

student performance scores for key assignments. Additionally there was no significant difference

between Transition Point and Key Assignments. There is limited data for Fall 2011. This was a

transition time for the program with new instructors teaching EDAD 713, EDAD 723, EDAD

733, EDAD 774 and EDAD 892 resulting in inconsistencies.




Common Standard(s)

Meeting 1. Core faculty and instructors have met and discussed Standard 1: Educational


October 15, 2012 84


Common Standard(s)

End of the

course survey-

written

responses

Meetings

the importance of candidates displaying the

requisite dispositions to assume and educational

administration leadership role at the site and/or

district level. The next step is for each instructor to

identify candidates who lack essential depositions

or are not advancing in their development of these

dispositions. If a candidate does not display the

professional attitudes/dispositions and/or growth

the candidate’s advisor will have the difficult

conversation with the candidate and offer support

as appropriate or counsel the candidate out of the

program.

2. Conduct focus group with constituent groups from

key partner districts to identify possible areas of

program growth and change.

3. Explore transitioning to a hybrid/blended learning

cohort model program. Including a change in

course offerings to best ensure candidates are well

equipped to perform the complex and challenging

function of educational administration and

leadership.

4. Review the programs recruitment and selection

processes. Making appropriate changes based on

findings.

5. Consider what changes are needed in field

practicum/internships. This will be particularly

important if we transition to a cohort model.

6. Reach out in a more consistent manner to alumni in

terms of support and the development of

partnerships.

7. Increased EDAD faculty/instructor collaboration

and meetings to ensure a more coherent program

and carry out all of the actions stated above.

Leadership and Standard 2: Unit

Assessment and Evaluation

Standard 2: Unit and Program

Assessment

Standard 1: Educational

Leadership

Standard 5: Admission

Standard 7: Field Experience and

Clinical Practice


Leadership and Standard 2: Unit

Assessment and Evaluation


Leadership


October 15, 2012 85


Biennial Report




Date report is submitted Sept 22, 2012

Program documented in this report PPSC in School Counseling

Name of Program School Counseling




Traditional program that includes two years

of internships at two of three different levels

(elementary, middle, high school)

Credential awarded PPSC in School Counseling

Is this program offered at more than one site? NO



Program Contact Patricia Van Velsor

Title Associate Professor & School Counseling Coordinator (Interim)

Phone # 415.338.2005




Name Graciela L. Orozco

Title Associate Professor & School Counseling Coord. (on sabbatical 2012-2013)

Phone # 415.338.2394

E-mail [email protected]



October 15, 2012 86

The Department of Counseling (DoC) at San Francisco State University prepares graduate-level

students for the Pupil Personnel Services Credential in School Counseling. The program is a 60-

unit master’s level program that is nationally accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of

Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). Due to budget cuts, the number of

students admitted into the program has decreased in the last few years. As noted in Table 1

below, in Fall 2012 there are a total of 23 students enrolled who seek a Master’s of Science

Degree in School Counseling that includes the Pupil Personnel Services Credential (PPSC), plus

an additional 3 students who are enrolled in the Post-Master’s Credential-Only Program who

also seek the PPSC in order for them to work as school counselors in the state of California.

Section A – Credential Program Specific Information

Part I – Contextual Information

The following table provides enrollment data on the number of students in School Counseling,

including those students for whom school counseling was their main area of specialization and

those for whom it was their area of emphasis.

Table 1: Students Enrolled in School Counseling Program

AY 2010-2011 AY 2011-2012 AY 2012-2013

School counseling only 14 15 10

School

counseling/marriage &

family therapy

14 8 6

School counseling/career

counseling

2 1 1

School counseling/college

counseling

5 4 3

School

counseling/rehabilitation

counseling

2 2 3

Post-masters school

counseling credential only

4 3 3

Total 41 33 26

The following table is based on data collected through the ERST Report at SFSU and shows the

number of students completing the PPS Credential in School Counseling.

Table 2: PPSC in School Counseling Candidate Information

Numbers of graduates completing credential*

Service

Credential

Year Clear Intern New Clear Total

Pupil Personnel

Services in

School

Counseling

2010-2011 24 1 25 0 25

Pupil Personnel

Services in

School

2011-2012


October 15, 2012 87

Table 2: PPSC in School Counseling Candidate Information

Numbers of graduates completing credential*

Service

Credential

Year Clear Intern New Clear Total

Counseling

*Source: ERST Report at SFSU

Part II – Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information

Primary candidate assessments used by the School Counseling Program up to and through

recommending the candidate for a credential are as follows:

NCATE Evaluation System: Grades for key assignments were reported for students

taking classes in the School Counseling Program that included Fall 2010, Spring

2011, Fall 2011, and Spring 2012. Data were gathered from core courses and

specialization-specific courses. A review of the data collected across the four terms

reveals a pattern of a small number of students scoring at levels ―1‖ and ―2‖ (1 = D

and 2 = C), a larger number of students scoring at the ―3‖ level (3 = B), and the

greatest number of students scoring at the ―4‖ level (4 = A). This spread appears to

reflect the fact that graduate level students in the School Counseling Program are

keeping up their grades at the ―A‖ or ―B‖ level. At the same time, this spread (scores

of 1, 2, 3, 4) appears to be consistent with the Department of Counseling’s intent to

develop an academically rigorous program whereby an ―A‖ grade is clearly reflective

of exceptional quality. The table below illustrates the number of students who

received scores of 1, 2, 3, or 4 across various classes for each of the semesters

covered in this report:

Table 3: NCATE Evaluation System

Candidate Scores on Key Course Assignments

Fall „10 Spr „11 Fall „11 Spr „12

Score of 1 = D 0 4 0 0

Score of 2 = C 8 6 3 7

Score of 3 = B 21 17 19 23

Score of 4 = A 34 60 50 53

Department of Counseling Student Evaluation Meetings: Faculty meets three times

per semester to discuss students who are struggling academically. As a result of these

meetings, specific students may be asked to meet with their advisor or the department

chair to discuss their progress in specific courses or the program in general.

Depending on the case, a letter may be generated to the student. Follow-up to the case

is provided at the next Student Evaluation Meeting.

Faculty contacts with fieldwork supervisors: Faculty who teach practicum courses use

email and phone to contact fieldwork supervisors and monitor how students are doing

in the field. Information gathered on students who are struggling is presented at

Student Evaluation Meetings. Field visits are made in cases where the faculty liaison,

the student or the supervisor reports special difficulties with the fieldwork.”

Comment [G1]: Nick: Please insert data when it becomes available.


October 15, 2012 88

Course Evaluations: The overwhelming majority of students accepted into the

Department of Counseling and the School Counseling Program enter with a 3.0 GPA.

Students must achieve a minimum of 3.0 GPA to successfully graduate from this

program. Per DoC policy, students must attain a grade of ―B‖ or better in the

practicum sequence in order to advance to the next level. Students who are unable to

attain a grade of ―B‖ or better in a practicum course must repeat the course. Students

are placed on probation if their GPA drops below a 3.0 at any time in the program.

Student Intern Evaluations: Field supervisors complete a written evaluation of each

student whom they supervise. The evaluation is individually reviewed by practicum

instructors and the fieldwork coordinator who contact the student and/or the

supervisor if there are any questions about the evaluation. The written evaluations are

processed by the Department’s Admissions/Assessment Coordinator according to

degree pursued. Data for the school counseling students are reported in aggregated

manner with the evaluations of students in college, career, and gerontological

counseling. Students are rated on 40 learning objectives and 2 summative ratings.

When engaged in counseling-related activities, students are expected to demonstrate

17 foundational behaviors (items 1-17) and demonstrate appropriate use of 18 general

(items 18-35) and specific (items 36-40) counseling skills. Items 41 and 42 are

summative ratings of professional competence. The 17 required foundational

counseling-related behaviors (items 1-17) are assessed using a 5-point Likert-type

scale, with a score of 1 indicating ―almost always‖ and a score of 5 indicating ―almost

never.‖ The 18 general and 1 specific counseling skills (items 18-36) and 2

summative ratings (items 37-38) are assessed using a 3-point Likert-type scale, with a

score of 1 indicating ―Very Good/Excellent‖ and a score of 3 indicating ―Below

Average.‖

Data on the Student Intern Evaluations were processed in Summer 2011 for the

AY 2009-2010. Because of our strong CACREP accreditation report, the university

did not require us to process this data in Summer 2012. The following information

therefore is reflective of AY 2009-2010. Mean ratings across all items and all

courses ranged from 1.0 - 1.6, with lower scores indicating higher levels of

effectiveness. Except for one item, ratings for the capstone field-based experience

(Coun 891) ranged from 1.0 – 1.4, with all items falling at or below our minimum

department criterion of 1.4. Items that exceeded our department criterion of 1.4 were

those related to ethical/legal issues and the skill of confrontation. Action taken

consisted of notifying practicum instructors and the school counseling coordinator in

order that instructors place more emphasis when teaching these specific topics in

practicum courses.


October 15, 2012 89

Part III: Summary of Candidate and Program Data

The analyses of the type of data relative to candidate competence and program effectiveness are

presented in Part II. This section summarizes in Table 4 how the School Counseling Program

makes use of various data points to improve candidate and program performance:

Table 4: Summary of Candidate and Program Data

Data Source Plan of Action Proposed Changes Persons Responsible

NCATE Evaluation

System

Review scores for key

assignments – Identify

students whose scores

are 1s or 2s. Check final

course grades. Students

who do not achieve a 3.0

GPA placed on

probation.

Evaluation system

created a few years

ago by College of

Education; no changes

anticipated.

Faculty, school

counseling coordinator,

faculty advisors,

department chair.

Department of

Counseling Student

Evaluation Meetings

Faculty discusses cases

of students who are

struggling in classes,

with special attention

paid to practicum

courses. On average, 1 -

2 school counseling

students discussed per

year.

Faculty meets 3 times

per semester; new

student evaluation

form was created

several years ago to

streamline process; no

other changes

expected at this time.

Faculty advisor or chair

contacts student

Faculty contacts with

field supervisors

Faculty regularly contact

field supervisors to

monitor student

performance in the field

Contacts with field

supervisors conducted

on a case by case

basis. Information

gathered is presented

as needed at Student

Evaluation Meetings.

Practicum instructors,

site supervisors,

fieldwork coordinator,

department chair

Course evaluations Faculty advisors develop

probationary plan for

students who obtain a

GPA below 3.0 or ―B‖

average.

No changes at this

time.

Faculty advisors

Assessment Report

containing aggregated

data of Student intern

evaluations

Fieldwork supervisors

conduct written

evaluations of student

interns. Evaluations

reviewed by practicum

instructors and fieldwork

coordinator.

Report containing

aggregated data on

how students

performed in the field

is distributed to

faculty and program

coordinators.

Practicum instructors,

fieldwork coordinator.

Practicum instructors

make adjustments to

course topics as needed.

In summary, data collected from the NCATE key assignments in combination with data on

course evaluations, student evaluation meetings, feedback from field supervisors, and

advancement in practicum courses are important sources of information for School Counseling

Program faculty to determine how students are doing in the program and areas for improvement

to help students be successful.


October 15, 2012 90






Program documented in this report PPSC Social Work

Name of Program Masters Social Work PPSC Social Work




Traditional via MSW program

Credential awarded Pupil Personnel Services Credential Social

Work




Program Contact Christina Feliciana

Title PPSC Coordinator/Lecturer

Phone # 415-412-2848




Name

Title

Phone #



October 15, 2012 91


Program Specific Candidate Information PPSC Social Work


2010-11 2011-2012


Delivery Option

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

TOTALS 7 7 2 2


Visit). Please include approximate date changes were initiated.

The SFSU School of Social Work has faced tremendous challenges since the CTC last

visited.

Our school reduced its admissions from roughly 80 to 25 MSW candidates in the fall of

2010. Many predicted that the contraction of the entire MSW program would mean the

end to the PPSC at SFSU. Instead, students petitioned to have the required PPSC classes

offered as two of their very few electives.

Due to the budget constraints of running such a small program, in the fall 2011, the

School of Social Work discontinued offering a specialized PPSC field seminar. Thus,

SW 741 PPSC section was dropped as a requirement for PPSC candidates.

Students continue to receive support regarding their internships in a weekly SW 741

seminar that is shared with other students who are placed in a variety of settings.

Again due to budget issues, the school offers an honorarium to the PPSC Coordinator to

oversee the program. The coordinator is a part-time lecturer who teaches SW 865 in the

fall and one non-PPSC course in the spring.

While MSW students are curious and committed to understanding the needs of K-12

children in CA, most of the students taking the required PPSC classes in the last two

years have not registered formally with the graduate studies department as PPSC

candidates. Either they had not fulfilled the internship requirements or they simply did

not want to commit to field before graduation.

Without weekly access to PPSC students as the instructor in the field seminar course, the

PPSC coordinator was not able to encourage students to register as PPSC candidates.

We have reviewed the 2011-2012 academic year. We understand that we need to promote the

designation of the PPSC among our MSW students so that more useful data is available for

reaccreditation. This fall 2012, we have fifteen students in the SW 865. Again, while not all of

them want the credential, it is hoped that about ten will pursue it. We use the primary research

paper as our major assignment in the course, in addition to asking students to conduct

professional development presentations. Students continue to find these to be useful activities

and alum have reported that they have utilized the PowerPoint’s as school social workers for

their school site.


October 15, 2012 92

While we no longer offer a specialized section of the field seminar (SW 741), PPSC students are

required to have the Verification of Standards form completed by their field instructor to ensure

that they are meeting the field objectives for the PPS credential. This document combined with

the standard learning agreement and field evaluation forms provides feedback about the

readiness of the student to enter the profession. The PPSC coordinator arranges a time in the

spring to meet with PPSC candidates to review required paperwork. She connects students to the

credential analysts’ office for the final steps in recommending candidates to the CTC.

We need to outreach more regularly with PPSC graduates to gather data in terms of documenting

if they have found school social work jobs and to assess their readiness for the positions.

Because the coordinator position has been reduced dramatically over the years, follow up with

alum has been an area that has not been prioritized.

The Director of Field Education has changed three times since our last accreditation. This year

we welcomed another person to the position. The PPSC coordinator has been available to

consult with students, field instructors, and the field liaisons regarding field placements.

We have a new instructor for SW 760, Social Work and the Law, course as the spring of 2012

was the first time he taught the course. He continues to tweak the course and the requirements

for the major assignment in that class.

Since the school reduced the number of MSW students to a cohort of 25 for first year and 25 for

second year students, a greater number of students are pursuing the PPS credential in addition to

the Title IVE child welfare stipend. This has meant that these students have had to complete

their school-based internship in their first year of the MSW program as opposed to the more

traditional second year. As first year students, they are in field two days a week. In order to earn

the minimum of 450 hours of school-based work with at least two different age levels, these

students have extended their internships either by adding another day or going beyond the

standard end date for the SFSU field calendar. We are pleased that future child welfare workers

are being trained in the educational needs of foster children so they can advocate appropriately

for those youth.


October 15, 2012 93


Biennial Report




Program documented in this report School Psychology

Name of Program School Psychology Graduate Program




Specialist

Credential awarded Pupil Services Credential, School Psychology




Program Contact Diane Harris, Ph.D.

Title Professor, Psychology, and Coordinator of the School Psychology

Program

Phone # (415) 338-7064




Name Same as preparer

Title

Phone #

E-mail


October 15, 2012 94



The Program at San Francisco State University is a coordinated program with a cohesive design

based upon a cogent rationale. The foundation of the Program is identified in the goal of the

School Psychology Program: to prepare competent professional psychologists who function

effectively in the school setting, trained to work skillfully with children of diverse cultural, socio-

economic, ethnic and various life-style groups as well as with their families, teachers and other

education and mental health professionals, around the issues of learning, development and

growth. The predominant theoretical orientation of the School Psychology Program is one that

emphasizes developmental, dynamic, humanistic, relational, family systems, social learning,

behavioral and cognitive-behavioral approaches grounded in a cultural context. The objectives

provide the directions to accomplishing the goal:

1. To appreciate and value diversity, and to provide culturally relevant services;

2. To acquire knowledge of psychological and educational foundations in the standards of data

based decision making and accountability, consultation and collaboration, effective instruction

and development of cognitive/academic skills, socialization and development of life skills,

student diversity in development and learning, schools and system organizations, prevention,

crisis intervention and mental health, home/school community collaboration, research and

program evaluation, ethical and legal codes of conduct and information technology;

3. To acquire knowledge and skill to identify children who may reside in risk inducing

environments, by providing careful and appropriate assessment of children and their families,

and by offering appropriate interventions for children and their families;

4. To plan, carry out, and evaluate clinical and educational interventions to promote school

progress and academic success, both within the school and family, and within the larger

community;

5. To develop skills in methods of consultation and knowledge regarding the mandates and

constraints in public education, and other services available to children and their families;

6. To develop skills to perform data-based research for determining appropriate placements of

children, and to evaluate the appropriateness of programs;

7. To develop skills in making data based decisions in each aspect of the profession for purposes

of appropriate service to children in schools.

To accomplish these goals and objectives, the School Psychology Program is designed as a

carefully monitored and closely articulated three year planned sequence of didactic theory and

methods courses, community based, professionally supervised practicum/field placement

experiences, and accompanying seminars oriented toward the integration of theory and practice

as well as representing the program goals. This permits a close integration of theoretical

knowledge and the methods for applying that knowledge with the insights gained from an

examined personal experience of participating directly as a service provider with diverse client

populations. Basic theories and skills are first presented in seminars in the early stages of the

training program, and later are extended and elaborated at levels of greater depth and complexity

as the student progresses through the graduated set of learning and training experiences. Because


October 15, 2012 95

of the coordinated nature of the School Psychology Program, only full-time students are

admitted.

Course of Study

The Program’s courses are taken sequentially. Courses are not designed as isolated, "stand alone"

packages, but as part of the overall training experience. Competencies and standards are often

addressed in the School Psychology Program at different levels and in different "courses" at the

same time, so that few courses are designed solely to meet specific areas of knowledge and

competence. Four themes run throughout the School Psychology Program:

Relevant didactic material (theory, research, laws, and issues of psychological practice) is

introduced through program seminars and courses in Psychology, Special Education and

Counseling. In so far as possible, material is introduced as it becomes relevant to the field

experiences of the student.

At all times the student is in a field placement in which she/he is called upon to put into

actual practice the material she/he is learning in the didactic courses. The student is

expected to begin to provide service to children and families early in the first semester of

the School Psychology Program.

Integrative courses accompany the field experiences throughout the School Psychology

Program and are addressed with more advanced didactic material and with on-going case

material from the field placements. Ethical and legal issues are given special attention.

Close individual and group supervision occurs throughout the three years of training,

focusing both on case material and on the student's development of an identity as a

professional. Ethical and legal issues are addressed.

Program Specific Student Information

Numbers of students and completers/graduates for two years reported

2010-11 2011-2012


Delivery Option

Number of

Students

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Students

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

TOTALS 8 6 5 7

Changes Since Last Accreditation Activity (Biennial Report, Program Assessment). The

Program has undergone some modifications over the recent two years: 1) Due to the

restructuring of the University, the School Psychology Program while remaining a part of the

Psychology Department is now located with the rest of the Psychology Department in the

College of Science and Engineering; 2) in response to the economic challenges with the State

Budget, the Program has been forced to address unavailability of course offerings. To continue to

offer a quality program while maintaining currency in the profession, modifications have been

made to the Program curriculum. These modifications to the Curriculum have been approved by

the University’s structure for changes to graduate programs; 3) and Students (starting with the

Fall 2010 cohort), are required to take and receive a passing score on the PRAXIS Exam as

determined by NASP’s National Certification in School Psychology, to receive credit for the

second semester course of the third year, Conference to Accompany Psychology Internship (PSY


October 15, 2012 96

858) and to complete the School Psychology Third Year School Psychology Internship

Credential Program (Pupil Personnel Services Credential Internship Program).

PART II – Student Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information

Assessment Questions Measurement Frequency

1 What are the

primary student

assessment(s) the

program uses up to

and through

recommending the

student for a

credential?

Midyear Evaluations

Graded Course Assignments

Key Assignments for NCATE evaluations

Evaluation Competency Form for level of training

Scheduled Site visits to fieldwork placements

Comprehensive Written Examination

The School Psychologist Examination (PRAXIS) Test

#10400 Examination

Exit Program Survey

Mid-semester

Each Semester

Each Semester

Each year

Each semester

Last Semester of

the Second Year

Last Semester of

the Internship

End of Program

2. What additional

information about

student and program

completer performance

or program

effectiveness is

collected and analyzed

that informs

programmatic decision

making?

Orientation Meeting

School Psychology Handbook

Midyear evaluation meetings with Instructor for PSTY

729 (first year field placement) and University supervisor

(for practicum and internship)

Course Grades

Evaluation Competency Form for level of training,

Activity Log, Samples of Assessment Report and

Treatment Summary

Meeting with the University Supervisor for the practicum

and internship experiences

Designated Classes: PSY 729, PSY 829 and PSY 859/858

Start of each year

Upon admission to

the Program

Mid-semester each

semester

Each semester

End of each year

Three times per

year

Each semester

Aggregated data: Key Assignments for NCATE evaluations

This report is an analysis of the aggregated data from Summer 2009, Fall 2009, Spring 2010, Fall

2010, Summer 2010, Fall 2010 and Spring 2011. The collection of the data represents two years

of study in the three year program that results in a Master of Science Degree in Psychology with

an emphasis in School Psychology and reflects the overall training experience of this sequential

program.

During the first year, the focus is on the introduction of the knowledge base from the School

Psychology Program. In general, much of the knowledge base is introduced during this year. The

field placement is primarily an introduction to basic human services in the schools and related

agencies. On-site supervisors provide individual and group/team supervision. The first year

courses that were identified for assessment were: PSY 728, 722, PSY 855 and PSY 729. PSY

728 is a year-long (2 semester) theories-based course. For this course in the Fall 2009, 100% of

the students received a key assignment score of 4 in the knowledge of foundations assessment

category and in the Spring 2010, 100% of the students received a key assignment score of 4 for

the assessment category. Compared to the previous analyses for this course in the Fall, 2008 and

Spring, 2009, 100% of the students received a key assignment score of 3 for the knowledge of

foundations assessment category; there is improvement in the assessment category for this


October 15, 2012 97

course. PSY 722 is the second semester of the year long assessment course. In the spring 2010,

100% of the assessed students received a key assignment score of 4 in the assessment category.

Compared to PSY 721 (fall, 2008) and PSY 722 (spring, 2009), 100% of the students assessed in

these courses received a key assignment of 4; there is consistency of performance for the

students in the Program for this course.

PSY 855 is the seminar in professional School Psychology. For Spring 2010, students were

assessed in the categories of knowledge in the discipline and dispositions but key assignments

were not provided. In the previous assessment, for Spring, 2008, 25% of the students received a

key assignment score of 3, and 75% of the students received a key assignment score of 4 for the

knowledge in the discipline and the evaluations categories. For the spring, 2009, 50% of the

students received a key assignment of 3 and 50% of the students received a key assignment score

of 4 for the discipline knowledge and evaluations categories.

One measure of performance is also indicated in the fieldwork placements (PSY 729). The

fieldwork experience also is a two semester course with on-site weekly supervision by the onsite

supervisor and weekly supervision provided by a University faculty member. In the Spring 2010,

students were assessed for the categories of assessment, goals, services, evaluation and

dispositions. The key assignments for these categories were 4 indicating the students were

performing at the maximum level of assessment. The previous analyses indicated also that all

students received a key assignment score of 4 for knowledge of the discipline, assessment, goals,

services, and evaluation assessment categories. Performance is consistently high in the categories

of evaluation for the fieldwork experience.

There were two second year Psychology courses that were assessed: PSY 829 and PSY 896. The

practicum course, PSY 829, is the second year training experience where second year students

also receive on-site supervision in school settings and weekly supervision from a faculty

member. For this yearlong course, in the Fall, 2009 and the Spring 2010 in the assessment

categories of assessment, goals, services, and evaluation, 50% of the students received a key

assignment score of 3 and 50% received a key assignment score of 4. In the Fall, 2010, 33% of

the assessed students received a key assignment of 3 and 66.7% of the assessed students received

a key assignment of 4 for these categories. For the spring, 2011, 100% of the assessed students

received a key assignment of 4, the highest score for the assessment categories of knowledge

about the discipline, assessment, goals, services and evaluation indicating improvement in

performance of students. This finding is significant for the training program and indicates

substantial progress over the course of two years.

PSY 896 is the course where students are required to submit to written comprehensive

examinations as a part of the Program’s culminating experience. The outcome of this course and

Program requirements determine the student’s compliance with all requirements for completing

the Program to receive the Master of Science Degree in Psychology with an emphasis in School

Psychology. While much of the supervision for the culminating experience begins during the fall

semester in PSY 829, students receive credit through PSY 896 during the spring semester,

reflecting a year long course of study for completing the culminating experience. Similar to the

findings for the assessments of PSY 829, for the spring, 2010, 50% of the students received the

key assignment of 3 and 50% received a key assignment of 4 for knowledge about the discipline


October 15, 2012 98

assessment category. For the following year, spring 2011, 33% received a key assignment of 3

and 66.7% received a key assignment of 4 for the same assessment category. The results indicate

the majority of students have met or exceeded the expectations for meeting the minimum

standards for the written comprehensive examination, resulting in the successful completion of

the Program and eligibility for the Third Year School Psychology Internship Credential Program

(Pupil Personnel Services Credential Internship Program).

The third year credential program is the internship. The internship consists of 36 hours per week

for 36 weeks for a minimum total of 1296 hours per academic year. All internship hours are

supervised by a credentialed School Psychologist hired by the school district and the student’s

progress is monitored by a University supervisor. Although the year long course that

accompanies the internship, Conference to Accompany Psychology Internship (PSY 858) was

not a part of the assessment plan for the School Psychology Program since it occurs in the third

year of the program, for spring 2009, the key assignment score for all of the assessed students

was 4 in the assessment categories of knowledge regarding the discipline, assessment and goals,

indicating successful performance of the students in the Credential Internship Program.

Since the Program utilizes a multidisplinary approach to training, the curriculum includes

courses from the Counseling and Special Education Departments. These courses are taken

primarily during the second year of the Master of Science Degree Program in School Psychology

and are shared with students representing other graduate programs. The assessed courses were:

COUN 827, COUN 719, SPED 772, SPED 702, SPED 793 and SPED 803.

COUN 827 and COUN 719 represent the yearlong (2 semester) counseling course curriculum for

the Program, taught by a faculty member who is a School Psychologist. For COUN 827, during

the Spring 2010, 50% of the assessed students received a key assignment score of 3 and 50% of

the students received a key assignment score of 4 for the assessment category of goals. There

was a slight increase in performance from the spring semester 2010 to the fall 2010 semester; 33

% of the students received a key assignment of 3 and 66.7% of the students in the same class

received a key assignment of 66.7% for the goals assessment category. However, these findings

also represent a slight decline in student performance from the previous assessment of fall, 2008

where 100% of the students received a key assignment score of 4 for the same category. For

COUN 719, Spring 2011, 100% of the students received a key assignment of 4 for the

assessment categories of knowledge about the discipline, goals and services. This performance

appears to be an improvement compared to the previous performance appraisal of spring 2008,

where 25% of the assessed students received a key assignment score of 3 and 75% received a

key assignment score of 4 for the assessment categories of knowledge within the discipline,

goals, services and dispositions.

The assessment category for SPED 772 (Fall 2010) indicated that all of the school psychology

students received a key assignment score of 4 for the assessment areas of knowledge regarding

the discipline, assessment and services, an identical performance in SPED 772 for fall, 2009 and

Fall 2008, where 100% of the students received a score of 4 for the same assessment areas.

For the course, PSY 793, Fall 2009, assessed students received a score of 4 for the assessment

category of knowledge regarding the discipline. This course was discontinued and no longer


October 15, 2012 99

offered by the Special Education Department. In the School Psychology Program’s curriculum,

this course was replaced by SPED 803. Students enrolled in this course were assessed during the

sessions of summer 2009 and summer 2010. For the summer, 2009, student key assignment

scores were 3 for the assessment categories of knowledge regarding foundations, assessment and

dispositions. During the summer, 2010, students received a key assignment score of 4 for the

same areas of evaluation, indicating an increase in performance. There are difficulties comparing

these findings between the previous course, PSY 793 and the current replacement course, PSY

803 since there are different goals and expectations of students for these two courses.

For the summer 2009, SPED 702 (currently known as SPED 788), all school psychology

students received a key assignment score of 4 for the assessment categories of knowledge

regarding foundations, assessment, goals and dispositions, and for the summer 2010, all students

received a key assignment of 4 for the same areas. These findings were identical to previous

evaluations for this course; for the Spring 2008, 100% of the students received a key assignment

score of 4 for the same areas. There is consistency of performance for school psychology

students over the course of three years for this course.

To summarize from the data, the assessed students in the School Psychology Program continue

to receive key assignment scores of either 3 or 4. While the small number of students must be

considered in interpreting the results of the aggregated data, there appears to be consistency of

performance evaluation for these students by faculty representing diverse disciplines. This

strength of the Program reflects the mission; School Psychology students are well trained in

basic skills to provide quality services in the schools to a culturally diverse group of children and

their families.

PART III – Analyses and Discussion of Student and Program Data Summary

In addition to the NCATE scores, there are several sources to assess student performance to

determine student competence as indicated in the table identified on page 1. These sources will

be described briefly:

Master of Science in Psychology: Concentration in School Psychology

There are two levels of student performance and progress assessment after a student has been

admitted to the School Psychology Program: The Program’s assessment, and the University’s

assessment.

A. School Psychology Program‟s Assessment Process. The student’s progress is closely

monitored throughout the three years by faculty, instructors, advisors/readers, supervisors

and other professionals. A systematic comprehensive assessment is made of each

student’s progress from the first semester of graduate study to the final semester of the

School Psychology Graduate Program.

Academic competencies are evaluated by the student’s ability to apply knowledge

acquired from courses to fieldwork experiences throughout the three years of training.

Evaluation of knowledge is conducted primarily by individual instructors in classes and


October 15, 2012 100

seminars where the material is presented through assignment of grades for courses. A

specific evaluation tool for determination of student progress also is conducted through

key assignments in some courses for continued NCATE accreditation.

At each year of training all on-site primary supervisors, the University supervisor, and the

student are required to complete and sign three contracts at the beginning of the fieldwork

experience and upon completion of the training year, all supervisors are required to

complete an Evaluation Competency Form for the level of training. Additionally,

students are required to submit signed logs of their activities for the entire year, sample

treatment plans and sample Assessment reports (for the Practicum and Internship) co-

signed by the on-site supervisors.

The Culminating Experience, Comprehensive Written Examination (PSY 896) is the

culminating experience required of all students to complete the School Psychology

graduate program. This performance based assessment measure, The Culminating

Experience, also is a university requirement for graduation under Title 5 of the California

Code of Regulations. This requirement is the final demonstration of competence in

scholarly and professional work. The final decision regarding the completion of the

comprehensive written examination is made by the Coordinator of the Program in

consultation with the School Psychology Faculty and the reader/advisor for the student.

The University coordinator approves the completion of this culminating experience by

signing the University Form, Report of Completion of Specified Graduate Program

Requirements.

Based upon the assessment of writing skills as demonstrated in the completion of the

Culminating Experience, the Comprehensive Written Examination, the student may be

required to complete additional writing courses to meet expectations for the writing of

professional-level reports and documents prior to eligibility and acceptance into the Pupil

Personnel Services Credential: School Psychology Designation (Pupil Personnel Services

Credential Internship Program).

The student is required to submit documents as a part of the Performance Portfolio for

each year of training. The documents are placed in the student’s file and are used to

determine the student’s readiness for the third year, The School Psychology Internship

Credential Program (Pupil Personnel Services Credential Internship Program). When the

student completes the Program, all CCTC and NASP standards are met as evidenced by

the Performance Portfolio.

B. San Francisco State University‟s Assessment (Graduate Studies): The University

measures academic progress through several measures. In summary, the following

requirements must be met:

1. GPA

2. English Proficiency

3. Continuous Enrollment

4. Successful Completion of the Culminating Experience Requirement

http://gcoe.sfsu.edu/docs/pps/sp/syllabi/PSY_896__2011_Contracts__for_the_culminating_experience.pdf


October 15, 2012 101

5. Completion of Degree Requirements within a specified period

6. Appropriate Graduation Forms

7. Appropriate Credential Forms

Upon successful completion of these requirements, the student is eligible to receive the degree,

Master of Science in Psychology: Concentration in School Psychology from San Francisco State

University.

Pupil Personnel Services Credential: School Psychology Designation (Credential Internship

Program).

If the student meets all of the requirements for the Master of Science in Psychology:

Concentration in School Psychology (or a comparable Program) as well as the assignment of an

internship which is a part of the Credential application materials and the passing of the C-BEST

exam, the student is accepted into the Third Year School Psychology Internship Credential

Program (Pupil Personnel Services Credential Internship Program).

The student’s progress is closely monitored throughout the internship year by faculty, instructors,

advisors/readers, supervisors and other professionals. Evaluation of knowledge is conducted

primarily by individual instructors in classes and seminars where the material is presented. The

skill areas and application abilities are evaluated by on-site placement supervisors. On-site

supervisors observe and report to the School Psychology Program’s University supervisor,

evaluation of the student’s skills and progress. Toward the completion of the third year

internship, the student must submit a Performance Portfolio which consists of the signed

performance appraisal, Evaluation Competency Form, an activity log of activities, copies of a

treatment summary report and Assessment Report co-signed by the on-site supervisor as

evidence of successful completion of coursework (transcripts), and other relevant materials

including the Credential Application Materials.

In addition to the submission of all required materials with appropriate signatures for the

Performance Portfolio, since 2005, all students are required to take the School Psychologist

Examination (PRAXIS) Test #10400 administered by the Educational Testing Service as a part of

the Praxis Series II program during the third year internship. Effective 2010, students who are

admitted to the Master’s of Science in Psychology with a Concentration in School Psychology

are required to take and receive a passing score on the PRAXIS Exam as determined by NASP’s

National Certification in School Psychology to complete the second semester of the third year

course, Conference to Accompany Psychology Internship (PSY 858) and the Pupil Personnel

Services Credential Internship Program (Pupil Personnel Services Credential: School Psychology

Designation).

The final decision to recommend a student for the Pupil Personnel Services Credential with an

emphasis in School Psychology is based upon the successful completion of the Pupil Personnel

Services Credential Internship Program (Pupil Personnel Services Credential: School Psychology

Designation).This recommendation is made by the University Coordinator in consultation with

the University supervisor, instructors of the courses and the School Psychology Program

committee.


October 15, 2012 102

In summary, the student’s performance is closely monitored throughout the three years of the

Program by faculty, instructors, advisors/readers, supervisors, Program Coordinator and other

professionals to determine the ability to integrate knowledge and skill, and to deliver services

that have a positive impact on the lives of children and their families.

Continuous communication with faculty, instructors, administrators, supervisors and students of

the Program provides the information to assess, modify and monitor the Program’s effectiveness.

Additionally, the Exit Program Survey is completed by students during their final semester of

their enrollment in the Program. Finally, the Program is reviewed by the California Commission

on Teacher Credentialing. The modifications to the Program as identified in the next section and

Part I, Section A are the result of these various levels of Program assessment.


October 15, 2012 103


Biennial Report





Program documented in this report Speech-Language Pathology

Name of Program Communicative Disorders




Traditional

Credential awarded Speech-Language Pathology Services

Credential

Is this program offered at more than one site? no

Program Contact Nancy B. Robinson

Title Associate Professor

Phone # 415.405.2170




Name

Title

Phone #

E-mail


October 15, 2012 104



This report contains results of assessment data for two academic years, 2010-2011 and 2011-

2012 for the Speech-Language Pathology Services Credential offered at San Francisco State

University in the Communicative Disorders Program (SFSU CD Program). The SLPSC is

provided in connection with the Master of Science Degree in Communicative Disorders (CD), as

accredited by the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association and approved by CTC.

In November, 2010, CTC adopted the CTC-ASHA Alignment Matrix, stating, “An institution

that is offering a Speech-Language Pathology Services preparation program which is accredited

by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) may elect to use ASHA’s

standards for California accreditation activities. In addition to meeting ASHA’s standards, each

California SLP program must indicate where the underlined concepts are addressed in the

approved SLP program.” In 2012, the CD Program at SFSU submitted the Program Assessment

report to document the ways in which the M.S. Degree program meets all Specialty Standards for

the SLPSC.

The American Speech-Language and Hearing Association reaccredited the Master of Science

degree program in the Communicative Disorders Program within the Department of Special

Education at San Francisco State University from 2009-2017. The CD Program curriculum

includes all academic and clinical experiences necessary for American Speech and Hearing

Association (ASHA) certification in speech-language pathology, State of California Speech-

Language Pathology Services Credential, and the State of California license to practice speech-

language pathology. Students are required to complete all academic and practicum courses.

Up until fall, 2011, the SFSU CD Program offered two types of Speech-Language Pathology

Services Credentials, the Speech-Language Pathology Services Credential in Language, Speech

and Hearing (SLPSC) and the Speech-Language Pathology Services Credential in Language,

Speech and Hearing-Special Class Authorization (LSH-SCA).Data included in this Biennial

Report covers program outcomes for the SLPSC and LSH-SCA, offered up until fall 2011.

However, the LSH-SCA is no longer offered by the CD Program at SFSU. Data for both

credential programs is combined in this report.



2010-11 2011-2012


Delivery Option

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Traditional 109 46 82 17


Visit).


October 15, 2012 105

Due to small numbers of students who completed the Language, Speech and Hearing

including Special Class Authorization, this is no longer offered by the SFSU CD

Program, beginning in fall, 2011.

Strategic Planning to revise CD Program vision, mission and strategic goals.

Coordination of school-based focus on articulation and phonological disorders across

courses and internship experiences.

Coordination and collaboration with SELPA and SLP Directors in student intern

placement and evaluation.

Limitations in the capacity to enroll MS and Credential candidates in prerequisite courses

at the undergraduate level resulted in fewer graduate students taking undergraduate

courses.



This report covers data collected for students in the CD Program for two academic years, 2010-

2011 and 2011-2012. Data are combined for two types of credential programs, including the

SLPSC and the LSH-SCA.



The following assessment are used to make critical decisions about candidate competence prior

to recommending candidates for a credential, shown in the following table.

Methods of Candidate Assessment for the Speech-Language Pathology Services Credential

Assessment Method Description ePortfolio Each graduate student is required to complete a well-organized portfolio as a final

graduation requirement, in addition to other requirements. The ePortfolio is expected

to demonstrate professional development, showcase their use of best practices, and

articulate their professional philosophy. A portfolio shows a sample of the breadth and

depth of a person's work. It is a visual resource for the presentation of a professional

self in an engaging and accessible way. It allows students to define and highlight their

own learning outcomes in ways that are meaningful to them and that are consistent

with learner-centered education.

Faculty Review:

Formative Evaluation

As required by accrediting institutions, foremost of which are ASHA, CTC, and

NCATE, the SFSU maintains a regular formative evaluation to support student success

in the graduate program. The system implemented is named the Learning Outcomes

Verification System (LOVs), and is designed to identify students who are not meeting

minimum grade criteria of B or better in graduate coursework at the mid-point and end

of each semester.

ASHA Knowledge and

Skills Form (KASA)

The ASHA Knowledge and Skills Form, also known as the KASA, provides a

formative and summative evaluation tool to determine each student’s progress and

completion of the M.S. and SLPSC Requirements. All ASHA and CTC requirements

are included in one form for each student to track his/her progress through the

program. Following successful completion of each graduate course, students mark each

completed requirement on their KASA form.


October 15, 2012 106

Clinical Practicum

Evaluation

Candidates for the MS CD Degree and the SLPSC complete a successive series of

clinical practica and internship experiences in order to obtain required clock hours for

certification by ASHA, credentialing by CTC, and licensing by the state of California

as a Speech-Language Pathologist. Beginning with completion of three on-campus

clinical practicum experiences (CD 880 + 711) and one adult practicum (CD 880 +

713), students accumulate approximately 75 of the required total hours for ASHA,

CTC, and SLPALB (Speech Language Pathology and Audiology Licensing Board).

School Internship

Evaluation

The SFSU CD Program has established internship agreements with many schools

around the SF Bay Area. Following completion of the on-campus clinical experiences,

candidates are placed with a Master Clinician, an ASHA certified and CA licensed

SLP, for up to 4 days per week in the school setting. The school internship requires

that the candidate gradually assume all roles and responsibilities for the SLP caseload

in the school, with the guidance of the Master Clinician. Summative assessment is

conducted by the Master Clinician with the Clinical Evaluation, based on ASHA

Knowledge and Skills for clinical intervention.

Credential Approved

Program Document

Candidates are to complete the Credential Approved Program (CAP) form as part of

the application for student teaching, which is due one semester prior to the semester

candidates intend to student teach. CAP forms are reviewed and signed by the

candidate’s advisor. The CAP document is the university’s approved document

needed for the candidate’s name to be forwarded to CCTC by the university.

M.S. Culminating

Experience

CD Graduate students have three options to complete the MS Culminating Experience:

(a) written comprehensive exam plus adult internship, (b) Master’s thesis plus adult

internship, or (c) Field study plus adult internship prior to graduation. Following

completion of any of the three options selected, a report of completion is submitted to

indicate that the candidate has demonstrated satisfactory performance of the

culminating experience.

Praxis Exam for

Certification and

Licensure

In addition to the MS Culminating Experience, the candidate is required to take and

pass the Praxis Exam in Speech-Language Pathology prior to graduation, in order to

enter the field for the first year of employment as an SLP. The development of this

exam is commissioned by ASHA and facilitated by the Educational Testing Service

(ETS). It is a requirement for ASHA certification and California Licensing. A

minimum score of 600 is required for passing.



decision-making?

In addition to formative and summative evaluation described above, the CD Program maintains

data on the retention and rate of graduation for all students in the master’s degree and credential

program. Employment placement is also considered in overall measures of candidate

competence to obtain and maintain the clinical fellowship position (CF) for the first year of

employment. This data is maintained through university and program level databases and

reviewed annually to determine the success rate of program completers. In the past four years,

employment post graduation has been maintained at 100% of students graduating from the CD

Program.


Data reported for student performance is combined for both credential programs in the following

summary table.


October 15, 2012 107

SUMMARY TABLE FOR COMMUNICATIVE DISORDERS PROGRAM – Fall 2010-

Summer 2011 SEMESTERS Percentage Receiving Score/

Number of Students Evaluated

Course/

Semeste

r

1 2 3 4

F10 Sp11 Su11 F10 Sp11 Su11 F10 Sp11 Su11 F10 Sp11 Su1

1

CD 651

F

2

15.0%

12

85.0%

CD 652

S

9

33.3%

18

66.7%

CD 653

S

11

100.0%

CD 654

S

5

24.0

%

2

9.0%

4

19.0%

10

48.0%

CD 656

F

10

100.0

%

CD 658

S

3

25.0%

9

75.%

CD 659

F

1

8.0%

12

92.0%

CD 660

S

1

4.0%

26

96.0%

CD 661

S

2

14.0%

12

86.0%

CD 663

S

1

20.%

4

80.0%

CD 668

F

2

20.0%

8

80.0%

CD 701

F

4

45.%

5

55.0%

CD 705

S

1

14.3%

5

71.4%

1

14.3%

CD 706

F

13

100.0%

CD 707

S

12

100.0%

CD 708

F

7

53.8%

6

46.2%

CD 709

S

13

100.0%

CD 710

S

3

37.5%

2

25.0%

3

37.5%

CD 711

S, Su& F

5

16.7%

25

83.3%

5

100.0%

CD 712

S & F

1

12.5%

1

16.7%

5

62.5%

4

66.7%

2

25.%

1

16.7%

CD 713

S, Su &

F

5

11.1%

40

88.9%

5

100.0%

CD 715

S & F

5

12.5%

35

87.5%

30

100.0%

CD 725

S & F

3

12.5%

6

33.3%

3

12.5%

6

33.3%

18

75.5%

6

33.3%

CD 756


October 15, 2012 108

Percentage Receiving Score/


Course/

Semeste

r

1 2 3 4


1

S

CD 768

F

10

44.0%

13

56.0%

CD 880

S, Su &

F

10

13.3%

5

20.0

%

65

86.7%

55

100.0%

20

80.0

%

CD 882

S, Su& F

5

100.0

%

25

100.0%

15

100.

0%

CD 884

S, Su&F

5

25.0%

10

100.0

%

15

75.0%

10

100.

0%

SPED78

8

S, Su& F

SPED80

1

S, Su& F

SUMMARY TABLE FOR COMMUNICATIVE DISORDERS PROGRAM – Fall 2011-

Summer 2012 SEMESTERS Percentage Receiving Score/


Course/

Semeste

r

1 2 3 4


2

CD 651

F

CD 652

S

CD 653

S & F

9

100.0

%

CD 654

S

2

100.0

%

CD 656

F

1

9.0%

10

91.0%

CD 658

S

CD 659

F

7

100.0

%

CD 660

S

CD 661

S

CD 663 2 11


October 15, 2012 109



Course/

Semeste

r

1 2 3 4


2

S 15.0% 85.0

%

CD 668

F

CD 701

F

2

16.0%

10

84.0%

CD 705

S

3

30.0%

5

50.0%

2

20.0%

CD 706

F

CD 707

S

19

100.0

%

CD 708

F

3

40.0%

4

60.0%

CD 709

S & F

22

100.0

%

CD 710

S

CD 711

S, Su& F

30

100.0

%

115

100.

%

CD 712

S & F

2

25.0%

2

100.0

%

4

50.0%

2

25.0

%

CD 713

S, Su &

F

10

7.5%

65

92.5

%

CD 715

S & F

10

100.%

40

100%

CD 725

S & F

3

50.0%

21

87.5%

3

50.0%

3

12.5

%

CD 756

S

2

40.0%

2

40.0%

5

29.0%

1

20.0%

12

71.0

%

CD 768

F

2

11.1%

16

89.0%

CD 880

S & F

10

5.0%

25

100.0

%

180

95.0

%

CD 882

S, Su& F

5

50.0%

5

8.0%

5

50.0%

55

92.0

%

CD 884

S, Su&F

15

25.0%

5

100.0

%

45

75.0

%

SPED

788

S, Su& F

12

100.0

%

SPED80

3


October 15, 2012 110



Course/

Semeste

r

1 2 3 4


2

S, Su& F



Two areas of program evaluation are notable in the summary data, (a) the overall rates of faculty

reporting for five reporting periods, including Fall, Spring, Summer 2010-2011 and Fall and

Spring for 2011-2012; and (b) measures of student performance in these same periods. Rates of

faculty participation and reporting showed changes over the five semesters, beginning with

100% of faculty members reporting in Fall 2010. In subsequent semesters, the percentages

remained high with 94% reporting in Spring, 2011, and 100% in Summer 2011. In Fall 2011 and

Spring 2012, percentages were lower at 83%. This apparent decrease in reporting rates by

faculty is misleading and may mask what is actually a high rate of faculty reporting. The number

of graduate students who are credential candidates actually decreased in some of the

undergraduate/prerequisite courses due to a change in program policy. Beginning in fall, 2010,

the CD Program no longer accepted graduate students in a ―conditional‖ status, meaning those

M.S. degree and credential candidates who needed to complete undergraduate/prerequisite

courses. Thus, reporting from specific courses such as CD 651, 652, 658, 660, 661, 668 was no

longer applicable. When those courses are removed from calculations, reporting rates for Fall

2011 and Spring 2012 are 88% and 100% respectively. The average reporting rate across all

semesters, with adjusted calculations for courses that no longer have credential candidates, is

96%.

Over the five semesters reported, student performance data is provided on 1,474 students. There

is overlap in this number, as many students take multiple courses and were evaluated by different

instructors in different courses. Student performance data was generally high, with the 77% of

scores reported as 4 on key assignments across all semesters for most students in the

Communicative Disorders Program. Variations in scores are found in particular semesters and in

particular courses and 61% of the students were rated with scores of 3. A significantly smaller

number were rated with scores of 1 or 2, at 16%. It is not clear at this time if score variations are

related to student characteristics, course content, instructional methods or the small numbers of

students reported. It should be noted that not all students enrolled in each course are registered

as credential students, as this often occurs only at the advanced stage of graduate education in the

Communicative Disorders Program. Thus, higher numbers of students are reported in advanced

clinical and internship experiences. More definitive interpretation of the data reported will be

possible in subsequent semesters and trends will be evident.

Using the current percentages, however, it appears as though the program is strong (defined as a

score of 4 on key assignments for more than 75% of students reported) for specific CD courses,


October 15, 2012 111

including the following: CD 651, 653, 656, 658, 659, 660, 661, 663, 668, 701, 706, 707, and

709. These courses identified with consistent scores of 4 include content that is focused on

anatomy and physiology, voice and fluency, language disorders, diagnostic processes,

introduction to communicative disorders, Neurolinguistics, phonological and articulation

disorders, counseling, and motor speech disorders.

Courses with more variation in scores were reported with scores of 1, 2, 3, and less than 75% of

students earning 4 on key assignments. These courses included the following: CD 652, 654, 705,

708, 710, 712, 725, 768. The content for each of these courses is very different and the

variability in student performance may be related to the depth of knowledge and practice of skills

that are required in each of the courses identified. For example, CD 652 and 654 focus on

introduction to audiology and audiometric testing, requiring knowledge of basic sciences. The

reliance on some basic knowledge of science may be an area that is not accessible to all students.

Additionally, courses with variable scores included those in clinical methods and school

internship seminar experiences, which may indicate the need to coordinate completion of

seminar requirements with internships in school settings, working more closely with seminar and

internship supervisors.

Overall, the Communicative Disorders Program appears to be quite strong across all course work

reported due to several factors including 96% of faculty reporting and 77% of most courses

reported on showing that 75% of students achieved a score of 4 on key NCATE assignments.

Variations in NCATE scores were found in 22 out of 30 courses during the reporting period.

Variations in scores will be explored related to the need for strengthening basic science entry

requirements and evaluating the performance of students in student teaching seminars.


October 15, 2012 112


Part IV – Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate

and Program Performance

Given the data results examined in the previous section, program improvements that are

proposed include greater attention and focus by the CD Program to the performance of students

in three areas: (a) basic sciences entry requirements; (b) completion of assignments in student

teaching seminars in coordination with school internship experiences; and (c) coordination of

expectations in clinical methods course work and practica. Specific actions to address each of

these areas are listed in the table below.


Common Standard(s)

Variable

student

performance in

CD 652, 654

Strengthen basic sciences requirement for incoming

students. Require each incoming student to demonstrate

through transcript evaluation, mastery of basic sciences in

biological, physical, social sciences and mathematics in

accordance with ASHA requirements.

SLP Standard 1: Speech,

Language, Hearing, and

Swallowing Mechanisms

Variable

student

performance in

CD 712 and

725

Consult with seminar instructors to review requirements

for their courses in coordination with school-based

internships. Assignments generate from school

internships, which have variable time frames for students

to assume increasing responsibility for mastery of

managing SLP caseload. Greater coordination between

seminar and internship experiences is the planned

outcome.

SLP Standard 5: Management

of Speech and Language

Disorders

and

SLP Standard 6: School Field

Experience

Variable

student

performance in

CD 768

Coordinate with clinical and academic faculty to

determine expectations in clinical methods course and

clinical practice. Ensure that course content matches

expected competencies for students in clinical experience.

SLP Standard 5: Management

of Speech and Language

Disorders

University Due to the restructuring of the University, the School

Psychology Program is now located in the Psychology

Department, College of Science and Engineering and is no

longer located in the College of Behavioral and Social

Sciences (The College was eliminated effective Fall

2011).

Special

Education

Department

SPED 788 Law, Ethics, and Instructional Planning for

SPED 702 (former title), Professional, Legal, and Ethical

Practices: Creating Instructional Opportunities for

Students with Disabilities (Course Title change);

Substitute SPED 801 Diversity in Special Education:

Family systems, Resources and Culture for SPED 793

Atypical Cognitive and Language Development (no

longer offered);

Substitute SPED 803, Communication, Diversity and

Exceptionality for SPED 793, Atypical Cognitive and

Language Development (no longer offered).


October 15, 2012 113


Common Standard(s)

Counseling

Department

Increase the number of units from 1 unit to 3 units for the

course, COUN 827, The Consultation Process (assessment

results);

Substitute COUN 719/PSY 857, Behavior Management

for PSY 828, Conference to Accompany Advanced

Psychology Practicum (assessment results).

Psychology

and College of

Behavioral

and Social

Sciences

Substitute PSY 891, Seminar in Selected Problems for

BSS 803, Integrated and Collaborative Services for

Children (no longer offered);

Psychology

and

Counseling

Departments

Substitute PSY 753, Early Human Development: Theory

and Research for Counseling 700, Theories of Counseling

(assessment results);

Substitute PSY 754, Theoretical and Empirical

Perspectives in Family Development for Counseling 858,

Couple and Family Counseling (assessment results).

Program

Policy

A policy was adopted to address proficiency in

professional writing. For matriculated students who have

completed the Master of Science in Psychology:

Concentration in School Psychology Program at SFSU,

additional writing courses may be required to meet the

expectations of writing professional-level reports and

documents prior to eligibility and acceptance into the

Pupil Personnel Services Credential: School Psychology

Designation (Pupil Personnel Services Credential

Internship Program) (assessment by the Comprehensive

Written Examination).

PRAXIS Exam All students are required to take the NASP’s National

Certification in School Psychology on the School

Psychologist Examination (PRAXIS) Test #10400

administered by the Educational Testing Service during

the third year School Psychology Credential Internship

Program. Students must receive a passing score on the

PRAXIS Exam as determined by NASP’s National

Certification in School Psychology to complete the second

semester course of the third year, Conference to

Accompany Psychology Internship (PSY 858) and to

complete the Pupil Personnel Services Credential

Internship Program (Pupil Personnel Services Credential:

School Psychology Designation) (assessment results).


October 15, 2012 114


Biennial Report





Program documented in this report

Name of Program Orientation & Mobility




Traditional

Credential awarded Clinical Rehabilitative Services, Orientation

& Mobility




Program Contact Dr. Sandra Rosen

Title Coordinator, Program in O&M

Phone # 415-338-1245




Name

Title

Phone #

E-mail


October 15, 2012 115



The SFSU Program in Orientation & Mobility is one of two such programs in California. The

program prepares candidates to server learners of all ages including those with additional

disabilities. Upon completion of the program, candidates can apply for the California Clinical

Rehabilitative Services Credential – Orientation &Mobility. Those who take additional

coursework and pass a comprehensive master’s examination (or complete a written field study)

can earn a Master of Arts Degree in Special Education with an emphasis in orientation &

mobility. Graduates take jobs working in public schools; state residential schools for the blind;

and private, State, and Federal rehabilitation centers.

The program curricula meets all standards, both didactic and field-based, that are set forth by the

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC), the Association for Education and

Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER), and the Academy for Certification of

Vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals (ACVREP).



2010-11 2011-2012


Delivery Option

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

Number of

Candidates

Number of

Completers/

Graduates

SFSU 26 10 28 10


Visit). Please include approximate date changes were initiated.

In order to meet new CCTC Standards and to enhance quality and efficiency of candidate

preparation, some new courses have been added and others dropped beginning in Fall 2010.

A new course, SPED 747, Physical, Health, and Sensory Impairments, provides in-depth

instruction in addressing the special needs of learners with these conditions in addition to

visual impairment.

SPED 702 and SPED 803 have been revised and renumbered in the Dept. of Special

Education. O&M candidates take SPED 788 in lieu of SPED 702 as this course provides the

relevant content to meet the required program standards for O&M candidates (Program

Standards 1,3,4,5,10,11,12). In lieu of SPED 803, candidates take SPED 747. Any content

from SPED 803 that was required for O&M candidates has been incorporated into existing

courses as shown in the course syllabi.


October 15, 2012 116




Evaluation of candidate progress is evaluated on an on-going basis using a variety of university

records and evaluation questionnaires. Samples were included in submitted program documents.

Evaluation data are collected from: (a) SFSU faculty, (b) internship site supervising teachers, (c)

program candidates.

Candidate Assessment Instrument Description Data Collection

Process

Types of Data

Collected

Level of

Performance

Required in Order to

Receive a Credential

Recommendation

Course

Grades/

GPA

Grades are assigned in each

course taken by candidates.

Faculty assign

course grades at

the end of each

semester

Course Grade

GPA

Candidate must

complete required

courses with a grade

of ―B‖ or better in

each O&M methods

course, and must

maintain a GPA of 3.0

or better overall.

Successful

Completion

of Internship

Experience

Each candidate completes a

minimum of 440 hours of

internship experiences,

working with learners of

diverse ages (0-22 yrs. and

adult), diverse instructional

needs, including those who

have multiple disabilities.

(Note to reader: the field of

O&M uses the term

―internship‖ in place of

―student teaching‖ and all

evaluation materials are

titled in this manner).

Site supervisor

completes

several

formative and

summative

evaluation

instruments

described in the

following rows.

Verification of

hours, successful

performance across

domains as indicated

by evaluation

instruments listed in

the following rows.

Candidate must earn a

grade of ―Credit‖ at

each assigned site.

Instrument Description Data Collection

Process

Types of Data

Collected

Level of Performance



Recommendation

Final

evaluation of

intern

The first part of this form

confirms the candidate’s

experience serving learners

of diverse ages and

instructional needs. The

second part asks the site

supervisor to rate (on a

Likert scale) the candidate’s

performance on 57 items

relating to professional

Completed by

site supervisor

Written input on all

relevant domains

including

Professional

Knowledge And

Instructional Skills,

General Attitude,

Professional

Conduct, Interaction

with Families,

The candidate must

achieve an overall

rating of 3.5 (out of 5)

or higher in all

domains.


October 15, 2012 117


Process

Types of Data

Collected

Level of

Performance



Recommendation

knowledge and instructional

skills, general attitude and

professional conduct,

interaction with learners and

families. A section is also

provided for written

comments.

Interaction with

Learners

ACVREP

Clinical

Competency

Evaluation

Form

This evaluation form

consists of 17 specific items

regarding competencies to

be demonstrated by interns.

Candidates must meet all

standards on this form in

order to be eligible to apply

for national certification in

O&M from the Academy for

Certification of Vision

Rehabilitation and

Education Professionals

(ACVREP).

Completed by

site supervisor

at the

completion of

the internship

experience

Candidate

competencies are

evaluated as either

Met or Not Met on

the following

domains:

Communication &

Professional

Relationships, O&M

assessment,

Instructional

Planning,

Instruction,

Monitoring and

Safety, Facilitating

Independence,

Professionalism

Candidates must meet

all standards on this

form in order to be

recommended for a

credential


Process

Types of Data

Collected

Level of Performance



Recommendation

AER Clinical

Competency

Checklist

This evaluation form

consists of 70 specific items

regarding competencies to

be demonstrated by interns.

Completed by

site supervisor

at the

completion of

the internship

experience

Candidate

competencies are

evaluated as either

Met or Not Met on

the following

domains:

Communication &

Professional

Relationships, O&M

assessment,

Instructional

Planning,

Instruction,

Monitoring and

Safety, Facilitating

Independence,

Professionalism

A candidate must

demonstrate at least

80% of these

competencies in order

to be recommended

for a credential


October 15, 2012 118


program effectiveness is collected and analyzed that informs programmatic decision-

making?

Program effectiveness as informed by candidate/graduate competence is evaluated on an ongoing

basis and is determined using data from a number of sources. This project uses a multi-faceted

evaluation design involving a variety of university records and program evaluation

questionnaires. Evaluation data are collected from: (a) administrators at practicum/ internship

sites, (b) program candidates, (c) program graduates, (d) employers of program graduates.

Program Assessment Instrument Description Data Collection Process Types of Data Collected

Course

Evaluations

These are standard evaluations

used in the Department of

Special Education.

Candidates complete an

evaluation of each course

at its completion.

Using a Likert scale, candidates

rate the course in terms reflective

of content, organization and

quality of content. Written

comments are also solicited.

Key

Assignment

s

Each course has one

assignment that is designated as

a key assignment. Key

assignments are selected as

most representative of

significant competencies taught

in the course.

Candidate performance

on the assignment is

recorded in the grade

submission process for

each course

Key Assignment Grade (1-4 scale)

Data are aggregated and provide a

program level overview of

candidate performance and

changes over time.

Field

Experience/

Internship

Site

Evaluation

This evaluation is used to

monitor the effectiveness of

field/internship sites. The aim

is to ensure that sites

demonstrate model teaching

practices and provide

candidates with appropriate

experiences working with

learners of diverse ages, needs,

and cultural/ethnic

backgrounds.

Candidates complete

questionnaire for each

assigned site.

Using a Likert scale, candidates

are asked to rate their internship

site(s) and experience with regard

to amount of supervision, access to

staff and learning resources at the

site, variety of learners taught and

O&M skills practiced. Written

feedback regarding perceived

strengths and weaknesses of the

experience is also requested on the

evaluation.

Instrument Description Data Collection Process Types of Data Collected

Portfolio Portfolios identify areas of

strength and goals for future

professional growth and

development.

Each candidate collects

materials throughout the

program and develops a

portfolio as a required

assignment in SPED 726,

Student Teaching

Seminar.

Includes items such as transcripts,

personal philosophies regarding

education, letters of reference,

writing samples, evidence of

participation at conferences and

earned CEUs.

Graduate

Questionnai

re

This questionnaire is asks the

graduate to conduct a self-

evaluation of how he or she is

performing on the job.

Sent to all candidates who

have graduated within the

past year.

The questionnaire asks each

graduate to rate 23 job

competencies on a Likert scale

along 2 dimensions: a) how


October 15, 2012 119

Instrument Description Data Collection Process Types of Data Collected

important is this competency in

your current job, and b) how well

does he or she feel the SFSU

program prepared him or her for

the job. The questionnaire also

solicits any written feedback the

graduate wishes to share.

Employer

survey

Questionnaire asking how well

employers consider each

graduate to have been prepared

to perform the job.

Annual questionnaire is

sent to employers of

graduates

Using a Likert scale, employers

are asked to rate the employee on

factors such as knowledge

possessed to perform job duties,

professional and ethical behavior.

Each questionnaire also solicits

comments and allows for nominal

data to be collected.


October 15, 2012 120


Data from Selected Instruments Described Above

Item % Response Received

2010-2012

Range

Mean

GPA 100% of enrolled candidates Range: 3.45-4.00

Mean: 3.89

Key Assignments 100% of credential candidates Range: 1*-4

Mean: 3.9

Final Evaluation

Of Intern

100% of Site Supervisors

Range: 3.6-5.0

Mean: 4.6

Internship Site

Evaluation

100% of candidates completing

internship

Range: 3.8-5.0

Mean: 4.6

Program Graduate

Questionnaire

Mailed to 100% of Graduates

Received from 20% of Graduates

Range: 4.2-5.0

Mean: 4.7

Employer

Questionnaire

Mailed to 100% of Employers

Received from 20% of Employers

Range: 4.0-5.0

Mean: 4.5

The candidate who earned a score of 1 was counseled out of the program

at the end of Fall 2011.

Specific nominal data from our most recent evaluation efforts follow:

Course Evaluations – Evaluations of O&M specific methods courses (SPED 655,

760,792,756,822,823) indicate that candidates feel well prepared. The one suggestion that

was made by 30% of candidates was to have more class time to cover the large amount of

required content. Steps to address this suggestion are noted in the next section.

Field Experience/Internship Site Evaluation – Nominal responses showed a very high level of

candidate satisfaction with internship experiences. Evaluations of field experience and

internship sites show that all continue to provide state-of-the-art instructional services and

provide quality experiences for program students. All sites provide candidates with

experiences teaching students who are diverse in age, functioning level, instructional needs,

and presence of multiple impairments.

Program Graduate Questionnaires – The highest rated items included such things as

assessment, ability to develop rapport, knowledge of multiple medical conditions, and

planning/providing instructional skills and techniques, each showing a rating of 4.5-5.0.

Other areas rated at 4.5 or above include: advising and accessibility of program advisor and

instructional faculty, accommodation of candidates who have special needs, and

individualized scheduling of courses to allow candidates to attend on either a full-time or

part-time basis

Graduates cited the following as suggestions for program improvement: increased

preparation in emerging technologies, specifically those common to the geriatric

population. With regard to the former suggestion, graduates also noted that such


October 15, 2012 121

preparation may be best provided post-graduation as continuing education due to the

ever-changing nature of technology in the field.

Employer Questionnaires – Written comments from employers of program graduates have

indicated that graduates are well prepared, especially in the areas of teaching independent

travel skills and all areas of curricular content and also in interactions with families and

significant others. The only suggested item listed for addition to the program included

preparation in a foreign language.


Candidate Competence:

Evaluation results show program candidates to be well prepared to serve learners of all

ages. This includes data collected from candidates, internship site supervisors, graduates,

and employers.

Areas of the greatest strengths highlighted in the data reflect:

Knowledge of O&M curricula and teaching skills

Ability to meet the needs of learners with multiple impairments. Candidates and graduates

have reported that the offering of SPED 747, a course that focuses specifically on physical

and health impairments is extremely valuable.

Working with families and significant others.

Suggestions for program improvement:

Increased hands-on experience in emerging technologies.

Incorporate video demonstrations of some difficult visually-based content and techniques

into courses, specifically with regard cane techniques and handling of children with physical

impairments.

Program Effectiveness:

Evaluation results show program candidates to be well satisfied with their program. Data

also indicate that both graduates and employers feel that graduates are well prepared for

the job.

Areas of the greatest strengths highlighted in the data reflect:

Candidates report satisfaction with their internship sites. Evaluations of field experience and

internship sites show that all continue to provide state-of-the-art instructional services and

provide quality experiences for program students. All sites provide candidates with

experiences teaching students who are diverse in age, functioning level, instructional needs,

and presence of multiple impairments.

Advising and accessibility of program advisor and instructional faculty

Accommodation of candidates who have special needs

Individualized scheduling of courses to allow candidates to attend on either a full-time or

part-time basis

Suggestions for program improvement:


October 15, 2012 122

Additional class time to cover a large amount of content in O&M-specific courses (SPED

655, 760, 792, 822, 823, 756).

Preparation in a foreign language


1-2 pages

Evaluation results and feedback received from all stakeholders is reviewed by the project

Advisory Board which makes recommendations for implementation. The following table

presents changes currently being implemented in response to the suggestions listed above.


or Common

Standard(s)

Graduate

Evaluation

Course

Evaluation by

Candidates

Need for more class time to cover needed content in

O&M-specific courses

Solution: Selected didactic content is being written

up as online self-study modules. Candidates are

initially introduced to the material via the modules

and class time is used to cover the material more in-

depth and to present aspects of the material that

cannot be done online. Initial pilot tests of this

approach showed it to be highly successful and that it

does not add significantly to home study time

demands.

Faculty are engaged in ongoing efforts to continually

develop more modules and to keep developed

modules updated.

All Program Standards

addressed in O&M-

specific courses

(SPED 655, 760, 792,

822, 823, 756)

Graduate

Evaluation

Course

Evaluations

by Candidates

Need to provide more hands-on time with emerging

technology

Solution: Instruction is provided at an exposure and

beginning mastery levels, but higher levels of

mastery are typically obtained post-graduation. This

is true at most, if not all, university O&M programs.

Reasons for this include the need to prioritize

instruction to include more critical content and

difficulties in obtaining very expensive technologies

in sufficient quantities for candidates to get in-depth

hands-on experience prior to beginning their

internship.

Graduates who made this suggested even noted that

such preparation may best be provided post-

graduation as continuing education due to the ever-

changing nature of technology in the field.

Program Standard 8:

Mobility Skills

(electronic devices)


October 15, 2012 123


or Common

Standard(s)

The solution is to offer continuing education classes

and conference presentations on emerging

technologies. Several CEU classes on GPS

technology, for example, have been held in the past 2

years to address this issue.

Course

Evaluations

by Candidates

Request to incorporate video demonstrations of some

difficult visually-based content and techniques into

courses.

Solution: These requests dealt specifically with cane

techniques and handling of children with physical

impairments. In response to this request, Dr. Rosen

has just completed a short video demonstration of a

technique for dealing with muscle tone issues in

clients who have TBI with ―hypertonicity with

synergy‖ and visual impairment. This video has been

added to the collection of instructional materials used

in the program. Videos demonstrating cane

techniques have been developed for use in related

O&M courses.

Efforts to develop video materials are ongoing.

Program Standard 8:

Mobility Skills

(human guide, non-

cane, and cane skills)

Program Standard 10:

Learners Who Have

Additional Disabilities

Employer

Questionnaire

Suggestions were made to have students study a

foreign language

NA


October 15, 2012 124

SECTION B:

UNIT LEVEL SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Graphic Representation of Evaluation System. Below is a graphic representation of the

primary components of our unified credential evaluation system. All 30 preliminary and clear

credential programs use this system to electronically report data each term for each credential

course. Key assignments are identified for each credential course and scored on a four point

scale using a rubric with 4 as the highest score. A detailed explanation of the system, as well as

posted data tables can be found at: http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/.

SFSU CREDENTIAL EVALUATION SYSTEM



October 15, 2012 125

RESULTS OF THE SUMMATIVE SYSTEM

The data collected with the summative system was based on faculty scoring of key assignments

associated with each seminar and practicum course that were part of a particular credential (for a

complete listing of all courses, evaluation categories and key assignments refer to the NCATE

Evaluation Master Matrix or Individual Program Area Charts. Both can be found at:

http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/matrix-courses-key-assignments.

Data was scored on a 1 to 4 scale with 4 being the highest score. As a frame of reference, a score

of 1 = not mastered; 2 = partially mastered; 3 = mastered; and, 4 = exceeds mastery. Our

Credential Evaluation Committee set a policy that a score of 3 or better demonstrated mastery of

the skills involved in a key assignment.

The results discussed in this section of the Biennial Report were culled from data collected in

fall, 2010, spring, 2011, fall, 2011 and soring, 2012 terms, summarized in tables from each term

that fall into the following categories of data analysis:

1. unit-level aggregated data that integrates all credentials and courses for a term;

2. program-level aggregated data that integrates all courses for a term for each credential, but

maintains each credential's identity; and,

3. program-level data that summarizes results for each course offered in a term for a particular

credential.

These tables are too numerous to include in this report, so this section presents some of the more

salient findings. For a complete set of data tables from which the results presented in this section

were selected, it is highly recommended that the COA/CTC reviews these tables posted by

semester at: http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/data.

Table 1 below presents a summary of the individual summative data collected each term from

fall, 2010 to spring, 2012. Table 1

ALL CREDENTIALS AGGREGATED


Cases

Valid Missing Total

DATA7


Fall, 2010 3677 93.8% 243 6.2% 3920 100.0%

Spring, 2011 4235 96.2% 169 3.8% 4404 100.0%

7 Note: Due to the fact that very few credential programs offer summer courses, data for Summer, 2011 session is

not review in this section of the report because it is not representative of the unit. Reviewers interested in this data

can find it at: http://coe.sfsu.edu/ncate/data.





October 15, 2012 126

ALL CREDENTIALS AGGREGATED


Cases

Valid Missing Total

DATA7


Fall, 2011 2712 94.6% 155 5.4% 2867 100.0%

Spring, 2012 4132 100% 0 0% 4132 100.0%

Table 2 aggregates all the data from each credential course and credential for the four terms

review in this report. It presents a summary of the percent of students scoring a 3 or 4 on all key

assignments for all credential courses offered from fall, 2010 to spring, 2012.

Table 2

PERCENT OF CASES SCORING 3 OR 4

Semester Percent Scoring 3 or 4

Fall, 2010 97.3

Spring, 2011 94.7

Fall, 2011 94.2

Spring, 2012 94.3

Table 3 aggregates all the data from each credential course for a particular term, but maintains

the credential program's identity. It presents a summary of the percent of students scoring a 3 or

4 on all key assignments for credential courses offered in Fall, 2010 for each credential.

Table 3

ALL COURSES AGGREGATED BY CREDENTIAL

Fall, 2011

Credential Code Credential Percent Scoring 3 or 4

120-170 Single Subject8 100.0

200 Multiple Subject 85.2

305 Adult Education 100.0

410 Reading Specialist 100.0

435 & 436 Early Childhood Special Education 98.0

468 & 481 Mild-Moderate Disabilities 95.9

469 & 482 Moderate-Severe Disabilities 99.0

471 & 483 Visual Impairments 98.0

472 & 484 Physical Health Impairments 100.0

501 Education Administration I 98.7

802 School Counseling 83.7

803 School Social Work 100.0

804 School Psychology 100.0

901 Speech-Lang. Pathology Services 98.7

904 Orientation & Mobility 100.0

910 Speech-Lang. Pathology Services-Special Class

Authorization

100.0

8 Due to PACT requirements, the percentage posted represents those scoring 2, 3 & 4.


October 15, 2012 127


the credential program identity. It presents a summary of the percent of students scoring a 3 or 4

on all key assignments for credential courses offered in spring, 2011 for each credential.

Table 4

All Courses Aggregated by Credential

Spring, 2011


100-185 Single Subject 98.6












804 School Psychology 100.0



910 Speech-Lang. Pathology Services-Special Class

Authorization

86.0


the credential program identity. This table presents a summary of the percent of students scoring

a 3 or 4 on all key assignments for credential courses offered in Fall, 2011 for each credential.

Table 5


Fall, 2011
















910 Speech-Lang. Pathology Services-Special

Class Authorization

100.0


October 15, 2012 128


the credential program identity. This table presents a summary of the percent of students scoring

a 3 or 4 on all key assignments for credential courses offered in Spring, 2012 for each credential.

Table 6


Spring, 2012














901 & 912 Speech-Lang. Pathology Services 99.6


910 Speech-Lang. Pathology Services-Special

Class Authorization

100.0

FORMATIVE DATA

In addition to the summative data reported above and in the individual program area biennial

reports, GCOE developed the capacity within the university’s Student Information Management

System (SIMS) to add individualized checklists for each credential candidate admitted to a

program area and for each credential for which a candidate applies. These checklists include all

the prerequisites for credential admission or credential award. This system was operational

starting in fall 2011. It has simplified the management of formative criteria, and ensures that all

candidates meet prerequisites for admission or award. For example, it tracks the following

admission data: B.A. degree, GPA, admission fee, basic skills, early field experience, fingerprint

clearance, letter of rec. 01, letter of rec. 02, program application, resume, statement of purpose,

U.S. constitution, subject matter competence, written English requirement.

2. Documentation of Actions Taken in the Unit Assessment System, AY 10-11 & AY 11-12

Each individual credential program’s biennial report included in this document cites many useful

program improvements implemented during AY 10-11 and AY 11-12, or planned for future

implementation, based on the GCOE Unified Credential Evaluation System data, PACT data,

candidate course evaluations, and a variety of program specific sources, such as analysis of

completed field-based observation forms. CTC Program Sponsor Alert, Number 12-08,

specifically requests that program specific improvements cited in these individual biennial

reports should not be repeated in the Section B tables below.


October 15, 2012 129

Two-Way Communication between Unit and Programs. The information in the next two tables

represents a summary of actions taken by GCOE Dean’s Office during this review period.

Periodic updates of the operational aspects of GCOE Unified Credential Evaluation System, as

well as unit-level recommendations for program improvements are communicated directly to the

members of the GCOE Unified Credential Evaluation System Committee by the Director of

Credential Evaluation in consultation with the Dean of the Graduate College of Education. The

GCOE Unified Credential Evaluation System Committee is composed of all Credential Program

Area Coordinators and their department chairs. Committee members then disseminate

information and recommendations from the Dean’s level to their respective faculty, as well as

submit questions, suggestions and recommendations for improvements from their program area

faculty to the Director of Credential Evaluation who reviews this information in collaboration

with the Dean.

Action Taken Date Data Source(s) Analysis Leading To Action

Solicit semester feedback re:

data utility from Credential

Program Coordinators

Fall, 2010; Spring, 2011;

Fall, 2011; Spring, 2012

GCOE Unified

Credential Evaluation

System data

Faculty compliment ease

of data submission;

utility of rubrics to ensure

consistency in candidate

evaluation

Solicit changes in Key

Assignments & rubric

updates each term from

Credential Program

Coordinators



Key Assignment

Assessment Matrix,

SIMS screen D-01

New research; new CTC

standards; candidate

feedback; discrepancies

between seminar key

assignment performance

& candidate field-based

implementation

Semester review of data

tables yielded average of

95.1% candidates meeting

mastery on Key

Assignments



GCOE Unified


System data

Review of SPSS cross

tabulated data

demonstrates all

programs meeting

credential training

standards

Average data submission for

Key Assignments = 96%

AY 10-11 & AY 11-12 GCOE Unified


System data

Review of SPSS case

processing data reveals

limited missing data

Implementation of missing

data collection process to

ensure robust data collection

AY 10-11 & AY 11-12 GCOE Unified


System data

Review of SPSS case

processing data

documents submission of

missing data

GCOE Director Credential

Evaluation granted access to

manage GCOE Unified


System data directly in

SIMS

Summer, 2012 Problem in accuracy of

data assessment matrix

due to change in SIMS

personnel

Review of Key

Assignments showed

some discrepancies

between assignment in

SIMS and assignments

identified by program

Masters students pursuing

credentials without prior

formal admission to

credential required to submit

program change forms,

credential application &

prerequisite documentation;

in addition, prerequisite

AY 10-11 & AY 11-12 Review of Web-Grade

credential course rosters

from AY 08-09

Routine review of

credential course rosters

showed that some

students enrolled in

credential courses were

classified as masters-only

students; although, they

concurrently were


October 15, 2012 130

Action Taken Date Data Source(s) Analysis Leading To Action

checklists added to SIMS

screen S110 and S37 as part

of the formative component

of GCOE Unified Credential

Evaluation System for

admission and credential

award to ensure candidates

met prerequisites.

pursuing credentials

without formal admission

and verification of CTC

credential prerequisites

3. Common Standard Implications for AY 12-13

Identified Issue Program(s)

Involved

Data Source(s) Area of Strength or

Improvement

Applicable

Common

Standard(s)

University

reorganization

prompted need to

analyze strengths &

areas for

improvement in

GCOE

All GCOE

credential and

advanced candidate

degree programs

Task force was

formed comprised

of all department

chairs & one faculty

member from each

department; task

force analyzed

CGOE department

records, SIMS

management

reports, FTES

reports, WASC

Accreditation

reports & submitted

report that cited

strengths & made

recommendations

for improvements

• Lower SFR

• Publication Support

• Grants & Contracts

Support

• Unfunded

School/Clinic Project

Support

• Recruitment Of

Students Of Color

• Collaborative

Credential Programs

• Placement Center

• Supervision Model

• Honor Master

Teachers

• Center for

Excellence in Higher

Education

• Improve Visibility

of the College on

Campus

Standard 1:

Educational

Leadership

Better departmental

alignments

Dept. of

Administration &

Interdisciplinary

Studies & Dept. of

Instructional

Technology

Faculty analysis of

commonalities and

collaborative

interests; need to

reach FTES critical

mass

Based on analysis and

faculty input,

departments merged in

AY 12-13 as

Department of Equity,

Leadership Studies,

and Instructional

Technologies

Standard 1:

Educational

Leadership

Need to implement

summative unified

credential

evaluation system

GCOE preliminary

and clear

credentials

Key Assignments &

associated data

collection

categories

GCOE Unified


System implemented

and fully functional

Standard 2: Unit &

Program

Assessment &

Evaluation;

Standard 9:

Assessment of

Candidate

Competence

Need to implement GCOE preliminary CSU Chancellor Capacity to complete Standard 2: Unit &


October 15, 2012 131

Identified Issue Program(s)

Involved

Data Source(s) Area of Strength or

Improvement

Applicable

Common

Standard(s)

formative unified

credential

evaluation system

and clear

credentials

credential

admission

prerequisites &

CTC credential

award prerequisites

individualized

candidate credential

prerequisite checklists

for admission (S-110

screen) and award (S-

37 screen) added to

SIMS

Program

Assessment &

Evaluation;

Standard 9:

Assessment of

Candidate

Competence

Need to fund

PACT Assessment

system

Multiple Subject &

Single Subject

credential programs

CTC TPAs and

TPEs data

collection costs

GCOE funds

prioritized for PACT

to ensure successful

implementation

Standard 3:

Resources;

Standard 9:

Assessment of

Candidate

Competence

Need to lower

student-faculty

ratio (SFR) to

reduce class size so

that it is better

aligned with

graduate level

standards and

enable reduction of

faculty teaching

load to improve

time available for

faculty advising &

research

All GCOE

credential and

advanced candidate

degree programs

GCOE Task Force

recommendation

Dean presented

convincing data to

support lower SFR

consistent with

credential programs

with high supervision;

central administration

agreed on need, but

postponed decision

due to continued

decline in state

funding

Standard 3:

Resources

Need to

supplement general

funds to

compensate for

continued decline

in state funding

All GCOE

credential and

advanced candidate

degree programs

GCOE general

funds versus GCOE

operating expenses

GCOE continues to

secure 25% of all

campus external

funding with Dept. of

Special Ed.

contributing 20% of

total (i.e., $11 million)

to help compensate for

inadequate general

fund exacerbated by

excessively high SFR

Standard 3:

Resources

Need to replace

retired full-time

tenure-track faculty

to maintain parity

Dept. of Equity,

Leadership Studies,

and Instructional

Technologies; Dept.

of Elementary Ed.;

Dept. of Special Ed.

Human Resources

personnel files

5 tenure-track faculty

retired in AY 10-11 &

AY 11-12 and 5 new

tenure-track faculty

hired

Standard 4:

Faculty &

Instructional

Personnel

Interest to establish

model professional

school

Multiple Subject &

Single Subject

credential programs

Request from SF

Unified School

District

Established

professional training

school at Visitation

Valley Middle School

Standard 7: Field

Experience &

Clinical Practice;

Standard 9:

Assessment of

Candidate

Competence

San Francisco State University Biennial Report, Fall, 2012 · 2020-01-05 · San Francisco State...

Documents

Transcript of San Francisco State University Biennial Report, Fall, 2012 · 2020-01-05 · San Francisco State...