Data Summaries

To measure completer impact on P-12 student learning and development, the Education Department collects data using a variety of methods. The primary methods include:

• Case Study
• Principal Follow Up Survey (Measure 2)

Case Study

During the 2022-23 academic year, a review of the Quality Assurance System and procedural aspects of data collection was conducted. An analysis of the Case Study approach indicated that this approach was effective yet had areas for improvement. During 2023-24 academic year, a new Case Study approach was developed using the previous one as a foundation. This new approach slated for implementation during the 2024-25 academic consists of several significant revisions including:

1. Completers will not be limited to one school district but will represent multiple district. This will increase the number of districts represented in the data analysis.
2. Completers will be asked to participate during the student teaching semester so that data collection can begin during their first year of teaching.
3. Completers will be selected based upon a set criterion: nomination for one of the department’s student teaching awards.
4. Completers will agree to periodically (depending upon the time of student data collection) submit data to the Education Department for systematic, ongoing data collection and analysis.
5. Data will still be collected by survey, but the statements will focus on more specific, evidence-based components.
6. Due to the anticipated yearly increase in the number of completers participating in the study, one-on-one interviews will no longer be used.

Principal Follow Up Survey

The Principal Follow Up Survey was deemed inadequate for the purposes of determining the success of our alumni, therefore the Department of Education began to participate more fully in the Kansas State Office of Educational Innovation and Evaluation (OEIE) data on Alumni and Employer Survey for Spring/Fall 2023-24. The data averages are shared for the eight foundational areas listed in the Survey. The chart below (Employee Survey Question Indicators) shows the averages (out of 5.0 possible) for each of the areas listed. A total of 13 employers responded for a 34 percent response rate which was an increase over the previous year.

EMPLOYEE SURVEY QUESTION INDICATORS

Foundations of Teaching – prepared to understand the various foundations underlying educational practice

Planning – prepared to plan and prepare educational lessons

Instruction- prepared to provide appropriate instruction to students

Assessment – prepared to incorporate assessments into their education practice and to use resulting data to improve the learning of all students

Stakeholder Involvement

Stakeholder involvement continues to be at a high level. Each semester the Department of Education conducts an Education Advisory Council with district and community partners. Meetings are also conducted with our UTEC (University Teacher Education Council) which includes our secondary and P12 programs. Meetings during the 2024-25 were supported fully by the School of Applied Studies with Dean Dr. Zach Frank taking part in setting up and supporting these meetings which discussed a variety of items, including data sharing by the Department of Education on all the CAEP measures. We are continuing to work together to strengthen the consistency of secondary programs. Student stakeholders continue to complete a variety of surveys and evaluations. As completers, the student teachers complete the Student Teacher Self Evaluations. Those scores are summarized in the scores in the chart below:

Advanced Programs

Advanced-Level Completers Principal Feedback

Two of the five completers at the advanced level provided permission to contact principals. The follow up survey was sent to these two principals, one at the elementary level and one at the middle school level. One of the principals responded. The average score across the 12 indicators was 2.58/3.0.  Indicators rated at Target were knowledge of content, variety of evidence-based practices, use of grade level resources, use of technology, reflection, a respectful learning environment, and having a positive effect on student learning. Indicators which were rated at the Developing level included collaboration with staff, understanding laws and ethics, and assessment (data literacy). It should be noted that for High Incidence Special Education candidates faculty routinely ask to interview the job evaluation so f candidates to help determine their effectiveness in their positions. Candidates in this program often have taught in their positions for at least 3 years by the time they complete the program since many earn a provisional license or teach on waivers while they are taking classes. Many examples of these job evaluations could be provided and these show that candidates are qualified and effective.

The Advanced Level programs are so much smaller than our Initial Programs that many times graduate programs are discussed in the overall Education Advisory Council, even though all our programs have separate advisory council that meet on at least a yearly basis.

There are three assessments given to completers at the end of student teaching:

1. Washburn Performance Assessment (WPA) – a candidate work sample which shows the ability to plan and deliver a unit of study, including differentiating instruction and assessment, and reflection on the unit of study.
2. Student Teacher Summary Evaluation – an evaluation by Mentor Teachers and University Supervisors on the candidate’s performance in the classroom.
3. Praxis Content Scores – The ETS Content Praxis Tests are required for licensure and test the students’ ability for skills and knowledge in their content areas.

Washburn Performance Assessment (WPA)

Student Teacher Summary Evaluation

The Student Teacher Summary Evaluations are completed during the student teaching semester for each candidate.  The evaluations are completed by both the mentor teacher and the university supervisor.  The evaluation is divided into four constructs: Construct 1 Learner and Learning, Construct 2 Instruction, Construct 3 Instructional Practices, and Construct 4 Professional Responsibility. Items within the four constructs correspond to all 10 InTASC standards. Each item is scored using a rubric with possible scores of Target (3), Developing (2) and (1) Unacceptable. Candidates must earn an average score of at least 2.1 on each Construct; candidates must earn an average score of at least 2.0 on individual tasks with each Construct.  

P-6 Student Teacher Summary Evaluation Average Score

6-12 Biology Student Teacher Summary Evaluation Average Scores 

6-12 English Student Teacher Summary Evaluation Average Scores

6-12 Chemistry Student Teacher Summary Evaluation Average Scores 

6-12 History Student Teacher Summary Evaluation Average Scores

6-12 Mathematics Student Teacher Summary Evaluation Average Scores

6-12 Modern Foreign Language Student Teacher Summary Evaluation Average Scores

P-12 Art Student Teacher Summary Evaluation Average Scores

P-12 Music Student Teacher Summary Evaluation Average Scores

P-12 Physical Education Student Teacher Summary Evaluation Average Scores

PRAXIS Content Test Scores

The current scores are from the 2023-2024 test cycle data:

Advanced Programs Content Test Scores

2023-2024

Special Education

Building Level Leadership

District Level Leadership

Data from the 2023-2024 academic year show that 76 percent (35 out of 46) of our completers were employed by school districts. The other 24 percent of completers were pursuing other positions prior to starting to teach or did not respond to contacts for information. Fifty-four percent of the completers were hired by the districts where they did their student teaching.