Element 2C:  Use of Data for Program Improvement
Program data are reviewed by the faculty as they become available. Candidate data are reviewed at each transition point to identify concerns with performance.  The faculty use "work-forms" (Exhibit S2-26) to identify and discuss the need for modifications and improvements in their programs. Each program produces a summative annual review, based on the work forms which identifies changes made or planned for the program.

Further, the results of assessment activities and corrective action are shared by means of:

• Program Directors at program and/or department meetings.  The "work-forms" and/or the "summative review" are attached to the minutes of program meetings identifying when data reports and discussion took place (Exhibit S2-26).
• Updates of items of importance are disseminated to the whole faculty at the School of Education monthly meetings by the deans and individual faculty. The minutes of SOE meetings appear as Exhibit S2-27.
• Unit retreats for focused discussion of progress and new initiatives (Exhibit S2-28).

There are several sources to report on with regard to data-driven changes the program faculties are undertaking.  The following aggregated summary of program data follows the format that is required by the Specialized Program Associations.  The summaries of data findings for each of the initial and advanced programs appear in the SPA reports, available in the SPA binders in the Exhibit Room as well as Exhibit S1-6.

Content Knowledge: Initial Programs:  In the initial programs, with the exception of Early Childhood Education, the data suggested a need for more content knowledge in the methods courses and a greater coverage of diversity in field experiences and coursework. Most of the initial programs demonstrated a relative consistency between "proficient" and "distinguished" levels of candidate achievement. The Early Childhood Education program reported that due to the newness of the program content knowledge needs to be closely monitored as none of the State certification examinations were created specifically for the Early Childhood educator.

Content Knowledge: Advanced Programs:  In the Literacy program, there was a concern about duplication of content in courses. The Educational Leadership and Technology program identified a need for greater coverage of content. Communication Science and Disorder (CSD) faculty identified a need to further increase multicultural content across the curriculum by building in a bilingual extension, as well as to redesign the content "comprehensive testing" instrument to provide evidence of analytic skill. The advanced programs will be revising the comprehensive exams for 2006-2007 to better ensure assessment across the curriculum.

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge: Initial Programs:  The data on the two physical education certification programs show that candidates reflect high levels of professional and pedagogical knowledge as they are prepared for their initial teaching certificate. The data from the programs in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction demonstrate that candidates need more in-depth work on classroom instruction, management, assessment, and decision making. This may mean a clearer integration of theory and the methods courses.

Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge: Advanced Programs: In the Educational Leadership and Technology program, the data suggests that there needs to be a review of the curriculum for more in-depth work on decision-making, educational software, and assessment.  After assessing their data, the CSD program planned more writing and rewriting in academic and clinical courses, and analysis to develop a video library with a more diverse clientele. They are presently doing 100 percent supervision for beginning therapists working with child groups and have prepared the new manual and trainings.

Effects on Student Learning: Initial Programs:   Each initial program noted that the data pointed to a need for them to function more effectively in the school environment. In particular, there needed to be more emphasis on family involvement. To accomplish this, the Masters Seminar (capstone course) and field experiences, together with courses most immediately supporting them, will be reviewed. The programs in Physical Education reported very positive data results in assessing performance pursuant to this standard. Although the Early Childhood program has little performance evidence at this time, compliance with this element of NCATE Standard One has been embedded and emphasized in all the program's courses.

Effects on Student Learning: Advanced Programs: Although the advanced programs did not have adequate data for this element of the standard for 2004-2005, during the 2005-2006 academic year the "Pathwise" rubric was revised both for methods courses and clinical practice to capture more authentic data on the effect our candidates were having on student learning and/or behavior.

The second set of modifications has been based on the use of data by the program faculties (both data that is part of the assessment system and other sources) to make changes.  A chart of changes undertaken by the programs from 2003-2006 is offered in Exhibit S2-29.  These changes were, in part, reported on program update forms filled out by the program directors in June 2006 and available as Exhibit S2-30.   Some of the most frequent changes made across the initial and advanced programs have included the creation of new courses (all programs), revisions of the scope and/or sequence of the curriculum (all), infusion of technology into the courses  (eight of the programs), the implementation of a "candidate concern" system (seven of the programs), and faculty designated as course coordinators in order to increase the communication among those teaching (seven of the programs). 

With the establishment of portfolio assessment for the candidates, it has become much easier to share assessment data with candidates.  The establishment of the "candidate progress" section in the data-books, which provides candidate GPA, NYSTCE test scores, and portfolio and dispositional assessments, enables both program consideration and the cooperation of programs within the unit. In addition, the focus on the assessment system has given rise to several improvements and has highlighted where improvements need to be made. For instance, although the portfolio process has shed new light on the benefits of curricular activities that engage teacher and candidate simultaneously, it has also pointed to the need for a more seamless portfolio process throughout the candidate's tenure in the unit. With the introduction of benchmark assignments, the programs are better able to develop thoughtful intervention strategies where academic or dispositional concerns arise. Faculty will now meet in a deliberative fashion to discuss specific candidate-related concerns and propose strategies for addressing these concerns, including the "flagging" of the most serious concerns. This allows for assistance to candidates early in the professional sequence of courses and thus better prepare them for student teaching and beyond.

The assessment data revealed a concern for the need for more diverse placements, particularly relative to English Language Learners (ELL).  The assessments of the methods courses suggested the need for a greater link between the course (theory) and the fieldwork (practice) component of some of our education programs. The response has been to establish faculty members as course liaisons with the field as needed to ensure maximum communication between school sites and the unit. Related to this,  "lab sites" have been created where courses are taught at the schools where the fieldwork is conducted.  On a very general level, the introduction of an assessment system has raised awareness around the unit about the ways in which the programs can be tied to the Conceptual Framework. Such awareness has led to a more mindful approach to infusing progressively complex activities into all of the unit's programs. Most importantly, it has initiated a conversation across the unit about the use of, reasons for, and importance of data-driven assessment outcomes.   This was highlighted in a retreat held on September 15, 2006 where the unit's faculty met to review data, share best practices, and establish next steps by program and unit (see notes from retreat as Exhibit S2-31).  The coordination of the programs' data collection and analyses with the unit overall is a central priority for the current academic year.