West Texas A&M University

Buff Transit Tracker
SSR Addendum Standard 4

STANDARD 4: Program Impact

An Important Note :

In several instances in the FFR, three years of data are requested. In the CAEP Evaluation Rubric for Visitor Teams Draft March 2016 under “General Rules for Standard 4”, it states, “At least three cycles of data must be submitted and analyzed” (page 15). As previously respectfully noted throughout the SSR Addendum, this rubric was not available to the EPP prior to our submission of the SSR.

In the CAEP Accreditation Manual Draft 2 February 2015 used by the EPP in our preparation of the SSR, it states for Standard 4, “At least two years of data on completer’s contribution to student-learning growth” (4.1, page 104); “At least two years of data on completers’ effective application of professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions” (4.2, page 107); “At least two years of data on employer satisfaction with completers’ preparation” (4.3, page 107); and “At least two years of data on completers’ perception of their preparation as relevant to the responsibilities they confront on the job” (4.4, page 108).

In the SSR Addendum and Addendum Exhibits, the EPP has provided three years of data as requested whenever possible. However, we believe it is important to note the difference in the expectations of the two documents used for our review by the EPP and the CAEP Review Team. Thank you.

  1. Summary of preliminary findings

  1. Narrative summary of preliminary findings

(FFR, p. 16, paragraph 2)

The state currently is unable to provide the EPP individual performance data from the teacher appraisal system, which is used for yearly evaluations.

Response and Clarification:

The Commissioner's Rules of the Adopted Repeal of and New 19 TAC Chapter 150, Commissioner's Rules Concerning Educator Appraisal, Subchapter AA, Teacher Appraisal may be accessed on the Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) website at

< http://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/Laws_and_Rules/Commissioner_Rules_(TAC)/Adopted/16_04_Adopted_Repeal_of_and_New_19_TAC_Chapter_150,_Subchapter_AA/>.

For clarification of the teacher appraisal system, the following information is taken from the TEA website:

Summary: The rule action presented in this item was filed as adopted with the Texas Register under the commissioner's rulemaking authority. This item adopts the repeal of 19 TAC Chapter 150, Commissioner's Rules Concerning Educator Appraisal, Subchapter AA, Teacher Appraisal, §§150.1001-150.1007, 150.1009, and 150.1010, and adopts new §§150.1001-150.1008. The adopted repeal and new rules reflect changes to the state- recommended teacher appraisal system by replacing the current state-recommended teacher appraisal system, the Professional Development Appraisal System (PDAS), effective July 1, 2016, with a new state-recommended teacher appraisal system, the Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System (T-TESS).

Statutory Authority: Texas Education Code (TEC), §21.351.

TEC, §21.351, requires the commissioner of education to adopt a state-recommended appraisal process for teachers. In addition, TEC, §21.352, details the local role for school districts as it relates to teacher appraisal, including locally adopted appraisal processes that must include the teachers' implementation of discipline management procedures and the performance of teachers' students set out in TEC, §21.351(a), and appraisal timelines and frequency.

Background Information and Justification:

The rules in 19 TAC Chapter 150, Subchapter AA, capture the commissioner's current state- recommended appraisal system for teachers, the PDAS, which has been in place since 1997.

Since the fall of 2013, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) has worked with stakeholders, including teachers, principals, district administrators, higher education representatives, and regional education service centers, to build and refine a new state-recommended teacher appraisal system that can be utilized more effectively for educator development. The new system, the T-TESS, was piloted in approximately 57 districts during the 2014-2015 school year and refined throughout the year based on educator feedback. During the 2015-2016 school year, the T-TESS was piloted in 232 districts, which adopted the system as a locally developed appraisal option.

The T-TESS will replace the PDAS as the state-recommended teacher appraisal system beginning July 1, 2016. The adopted rule actions in this item repeal the rules for the PDAS and replace them with the new rules for the T-TESS. Besides describing and detailing the process for the T-TESS, the adopted new rules also clarify statutory language in the TEC, §21.351(a)(2) that requires the use of the performance of teachers' students as a measure of student growth at the individual teacher level.

Although statute requires the use of "the performance of teachers' students" in both the state- recommended teacher appraisal system and any locally adopted teacher appraisal system, the term "the performance of teachers' students" is not defined in the statute, nor does the statute prescribe what type of performance should be considered in a teacher's appraisal results. The commissioner has, by rule, clarified that term to mean student growth at the individual teacher level for the following reasons.

First, when considering the purpose of appraisal is to determine whether or not a teacher's pedagogical choices have proven to be effective for the students enrolled in the teacher's courses, the measure of student performance should be based on student growth rather than student proficiency. Student proficiency measures a student's ability to reach a predetermined academic standard without consideration of what level of knowledge and skill a student possessed when entering the teacher's course. When measuring student proficiency, a student who moves from three years behind grade level to one year behind grade level in a single year still counts as a student who failed to meet the predetermined academic standard. For the purposes of a teacher appraisal process, this type of measure could lead to false diagnostic conclusions about the effectiveness of a teacher's pedagogical decisions and diminish the accuracy and value of the appraisal process. In the example above, the proficiency data would suggest that the teacher's practices were ineffective even though the student improved two grade levels in a single year.

Student growth measures how much a student progresses academically during his or her time with a particular teacher. It takes into consideration a student's entering knowledge and skill level when measuring how much the student grew over time, and, as opposed to measuring student proficiency, student growth is not concerned with whether or not a student reaches a predetermined and uniform benchmark. It tailors growth expectations to each student's context. Measuring student growth in a teacher's appraisal process furthers the statutory requirement to allow for diagnostic results (TEC, §21.351(d)) that help determine areas of deficiency (TEC, §21.352(c)).

Second, when considering a measure of student growth at an individual versus a collective level (e.g., grade-level teams, subject teams, or entire campuses), an appraisal process that is required by statute to be diagnostic and to identify areas of deficiency for the individual teacher must look at how the individual teacher's students improved academically during the students' time with that teacher. Any student growth measure that is solely based on a group of teachers with different students and/or teaching assignments will not provide diagnostic, prescriptive feedback about the effectiveness of the pedagogy of the teacher being appraised. A collective student growth measure by itself does not provide specific, diagnostic feedback to the individual teacher on the impact of his or her instructional practices and decisions on the students enrolled in the teacher's courses.

More technically, prior attempts of individuals and groups to clarify the term "the performance of teachers' students" to mean solely a collective measure of student performance fall short of both grammatical and statutory standards. First, "teachers' students" is a plural possessive phrase, and plural possessive phrases do not indicate that what is possessed (students) can only be viewed as possessed by all collectively. Second, the Texas Government Code, §312.003(b), states that "the singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular unless expressly provided otherwise," indicating that an interpretation of "teachers'" as plural without the ability to view it as singular does not follow the rules of statutory construction.

(FFR, p. 16, paragraph 2)

Writing and Social Studies in all grades and at all levels were at or below state levels.

Response and Update:

The EPP examined the statewide levels of Writing and Social Studies in all grades and at all levels in TEA’s School Report Cards and the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Combined Summary Reports. The EPP analyzed TEA’s School Report Cards for representative school districts in our service area that included Amarillo, Bushland, Canyon, Dumas, Hereford, and Pampa ISDs. There were many campuses from these districts that score at or above the state levels on the Writing and the Social Studies exams. These disaggregated data are demonstrated in Addendum Exhibit (AE76) with those campuses meeting or exceeding the state levels in bold lettering.

Not only did many campuses in our service area score at or above the state levels on the state assessments for 2014-2015 and 2013-2014, but also were identified as having Distinction Designations in the areas of Reading/ELA; Mathematics; Science; Social Studies; Top 25% Student Progress (SP); Top 25% Closing Performance Gaps (CPG); and Postsecondary Readiness.

The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) program, which was implemented in spring 2012, includes annual assessments for

  • Reading and mathematics, grades 3–8

  • Writing at grades 4 and 7

  • Science at grades 5 and 8

  • Social studies at grade 8

  • End-of-Course (EOC) assessments for English I, English II, Algebra I, biology, and U.S history.

Beginning in spring 2016, STAAR English III and Algebra II will be available for districts to administer as optional assessments.

The resources on TEA’s website provide information to familiarize Texas educators and the public with the design and format of the STAAR program. The information should help educators understand how the STAAR program measures the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum standards. These resources should support, not narrow or replace, the teaching of the state-mandated curriculum, the TEKS.

STAAR L is a linguistically accommodated English version of the STAAR grades 3–8 and end-of-course (EOC) mathematics, science, and social studies assessments. TEA provides the STAAR L for English language learners (ELLs). ELL students must meet participation requirements for a substantial degree of linguistic accommodation in these subject areas. STAAR L is an online testing program.

STAAR A, an accommodated version of STAAR ©, is offered as an online assessment in the same grades and subjects as STAAR. The passing standards for STAAR A are the same as any STAAR test. STAAR A provides embedded supports designed to help students with disabilities access the content being assessed. These embedded supports include visual aids, graphic organizers, clarifications of construct-irrelevant terms, and text-to-speech functionality.

Students receiving the following services may be administered STAAR A in one or more subjects:

  • Students with identified disabilities who are receiving special education services.

  • Students identified with dyslexia or a related disorder (as defined in Texas. Education Code §38.003) and are receiving Section 504 services.

If a student falls into one of these categories and receives accommodations in instruction similar to those found in STAAR A, the STAAR A Eligibility Requirements should be reviewed. Additional eligibility criteria found on TEA’s website must be met in order for a student to take STAAR A.

As an example of meeting or exceeding state levels on STAAR exams in Social Studies, for the U.S. History exam, a combined score of the number of all students tested (N=329949) in the state on the STAAR, STAAR L, and STAAR A with 164431 males, 165456 females, and 62 with no information provided, took the U.S History End-of-Course exam for the first time and scored 92% Satisfactory.

Of these student subpopulations tested:

  • Hispanic/Latino (N-161572) scored 91%;

  • American Indian or Alaska Native (N=1215) scored 92%;

  • Asian (N-13306) scored 96%;

  • Black or African American (N=42160) scored 88%;

  • Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (N=487) scored 94%;

  •  White (N=104713) scored 96%;

  • Two or More Races (N=6158) scored 95%; and

  • No Information Provided (N=338) scored 88%;

  • Economically Disadvantaged (N=163968) scored 89% (Yes), 96% (No), and

  • No Information Provided (N=338) scored 84%.

These most current scores demonstrate P-12 students in Social Studies meet or exceed state levels.

In the following student groups:

  • Title I, Part A (N=138065 participants) and (N=191579 nonparticipants),

  • Migrant (N=1977 Yes indicates students receiving district services),

  • Limited English Proficient (N=16227 Current),

  • Bilingual (N=190 participants) and (N=329416 non participants), and

  • ESL (N=15284 participants) and (N=314320 non participants) and

  • No Information Provided (N=343),

scores ranged from 72% to 94% on the U.S. History state exam.

In Special Education and Gifted and Talented, “Yes” indicates students receive district services and “No” represents students are not receiving district services. Of these student groups on the U.S. History exam:

  • In Special Education, (N=12362 Yes) scored 56%;

  •  (N=317275 No) scored 95%;

  • No Information Provided (N=312) scored 84%;

  • In Gifted and talented (N=33008 participants) scored 100%,

  • (N=296625 nonparticipants) scored 91%; and

  • No Information Provided (N=316) scored 83%

For Spring 2016, the Combined STAAR, STAAR L, and STAAR A Grade 8 Social Studies Summary Report of statewide results of the number of all students (N=353045) tested (males N=178127; females N=174386) and No Information Provided (N=82) scored 61%. Since STAAR is phasing in the Social Studies exam, Grade 5 was not tested in 2016. The EPP provides disaggregated data of both the Writing and Social Studies STAAR tests in the Addendum Exhibits for the districts we serve.

An analysis of Fall 2015 data highlights the challenges teachers have faced in teaching Writing and Social Studies with ever-changing curriculums and state assessments. The state passing rates have been increasing sequentially with the rollout of the state assessment system. For example, of the number of all students tested (N=28315) in Fall 2015, 50% passed as Satisfactory. Additional information is provided in the Addendum Exhibits.

By focusing on the TEKS that are most critical to assess, STAAR measures the academic performance of students as they progress from elementary to middle to high school. Based on educator committee recommendations, TEA identified for each grade or course a set of knowledge and skills drawn from the TEKS eligible to be assessed and emphasized this set of knowledge and skills, called readiness standards, on the assessments. The remaining knowledge and skills considered supporting standards are assessed, though not emphasized.

Readiness standards have the following characteristics.

  • They are essential for success in the current grade or course.

  • They are important for preparedness for the next grade or course.

  • They support college and career readiness.

  • They necessitate in-depth instruction.

  • They address broad and deep ideas.

Supporting standards have the following characteristics.

  • Although introduced in the current grade or course, they may be emphasized in a subsequent year. Although reinforced in the current grade or course, they may be emphasized in a previous year.

  • They play a role in preparing students for the next grade or course but not a central role.

  • They address more narrowly defined ideas.

TEA has also implemented a number of changes that serve to test knowledge and skills in a deeper way.

  • Tests contain a greater number of items that have a higher cognitive complexity level.

  • Items were developed to more closely match the cognitive complexity level evident in the TEKS.

  • In reading, greater emphasis is given to critical analysis than to literal understanding.

  • In writing, students are required to write two essays rather than one.

  • In social studies, science, and mathematics, process skills are assessed in context, not in isolation, which allows for a more integrated and authentic assessment of these content areas.

  • In science and mathematics, the number of open-ended (griddable) items are increased to allow students more opportunity to derive an answer independently.

For these reasons and others, the STAAR statewide assessment system replaced the Texas Academic Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test. The Writing and the Social Studies exams at all levels are much more rigorous and in depth than previous state tests.

Throughout the state, preparing students for the increased depth and rigor of the STAAR exams has been challenging for both veteran and beginning teachers alike. Many content areas of the required state curriculum, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), have also changed in recent years. The combination of the STAAR state assessment system with ever increasing depth and rigor as reflected in the changing state curriculum of the TEKS poses both challenges and opportunities for growth to Texas teachers and to EPP’s who prepare new teachers for the field.

Based upon statewide evidence on the STAAR Writing test, the House Research Organization has proposed House Bill 1164 (HB1164) as legislation. Under Education Code, sec. 39.023(a), students in grads 4 and 7 must take a writing exam as part of required statewide assessments for public school students, currently known as the State of Texas Assessment s of Academic Readiness (STAAR) exams. High school students take a combined reading and writing STAAR end-of-course (EOC) exam for both English I and English II, as provided by sec. 39.923(c). These are among the five EOC exams students must pass in order to graduate.

CSHB 1164 would replace statewide-standardized writing exams with locally designed and implemented methods to evaluate student writing. Results from those local assessments would not be reported to TEA or factored into district and campus accountability ratings.

Beginning with the 2016-17 school year, the bill would eliminate grade 4 and 7 writing exams and the writing component of high school EOC exams for English I and English II. Districts would be required to evaluate students in those grades and subjects using any method a district determined appropriate, including portfolios. Districts would be required to provide written notice of a student’s performance on a writing assessment to the students’ parents or person standing in parental relation.

High school students would be required to demonstrate satisfactory performance of the essential knowledge and skills in writing for English I and English II in order to receive a diploma. See Addendum Exhibits for additional information.

Writing is a complex skill that must be developed by students and their teachers over time and by practice. Students’ writing skills cannot easily be judged on the basis of a one-time performance on a prescriptive 26-line essay. Time that students could be spending learning to think critically and to transfer those thoughts to paper instead is spent preparing for a formulaic exam.

The bill would allow districts to measure students’ writing progress over the course of a school year through portfolios and other methods. Teachers who spend hours grading student essays are more qualified to assess student writing than temporary workers hired by the state’s testing contractor who may only have a few minutes to grade a student’s writing sample. While it is true the bill would curtail the flow of accountability data to policymakers, students would continue to take a reading and English language arts exam. Providing data that many educators believe is based on a flawed assessment might be worse than providing no data.

In light of House Bill 1164 and the changes and challenges this bill creates, the EPP continuously seeks to improve our curriculum and instruction for all candidates by meticulous alignment with national, state, and local standards as reflected on our syllabi for each course we teach. Significant initiatives undertaken by the EPP to increase both Writing and Social Studies instruction and assessment results include the TAMU Writing Pilot Statewide Initiative, the National Writing Project, Annual Writers’ Academy, and EdCamps.

The two-year TAMU Writing Pilot Initiative includes Regions 6 (Huntsville), 10 (Richardson), and 16 (Amarillo) and seven independent school districts across the state. For Region 16, Amarillo and Dumas ISDs have been selected to participate in the pilot and to be supported by West Texas A&M University. In Amarillo ISD, Humphrey’s Highland and Mesa Verde Elementary Schools, Houston Middle School, and Tascosa High School are campuses represented in the pilot and Dumas High School of Dumas ISD will also participate.

Education Specialists from the three regions, district personnel from each of the campuses represented, and university faculty members recently attended the TAMU Writing Pilot Program Kickoff Meeting on September 7, 2016 in Austin, Texas. The pilot is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2016 and will continue from 2016 through 2018.

In spring 2016, the EPP has received approval for West Texas A&M to become a site for the National Writing Project [See http://www.nwp.org/]. Faculty members have been certified as National Writing Project Trainers. The EPP will begin offering writing workshops as part of the National Writing Project to regional school districts in the summer of 2017.

National Writing Project sites focus on the core mission of improving the teaching of writing and improving the use of writing across the disciplines by offering high-quality professional development programs for educators in their service areas, at all grade levels, K–16 and across the curriculum. NWP sites share a national program model that includes

  • developing a leadership cadre of local teachers who have participated in invitational summer institutes in the teaching of writing;

  • delivering customized in-service programs for local schools and institutions; and

  • providing continuing education and research opportunities for teachers.

In addition, NWP sites may conduct programs for youth, for parents and community members, and for administrators. Each NWP site is housed in a college or university and is constituted as a school/university partnership that identifies, celebrates, and enhances the professional role of successful classroom teachers.

In June each year, WTAMU hosts the Annual Writers’ Academy with eight professional writers in classes, seminars, and workshops on topics ranging from screenwriting to self- publishing. Jodi Thomas, founder and co-director of the Writers’ Academy, is a New York Times and USA Today best-selling author. She leads workshops in “A Writer’s Life.” Thomas, serves as writer in residence at WTAMU and is the author of more than 30 novels and numerous short stories. She has won many honors and accolades for her work and was inducted into the Romance Writers of America’s Hall of Fame in 2006. She is also a four- time winner of the coveted RITA award.

Additionally, in collaboration with our school partners, EdCamps were initiated in the summer of 2016 to provide school-led and EPP supported workshops that were co-designed with our partners. Previously, in 2012-2013, a statewide Collaborative Social Studies Initiative was co-developed by the John G. O’Brien chair (Dr. Nancy Cartwright) Amarillo ISD, and other state partners to provide professional development and training for social studies teachers within the state. Annual reports are provided in Addendum Exhibits.

Addendum Exhibits demonstrate the initiation of our EdCamps, plans for the TAMU Writing Pilot Project, and annual reports of the Collaborative Social Studies Initiative for continuous improvement of the EPP and of teaching and learning for all P-12 students.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE77) School Report Cards].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE78) District Performance Index].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE79) John G. O’Brien Distinguished Chair in Education Data].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE82) National Writing Project.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE83) TAMU Writing Pilot Project].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE84) EdCamps].

[See the WTAMU’s Annual Writers’ Academy http://wtamu.edu/news/wtamu-s-annual-writers-academy-scheduled-for-june-10-14.aspx].

[See TEA Student Assessment http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/].

[See School Report Cards http://tea.texas.gov/perfreport/src/index.htm].

[See STAAR Statewide Summary Reports http://tea.texas.gov/Student_Testing_and_Accountability/Testing/State_of_Texas_Assessments_of_Academic_Readiness_(STAAR)/STAAR_Statewide_Summary_Reports_2015-2016/].

[See STAAR Resources http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/staar/].

[See STAAR L Resources http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/ell/staarl/].

[See STAAR A Resources http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/STAARA/].

(FFR, p. 16, paragraph 2)

Other areas not noted by the EPP include reading average below level of state in all grades, science average in grade 8 and all grades below state, and post-secondary readiness lower in all tests. Performance data for the Amarillo ISD show results exceed state averages for most areas.

Response:

In the Texas Panhandle, Amarillo ISD is one of the largest regional employers and maintains a primary partnership with the EPP. As noted in the FFR, “Performance data for the Amarillo ISD show results exceed state averages for most areas.” Through our dynamic partnership, the majority of our candidate placements for field and clinical experiences occur within Amarillo ISD. Amarillo ISD also employs the majority of our completers each year.

Administrators, teachers, several superintendents, and assistant superintendents within our service area are the proud products of our EPP. Both our Department Head/Associate Dean and Director of Accreditation are products of our program and our advanced programs. Success stories of our candidates as completers abound throughout our area.

To achieve our mission, the EPP works closely with our partners through the ever-increasing diversity of our candidates and the vastly diverse P-12 students we serve to better equip and prepare teacher candidates in becoming educators who are confident, skilled, and reflective professionals. The overriding goal of the EPP is to prepare our candidates to impact P-12 student learning and development. The SSR Addendum and Addendum Exhibits demonstrate the duality of perspective from our partners concerning the impact the EPP has had on our completers and the impact that our completers are having upon their P-12 students. The hiring, retention, and promotion of our candidates by our primary partners and performance data are also included as Addendum Exhibits.

The Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) School Report Cards detail the performance of our primary partners in reading, science, and post-secondary readiness among other areas. In Amarillo ISD for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, of the 35 elementary schools, 99% Met Standard and only one campus had Improvement Required. Of the nine (9) middle schools, 100% Met Standard with six campuses receiving Distinction Designations in the areas of Reading/ELA; Mathematics; Science; Social Studies; Top 25% Student Progress; Top 25% Closing Performance Gaps; and Postsecondary Readiness. Only three campuses did not receive Distinction Designations for only one year. The four (4) high schools had 100% Met Standard and many Distinction Designations across the campuses.

In 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, Canyon ISD (the EPP’s second primary partner) had eight (8) elementary schools report 100% Met Standard for both academic years; three (3) intermediate campuses 100% Met Standard; of the two (2) high schools, 100% Met Standard, and one (1) alternative campus (grades 11-12) Met Alternative Standard. Meeting state accountability performance standards includes meeting target scores for the four (4) indices of Student Achievement, Student Progress, Closing Performance Gaps, and Postsecondary Readiness. Evidence indicates of the 62 campuses reported from Amarillo and Canyon ISDs, 61 campuses or 99% Met Standard. These campuses not only met index target scores, but also far exceeded the target scores for each of the indices.

Amarillo and Canyon ISDs as our primary partners are where the majority of our teacher candidates are placed for both field and clinical experiences. However, many other area districts hire our completers upon graduation. For this reason, the EPP has also reported performance data for Bushland, Dumas, Hereford, and Pampa ISDs. District academic performances in these areas are demonstrated in Addendum Exhibits.

Through our established positive relationships and strong partnerships with Amarillo, Canyon, Bushland, Dumas, Hereford, Pampa, and other ISDs, the EPP enjoys a robust mutuality of benefit. Our EPP recruits, selects, and prepares the highest quality candidates possible along with the mutual support of our partners, and working together, we produce high quality completers for district employment after graduation.

In sum , for Canyon ISD and “performance data for the Amarillo ISD show results exceed state averages for most areas”.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE77) School Report Cards].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE78) District Performance Index].

[See TEA Student Assessment http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/].

[See School Report Cards http://tea.texas.gov/perfreport/src/index.htm].

[See STAAR Statewide Summary Reports http://tea.texas.gov/Student_Testing_and_Accountability/Testing/State_of_Texas_Assessments_of_Academic_Readiness_(STAAR)/STAAR_Statewide_Summary_Reports_2015-2016/].

(FFR, p. 16, paragraph 3)

The data provided in 4.1.1 does provide some evidence of how the EPP’s general service area has performed in 2014-2015. No data prior to 2014-15 was provided by the EPP.

Response:

The EPP has provided additional evidence of how our service area has performed academically in 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 in the SSR Addendum and Addendum Exhibits. Thank you.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE77) School Report Cards].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE78) District Performance Data Index].

(FFR, p. 16, paragraph 3)

here is no evidence that the EPP can measure specifically how their graduates performed on these measures. Even with a high concentration of their graduates, it is impossible to know the direct impact of the EPP’s graduates. After evaluating these data, the EPP indicated they will increase emphasis on writing and writing instruction in all coursework and share data at TEU meetings. No specific plans were provided.

Response:

To increase our emphasis on writing and writing instruction, the EPP emphasizes quality Writing in all coursework as evidenced in syllabi and will offer professional development/trainings to impact writing instruction for our school partners through the National Writing Project, the TAMU Writing Pilot Project, the Annual Writer’s Academy, and continued co-development of our EdCamps. Teachers in our service area will work together with our faculty to identify and to develop workshops, trainings, and professional development that are needed and co-designed by educators who seek further growth and development. This new model of providing research-based organic professional development co-designed by teachers and our faculty engages significant learning and growth for all educators.

Please see the EPP’s previous response in the SSR Addendum on pages 100-104. Thank you.

(FFR, p. 17, paragraph 1)

The EPP did not discuss the framework, protocol, validation, or specific analysis of these data (the Dean’s qualitative research project).

Response:

In the SSR Exhibit 2.1.3, the EPP provided summative data of the quantitative research study “conducted by the Deans of the Texas A&M University (TAMU) System Colleges of Education regarding (1) their perceptions of the strengths of our education workforce graduates, and (2) their recommendations for areas in which the preparation and performance of our graduates could be enhanced” (page 3).

WTAMU Responses to Data Collected from School District Partners

Importantly, from the most current 2015 data and data generated by these initiatives and our institutional responses to it will clearly connect in a meaningful way the curricula of our education workforce preparation program and graduate professional programs in education to the expectations and needs of our public and private school partners. As a result of this interaction and based upon the input of our partners, the EPP has implemented a number of enhancements to our educator preparation program as outlined below:

  • Developed and implemented instructional technology seminars delivered during the student teaching experience designed to address the recommendations that teachers utilize technology in the classroom to accomplish critical thinking and problem solving;

  • Added tenure-track faculty member with expertise in instructional technology applications in the classroom;

  • Added graduate level course designed to accomplish learning outcomes directly related to the effective incorporation of technology strategies in the classroom;

  • Modified existing undergraduate course content to increase ESL learning outcomes;

  • Developing short-term, faculty-directed study abroad opportunities in Mexico to accomplish the following outcomes:

    • To promote the acquisition of cultural knowledge, the development of cultural understanding and the acquisition of discipline-specific knowledge and skills through an innovative and multifaceted academic delivery system.

      • To develop graduates who demonstrate global competence and are prepared to utilize knowledge and skills to maximize opportunities presented in their disciplines and professions as a result of increasing economic, linguistic and cultural diversity;

      • To connect graduate and undergraduate course content with the development of cultural knowledge and cross-cultural understanding, service leadership, academic research and writing, and the

      • development of critical thinking and problem solving skills through experiential learning in international settings;

      • To develop and deliver high impact learning experiences which advance the acquisition of discipline-specific knowledge and skills in an international setting;

      • To deliver in the host community educational enrichment and/or supplemental instruction to primary and secondary students in the host community including English language instruction at regular intervals throughout the year by TAMU System faculty and students participating in short-term, faculty directed field experience;

      • To utilize technology to maintain the effectiveness of the educational enrichment and/or supplemental instruction delivered in the host community during intervals when TAMU System faculty and students are not on site in the host community;

      • To deliver faculty development opportunities to teachers and staff in the primary and secondary schools in the host community at regular intervals throughout the year by TAMU System faculty and students participating in short-term, faculty directed field experience;

      • To utilize technology to maintain the effectiveness of the educational enrichment and/or supplemental instruction delivered in the host community during intervals when TAMU System faculty and students are not on site in the host community;

      • To utilize technology to maintain the effectiveness of the faculty development delivered in the host community during intervals when TAMU System faculty and students are not on site in the host community.

  • Modified the course content in the secondary educational methods course to accomplish ESL learning outcomes.

  • Added ESL-specific observational and reflective writing assignments to required observations in educational methods courses.

  • Implemented “August Experience” requirements for methodology and student teachers to inform them of the mechanics of establishing a classroom (the “mechanics” of teaching) and implementing behavioral management strategies at the beginning of the academic year.

  • Expanded required undergraduate behavior management course from shortened format to full semester delivery.

  • Incorporated professional educator dispositions throughout education preparation program curriculum with emphasis on ethics and professionalism.

  • Employed tenure track faculty member with primary responsibilities to strengthen University-school partnerships and facilitate collaborative research between university and K-12 faculty and the dissemination of research results.

Dean Henderson and the EPP provide the framework, protocol, validation, and specific analyses of these data in the SSR Addendum and Addendum Exhibits.

As previously demonstrated in SSR Exhibits 2.1.3 and 4.2.1, the summative data of the deans’ quantitative study provided valuable information regarding employer satisfaction of the quality of our candidates as in-service teachers for the EPP. As stated, “[u]nanimously, all districts represented voiced their overwhelming satisfaction and support of our graduates in working with their P-12 students. Our graduates as in-service teachers are making positive impacts on student learning and development as ethical, professional, and knowledgeable educators [See 2.1.3; and 4.2.1]”.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE55) Dean and Superintendent Study Protocol Data].

(FFR, p. 17, paragraph 3)

Only a summary of these data for 2012-2013 (principal survey data) were available. Full data results and three cycles of data were not provided.

Response:

As the EPP explained previously in the SSR, the Texas Education Agency had only posted the 2012-2013 Principal Survey results on their website prior to our submission of the SSR. After repeated requests statewide, TEA released Excel spreadsheets of raw data for the 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015 Principal Surveys. The EPP disaggregated the data and formatted the data in a similar manner to the 2012-2013 release.

Of the Principal Surveys for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years, the EPP completed a data analysis on complete surveys only for West Texas A&M University as well as statewide and for a comparison university, Tarleton State University.

Upon analysis completion, a comparison of findings to the 2013-2014 survey report showed the results to be one point higher than before. For example, answers to WTAMU question 4 averages were 2.15 in 2012-2013 and 3.25 in 2013-2014. Similar findings were found throughout the survey. A phone call was placed to Michael Vriesenga at the Texas Education Agency. His understanding was that for the 2012-2013 school year, a 0-3 point score was used instead of the 1-4 scale that was used in subsequent years.

No coding definitions were found on the TEA website associated with the Principal Survey. With another phone call to TEA for affirmation, Mr. Vriesenga explained that the ratings on the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 Principal Surveys are defined as 4=Well Prepared to 1=Not Prepared at all.

For 2013-2014, the total number of Surveys that TEA sent to principals included:

  • Statewide N=34,944

  • West Texas A&M University N=268

  • Tarleton State University N=275

TEA Surveys that were sent to principals in 2014-2015 included:

  • Statewide N=17,495

  • West Texas A&M University N=253

  • Tarleton State University N=183

Analysis was conducted for only completed surveys for both 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. For 2013-2014, completed surveys were Statewide N=17,795, WTAMU N=219, and Tarleton N=180. Completed surveys for 2014-2015 were Statewide N=17,124, WTAMU N=243, and Tarleton N=176. Sections evaluated on the surveys included:

  • Section II: Classroom Environment;

  • Section III: Instruction;

  • Section IV: Students with Disabilities;

  • Section V: English Language Learners;

  • Section VI: Technology Integration;

  • Section VII: Use of Technology with Data;

  • Section VIII: Overall Evaluation of the Educator Preparation Program;

  • Section IX: Teacher Effectiveness and Student Achievement.

In 2013-2014, principal ratings of these eight sections for WTAMU ranged from 3.21 to 3.50. Statewide scores ranged from 3.15 to 3.43; and Tarleton scores ranged from 3.17 to 3.46.

In 2014-2015, identical questions and sections on the survey for WTAMU ranged from 3.12 to 3.55; Statewide scores ranged from 3.11 to 3.39; and Tarleton scores ranged from 3.26 to 3.55.

In Section IX, Teacher Effectiveness and Student Achievement, the survey poses Question 40 as: How would you rate this teacher’s influence on student achievement? (10-point scale).

  • The EPP average score for WTAMU was 7.43 with a Standard Deviation of 1.50.

  • The Statewide average score was 7.24 had a Standard Deviation of 1.59.

  • Tarleton had a comparison EPP average score of 7.27 with a comparison Standard Deviation of 1.61.

In 2013-2014, the evidence of 7.43 as the EPP average score by principals of beginning teachers from WTAMU indicates a favorable rating overall. For the same Section IX Question 40 in 2014-2015, the EPP’s (WTAMU) average score was 7.56 with a Standard Deviation of 1.36; Statewide scored 7.17 with a Standard Deviation of 1.58; and Tarleton had a comparison EPP average score of 7.40 with a Standard Deviation of 1.53.

As previously reported in the SSR, the recommended performance cut score for 2012-2013 was 67% as a weighted percentage. Based upon this survey data, WTAMU’s cut score was 75.4% that met Standard 2 of ASEP.

The EPP’s average scores and Standard Deviation for each question on the survey as well as Statewide and Tarleton State University (a comparison university) full data results and three cycles of data are provided in the SSR and SSR Addendum Exhibits.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE16) Principal Survey Results (2013-2015)].

(FFR, p. 17, paragraph 4)

Item 4.3.1 also provides five year retention rates for the EPP and other sample institutions from FY2012-13. In the data provided, the EPP appears to have similar or higher retention rates when compared to the sample group. No analysis was provided by the EPP. Response:

Analysis of the five-year retention rates for the EPP and other sample institutions in SSR Exhibit 4.3.1 indicated that of 699 applicants to WTAMU, 646 were retained and 413 completed the program in 2012-2013. Of the 717 completers in 2010-2012, 529 were employed at 73.8%. This employment rate for WTAMU was the highest employment rate of the five institutions presented. Reported in FY2012-2013, the WTAMU five-year retention rate for 420 completers of 2007-2008, 294 were retained at 70.0%. The WTAMU five-year retention rate was second to Tarleton State University to the sample group of the five institutions reported. WTAMU’s five-year retention rate exceeded the rates of Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, and Prairie View A&M University.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE88) Retention Rates].

[See also SSR Exhibit 4.3.1 Satisfaction of Employers].

(FFR, p. 17, paragraph 5)

The EPP established a Professional Learning Community (PLC) and created a distinguished chair position which was filled in spring 2016. The assertion is made that these are ‘a new and innovative measurement of employer satisfaction’ but there is no data or evidence to support this.

Response of Correction and Clarification:

In SSR Exhibit 4.3.1, the EPP stated “A new and innovative measurement of employer satisfaction and program impact for the EPP is the John G. O’Brien Distinguished Chair in Education established by the John G. O’Brien family of Amarillo, Texas the Amarillo Area Foundation, and West Texas A&M University. Recently investured through a national search, a distinguished faculty member has been appointed by the EPP in Spring 2016 to engage with our partners in continuous research-to-practice support and professional development for both in-service LEA personnel and WTAMU faculty [See 5.5.1]” (page 1).

For clarification, the John G. O’Brien Distinguished Chair in Education position was established in 2008 . Dr. Nancy Cartwright was the first appointment by the John G. O’Brien family, the Amarillo Area Foundation, and WTAMU and served in the position from 2009 to 2012. The position remained unfilled until Dr. Laurie Sharp’s appointment in January 2016.

Project/Program Description

  • In Fall 2008, a partnership was formed between the John G. O’Brien family and the Amarillo Area Foundation to fund the John G. O’Brien Chair in Education at WTAMU. The role of the O’Brien Chair is to address the issue of a perceived gap in the transition from the university setting to the public school setting in regards to teacher preparation. This program partnered WTAMU with the Amarillo Independent School District.

  • Since the program’s inception in Fall 2009, WTAMU and Amarillo ISD collaborated to improve Social Studies instruction in their district.

  • In 2016, the Partnership Agreement was rewritten to include all other districts within Region 16 to supplement the work already being done through the John G. O’Brien Chair.

Professional Learning Communities

The O’Brien collaboration uses the core principles and practices of Professional Learning communities that are supported by the majority of school districts across the United States. The three PLC core principles include:

  • Ensuring that Students Learn  

  • A Culture of Collaboration  

  • A Focus on Results 

The most recent update presented to the Amarillo Area Foundation, John G. O’Brien family, and WTAMU was on August 25, 2016 by Dr. Laurie Sharp. The inaugural Texas Panhandle Professional Learning Network (TXPPLN) event was held on June 24, 2016 at WTAMU.

The purpose of this event was to engage prospective and practicing educators in innovative, participant-driven professional learning experiences through an organic approach. Unlike a traditional “sit-and-get” conference, this event was modeled after the EdCamp “unconference” approach and consisted of 24 scheduled 50-minute interactive facilitated sessions that sought to engage attendees in informal conversation, promote the sharing of ideas, and provide a platform to discuss positions and challenges. Active area districts included Amarillo, Canyon, and Hereford ISDs. Attendees included WTAMU faculty, 14 area teachers, three curriculum assessment specialists, one reading specialist, one assistant principal, and four community organization partners (Amarillo Public Library, Don Harrington Discovery Center, Palo Duro State Park, and Window on a Wider World).

The John G. O’Brien Distinguished Chair in Education’s Annual Report and SSR Addendum Exhibits provide feedback data provided by 38 attendees on the value of information presented, the quality of communication of the information, the practical application of the information presented in an educational setting, recommendation of this professional development event to colleagues, and suggestions for improving the event in the future.

Although Dr. Sharp was appointed in January 2016, she has made great gains in establishing positive relationships with district personnel in our service area and has learned firsthand from these district superintendents, principals, and teachers of their high levels of employer satisfaction with our teacher candidates who are now employed within their districts. Dr. Sharp will be available for additional conversation concerning her experiences and the progress of the network onsite.

For further employer satisfaction data, please see the EPP’s previous response in the SSR Addendum on pages 110-112. Thank you.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE79) John G. O’Brien Distinguished Chair in Education].

[See SSR Exhibit 4.3.1 Satisfaction of Employers].

[See SSR Exhibit 5.5.1 Stakeholder and Partner Involvement].

(FFR, p. 17, paragraph 6)

Exit surveys completed by TEA 2013-14 provide responses from N+351 EPP candidate/graduates compared to the state responses (N=21,292). The EPP provided a sample of questions from the survey and their results for this implementation. No data analysis was provided by the EPP.

Response:

TEA Exit Surveys completed by WTAMU candidate/graduate/completer (N=381) responses compared to the state (N=21,435) responses in 2014-2015, WTAMU (N=351) responses as compared to the state (N=21,293) responses in 2013-2014, and WTAMU (N=289) responses compared to the state (N=18,999) responses in 2012-2013, full surveys, and data analyses have been provided by the EPP in the SSR Addendum and Addendum Exhibits (AEs).

Data analyses demonstrate that 53 identical questions were included on the exit surveys from 2013-2015. Of the 53 questions, two were general survey questions; six (6) were Yes/No questions; 36 questions were about levels of preparation for instruction, working with diverse student populations including English language learners (ELLs), limited English Proficient (LEPs), and students with special needs; classroom management; discipline; the use of technology; an EPP evaluation statement; and ten (10) questions were about working with their field supervisors.

Choices for completers in response to each question included either “Yes”, “No”, or a range of the following:

  • Well-prepared

  • Sufficiently prepared

  • Not sufficiently prepared

  • Not at all prepared

The category of “Sufficiently prepared” was the target for EPP candidates for each academic year. This category suggests the adequate proficiency of teacher preparation for our candidates. The state’s PDAS appraisal framework and the new T-TESS evaluation system maintain “Proficient” to be a rock solid classroom teacher.

The completers’ choices for evaluating their field supervisors included a range of responses as follows:

  • Always/Almost Always

  • Frequently

  • Occasionally

  • Rarely

For Question 53 on each survey, completers were asked to select the one statement that most closely matches their current overall perspective for the first year of teaching of the educator preparation program that included:

  • I was well prepared by the program for the first year of teaching.

  • I was sufficiently prepared by the program for the first year of teaching.

  • I was not sufficiently prepared by the program for the first year of teaching.

  • I was not at all prepared by the program for the first year of teaching.

Note: It is important to note that the state does not release Exit Surveys (or other state-level data) disaggregated by specialty licensure/certification areas. Thank you.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE80) TEA Completer Exit Surveys (2013-2015)].

(FFR, p. 17, paragraph 7)

The EPP intends to initiate its own Teacher Education Program Completer Follow-up Survey (2.2.6). No data has been collected at this time but will be collected for the first time in spring 2016. Review of this survey resulted in some questions relating to the validity, reliability, and ability of this instrument to meet the CAEP assessment rubric guidelines.

Response and Update:

In SSR Exhibit 2.2.6, the EPP stated “During the analysis of available data for the EPP, we determined that the university’s alumni survey for completers with a low response rate was inadequate for determining specific answers about our program from our completers’ perspective. As a result of our analysis, the EPP has developed a new instrument for the Teacher Education Program Completer’s Follow-Up Survey that will be implemented in Spring 2016. The survey will be completed online” (page 1).

In collaboration with a flagship university of another state, the EPP revised the Program Completer’s Follow-Up Survey that they had used for multiple years with similar results. The flagship university established validity and reliability over time with the longtime use of this follow-up survey for their completers. The university had previously successfully undergone NCATE accreditation and in April 2016 received NCATE accreditation reauthorization.

Our EPP minimally revised the instrument to reflect the program outcomes and ethical and professional dispositions of our EPP. We are currently reviewing and adapting the document in light of the CAEP assessment rubric and will then seek Institutional Research Board (IRB) approval in Fall 2016 before implementation in either late Fall 2016 or Spring 2017.

The EPP has provided the complete WTAMU Graduating Seniors Survey and data analysis of survey results in Addendum Exhibits.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE75) WTAMU Graduating Seniors Survey Data].

[See SSR Exhibit 2.2.6 Completer Follow-Up Survey].

[See Consumer Reports

http://tea.texas.gov/Texas_Educators/Preparation_and_Continuing_Education/Consumer_Information_about_Educator_Preparation_Programs.aspx].

  1. Evidence that is inconsistent with meeting the standard

(FFR, p. 18, top of page and middle of page)

Response:

The EPP has previously responded to each of these prompts within the SSR Addendum. In response, Addendum Exhibits have been delineated for each prompt in brackets. Thank you.

1. Document 1.1.1, 1.1.16, 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.6.1, 5.1.1, 5.2.1, 5.3.1 have no data associated with Standard 4.

[See Addendum Exhibits (AE7); (AE16); (AE55); (AE56); (AE57); (AE58); (AE59); ( AE60); (AE75); (AE77); (AE78); (AE79); (AE80); (AE82); (AE83); (AE84); and ( AE88)].

2. List of onsite tasks to be completed. Use the following three prompts for each task. Standard 4 Task 1: for state level evidence, provide 3 cycles of data (disaggregated by program) results and analysis.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE16) Principal Survey Results (2013-2015)].

Standard 4 Task 1: a . Provide TEA supervising survey instrument, results, and analysis for last 3 cycles.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE16) Principal Survey Results (2013-2015)].

Standard 4 Task 1: b . Provide complete TEA Exit survey instrument, results, and analysis for last 3 cycles.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE80) TEA Completer Exit Surveys (2013-2015)].

Response:

The EPP has previously responded to each of the following prompts within the SSR Addendum. In response, Addendum Exhibits have been delineated for each prompt in brackets. Thank you.

1. Standard 4 Task 2: For EPP developed assessments, provide 3 cycles of data (disaggregated by program) results and analysis.

[See Addendum Exhibits (AE18); ( AE17); ( AE26); ( AE42); ( AE46); and ( AE53)].

  1. Provide details of Dean’s case study including design, protocols, and data analysis.

    [See Addendum Exhibit (AE55) Dean and Superintendent Study Protocol Data].

  2. Provide original alumni survey, data, and analysis to show basis for current survey developed by the EPP.

    [See Addendum Exhibit (AE75) WTAMU Graduating Seniors Survey Data].

  3. Provide Case study designs, protocols, and data analysis.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE55) Dean and Superintendent Study Protocol Data].

  1. Questions for EPP concerning additional evidence, data, and/or interviews, including follow up on response to 1.c).

(FFR, p. 18, bottom of page)

Response:

The EPP has previously responded to each of these prompts within the SSR Addendum. In response, Addendum Exhibits have been delineated for each prompt in brackets. Thank you.

  1. What state-level or EPP developed (utilizing research-based methodology), data measures can be provided to show previous ‘program completers contribute to an expected level of student-learning growth’?

    [See Addendum Exhibit (AE16) Principal Survey Results (2013-2015)].

  2. What ‘structured and validated’ completer surveys or observation instruments can be provided to measure the application of content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and dispositions which relate to teaching effectiveness and/or student learning?

    [See Addendum Exhibit (AE16) Principal Survey Results (2013-2015)].

  3. What ‘valid and reliable’ data measures can the EPP provide to show that employers are satisfied with your previous completers’ preparation and their ability to work with P-12 students? (i.e., Employment milestones, promotion and retention, employer surveys, etc.).

    [See Addendum Exhibits (AE7); ( AE16); ( AE55); ( AE56); ( AE57); ( AE58); ( AE60); ( AE55); and ( AE75)].

  4. What ‘valid and reliable’ data measures can be provided by the EPP, which indicate previous completers perceive their preparation, was adequate to meet their responsibility as a P-12 educator?

[See Addendum Exhibits (AE16) and ( AE80)].

  1. Preliminary recommendations for new areas for improvement and/or stipulations including a rationale for each

(FFR, p. 19, top of page and middle of page)

Areas for Improvement (AFIs)

Area for Improvement: Impact on P-12 Student Learning and Development: There is little evidence that the provider documents, using multiple measures that program completers contribute to an expected level of student-learning growth.

Rationale: The EPP discusses multiple measures of student impact but fails to provide multiple, verifiable measures of impact on student learning.

Response:

The EPP documents that our program completers contribute to an expected level of student- learning growth by using multiple, verifiable measures of student impact in the SSR Addendum and Addendum Exhibits.

The measures used by the EPP to document student impact include specialty licensure/ certification state data; district hiring, retention, and promotion of our completers; the state Principal Survey results from 2013 to 2015; TEA School Report Cards; District Performance Indices; interview data and impact letters from area superintendents, teachers, and other partners; teacher work samples, and the Dean and Superintendent Study.

First for the EPP, the specialty licensure/certification for candidates on the TExES content and TExES PPR exams demonstrate our candidates are highly qualified to be in the classroom for their clinical teaching. Oftentimes for our primary partners where the majority of our candidates complete their thirteen weeks of clinical teaching, these districts hire our candidates upon their graduation. Unless our candidates are making positive impact upon student learning and development in their clinical teaching, our partners would not nor wish to hire them.

Second for the EPP, the hiring trends of our primary partners in Amarillo and Canyon ISDs from 2014 to 2016 indicate high employer satisfaction with our graduates/ completers. Amarillo ISD hired 90% of our completers in 2014 and 94% in both 2015 and 2016. Canyon ISD hired 100% of their teachers from WTAMU in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

Third for the EPP, analysis of the five-year retention rates for the EPP and other sample institutions in SSR Exhibit 4.3.1 indicated that of 699 applicants to WTAMU, 646 were retained and 413 completed the program in 2012-2013. Of the 717 completers in 2010-2012, 529 were employed at 73.8%. This employment rate for WTAMU was the highest employment rate of the five institutions presented. Reported in FY2012-2013, the WTAMU five-year retention rate for 420 completers of 2007-2008, 294 were retained at 70.0%. The WTAMU five-year retention rate was second to Tarleton State University to the sample group of the five institutions reported. WTAMU’s five-year retention rate exceeded the rates of Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, and Prairie View A&M University.

Retention trends have been discussed in previous responses in the SSR Addendum on pages 112-114 and pages 124-125 and additional hiring, retention, and promotion data from Dumas, Hereford, and Pampa ISDs are provided in Addendum Exhibits.

Fourth for the EPP, Texas Principal Survey Report trends from 2013 to 2015 of the EPP’s data analysis on only completed surveys for WTAMU as well as statewide and of a comparison university, Tarleton State University.

For 2013-2014, the total number of Surveys that TEA sent to principals included:

  • Statewide N=34,944

  • West Texas A&M University N=268

  • Tarleton State University N=275

TEA Surveys that were sent to principals in 2014-2015 included:

  • Statewide N=17,495

  • West Texas A&M University N=253

  • Tarleton State University N=183

Analysis was conducted for only completed surveys for both 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. For 2013-2014, completed surveys were Statewide N=17,795, WTAMU N=219, and Tarleton N=180. Completed surveys for 2014-2015 were Statewide N=17,124, WTAMU N=243, and Tarleton N=176. Sections evaluated on the surveys included:

  • Section II: Classroom Environment;

  • Section III: Instruction;

  • Section IV: Students with Disabilities;

  • Section V: English Language Learners;

  • Section VI: Technology Integration;

  • Section VII: Use of Technology with Data;

  • Section VIII: Overall Evaluation of the Educator Preparation Program;

  • Section IX: Teacher Effectiveness and Student Achievement.

In 2013-2014, principal ratings of these eight sections for WTAMU ranged from 3.21 to Statewide scores ranged from 3.15 to 3.43; and Tarleton scores ranged from 3.17 to 3.46.

In 2014-2015, identical questions and sections on the survey for WTAMU ranged from 3.12 to 3.55; statewide scores ranged from 3.11 to 3.39; and Tarleton scores ranged from 3.26 to 3.55.

In Section IX, Teacher Effectiveness and Student Achievement , the survey poses Question 40 as: How would you rate this teacher’s influence on student achievement? (10-point scale).

  • The EPP average score for WTAMU was 7.43 with a Standard Deviation of 1.50.

  • The Statewide average score was 7.24 had a Standard Deviation of 1.59.

  • Tarleton had a comparison EPP average score of 7.27 with a comparison Standard Deviation of 1.61.

In 2013-2014, the evidence of 7.43 as the EPP average score by principals of beginning teachers from WTAMU indicates a favorable rating overall . For the same Section IX Question 40 in 2014-2015, the EPP’s (WTAMU) average score was 7.56 with a Standard

Deviation of 1.36; Statewide scored 7.17 with a Standard Deviation of 1.58; and Tarleton had a comparison EPP average score of 7.40 with a Standard Deviation of 1.53.

As previously reported in the SSR, the recommended performance cut score for 2012-2013 was 67% as a weighted percentage. Based upon this survey data, WTAMU’s cut score was 75.4% that met Standard 2 of ASEP.

Upon analysis completion, a comparison of findings to the 2013-2014 survey report showed the results to be one point higher than before. For example, answers to WTAMU question 4 averages were 2.15 in 2012-2013 and 3.25 in 2013-2014. Similar findings were found throughout the survey. A phone call was placed to Michael Vriesenga at the Texas Education Agency. His understanding was that for the 2012-2013 school year, a 0-3 point score was used instead of the 1-4 scale that was used in subsequent years.

Principals of beginning teachers or our completers are the best evaluators of the impact upon P-12 student learning and development. The Principal Surveys from 2012-2015 from TEA demonstrate that our completers have verifiable impact on student learning. Fifth for the EPP, indirect yet verifiable and reliable evidence of completers’ impact on student learning is demonstrated in the TEA School Report Cards and District Performance Index. As previously noted in the SSR Addendum as evidenced per campus, schools within our service area outperform the state’s targeted index scores in 2015 in Student Achievement (60), Student Progress (28), Closing Performance Gap (27), and Postsecondary Readiness (13). In 2014, a large majority of our schools also outperformed TEA targeted index scores. District and campus accountability for student growth, academic achievement, and postsecondary readiness show our schools “Met Standard”. Only one or two campuses rated “Improvement Required” in one of the four required indexes.

Although it is impossible to show direct impact by the 90%, 94%, and 100% of WTAMU completers hired districtwide in 2014-2016 by Amarillo and Canyon ISDs in Reading/ELA, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and Writing on STAAR, STAAR L, and STAAR A state assessments, the evidence of these campuses meeting and exceeding state requirements for performance accountability remains a strong indicator of impact upon student learning. Our completers comprise an important part of the teaching workforce in our service area schools and share in their campus and student success.

Sixth for the EPP, anecdotal evidence of our completers’ impact on student learning was collected directly from the Superintendents of Amarillo, Canyon, Dumas, Hereford, and Pampa ISDs. The letters reflect the polyvocal voices of these school leaders and their evaluations of the teachers they have hired to teach their P-12 students. There is no more important responsibility for these school leaders than to ensure the best teachers are teaching all of the children within their districts that they hire. The EPP believes there is no greater indicator of the impact our completers are having on student learning and development than through the voices of these strategic partners.

The EPP developed a research study of these submitted letters from the school leaders and discovered emerging categories or trends across districts. Through our strong and established partnerships with area districts, our EPP prepares and produces quality teacher candidates who not only meet the hiring needs of each district, but also provide effective instruction to impact student learning. Many area teachers, principals, human resource directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents are products of our EPP at West Texas A&M University.

Relevant comments from the letters the EPP has received are highlighted as follows:

Amarillo ISD’s Superintendent Dr. Dana West:

 

  • “Amarillo Independent School District enjoys a wonderful partnership with WTAMU. We hire most of our teachers from this university and many of our administrators are WTAMU trained”.

  • “Of course, with their proximity to our school district, you might expect that they would be a major source of our applicants, but our positive relationship extends beyond proximity”.

  • “As superintendent, I am involved in our community and it is the norm for faculty and staff to be visible in and integral to successful endeavors in our city as well. Because WTAMU staff believes it is their job to ensure our community’s future success, I know that WTAMU is applying for CAEP accreditation as a way to strengthen their program, and quite honestly, as an individual and as an employer I am excited about that”.

  • “Our partnership currently has proven to me that, as an organization, they understand the value of collaboration and of continually striving to be better for their students, our school district and our Amarillo community”.

  • “Our school district is a large school district and--when comparing to other school districts of our size and complexity--we perform well. I can’t help but think that our teamwork with WTAMU is a portion of what has created that success”.

  • “Who wouldn’t be excited about creating an even stronger partnership with even better outcomes?”

Canyon ISD’s Superintendent Mr. Darryl Flusche:

  • “A teacher’s influence can have a major impact on a student’s future direction. Content and pedagogical knowledge is essential along with a genuine care and concern to help a student pursue their diverse interests”.

  • “Whether the student teachers are regular or Special Education, elementary or secondary, the preservice teachers have continual follow up from student teacher supervisors to guide their reflective practices”.

  • “WTAMU graduates who enter the teaching profession effectively facilitate high student achievement”.

  • “The standard of academic, technical, and relational teaching proficiencies are a tremendous resource for Canyon ISD. As a growing district, we have continual need for additional teachers. The WTAMU Department of Education stays in close contact with our district leaders to ensure their program direction is meeting the needs of our students”.

Dumas ISD’s Superintendent Mr. Monty Hysinger:

  • “For many years we have had an extremely positive working relationship with the education preparation programs at WTAMU”.

  • “With a workforce of over 700 people, the Dumas Independent School District is one of Moore County’s largest employers. On average our district must recruit between 60 to 70 professional teachers each year”.

  • “With fewer people entering the education profession, we have found the task of recruiting quality teacher candidates extremely challenging. WTAMU education department with its educator preparation programs is a major lifeline for our District and many others in the Texas Panhandle”.

  • “Over the past three years Dumas ISD has employed over 88 WTAMU graduates to professional teacher positions throughout our district. A quick look at our District Leadership Team shows that over one half actually graduated from this university”.

  • The professional educators that we receive from WTAMU make and [sic] immediate impact on the students and programs that we offer”.

  • “Dumas Independent School District applauds the WTAMU Department of Education and their desire to ensure that they provide our district and others with well-trained and highly qualified teacher candidates that actually make a difference from day one”.

Hereford ISD’s Assistant Superintendent of Professional Services Sheri Blankenship:

  • Note: Hereford ISD named Sheri Blankenship as Sole Finalist on September 12, 2016 after Dr. Kelli Moulton became the Superintendent of Galveston ISD this summer.

  • “My name is Sheri Blankenship, Assistant Superintendent of Professional Services for Hereford ISD. I received my Masters Degree from West Texas A&M University, due to this fact I am personally able to offer validity for the program offered by West Texas A&M University”.

  • “Hereford Independent School District places great value in our partnership with West Texas A&M University (WTAMU)”.

  • “We hire a majority of our teachers from this University each year. We have great confidence in the education that is provided to the students who attend this University whether they are educated through the traditional route or the alternative certification route”.

  • “Out of our 35 district administrators only 3 of them have not obtained their Masters Degree from West Texas A&M University”.

  • “A large number of this group also obtained their Bachelor’s degree from this University”.

  • “Our partnership with West Texas A&M has proven that they are worthy of [my] recommendation”.

  • “We have been privileged to have such a close working relationship with our local University where they value the input of fellow educators from this area”.

Pampa ISD’s Superintendent Tanya Larkin and Nathan Maxwell, PISD Executive Director of Human Resources:

  • “This letter serves to provide insight and reflection of the education department at West Texas A&M University and the impact it has provide to our school district”.

  • “I received my Bachelors from WTAMU in 2010 and my Master’s from WTAMU in 2012. Shortly upon graduation, I became employed with Pampa as a teacher and a coach. After three years of teaching, I was able to assume roles of assistant principal, principal, and now executive director for PISD”.

  • “The education department at WTAMU has had a tremendous impact on me personally and professionally. The guidance, mentorship, and program philosophies I’ve learned at WTAMU have helped me serve the children of our community with a vision for success”.

  • “Becoming a creative thinker, effective communicator, lifelong learner, steward of the profession, and advocate for students are a few of the skills practiced through my development at WTAMU”.

  • “The University program has given me the opportunity to give back to the communities in which I was raised, and help provide the students of the Texas Panhandle the education they deserve”.

  • “As a district administrator, I would like to validate the impact your program has on our district. We employ over 300 teachers, approximately 180 of these graduated from WTAMU”.

  • “In the past 3 years, we have hired over 40 employees that have received degrees from your department. These educators want to be in the panhandle and want to serve in local communities”.

  • “The professionals that graduate from your program come to us fully accredited and knowledgeable in the art of teaching”.

  • “Pampa ISD feels comfortable partnering with WTAMU and confident that you will help produce educators capable of impacting generations to come”.

  • “WTAMU consistently strives to produce teachers that can make an impact immediately and are prepared for the work ahead”.

  • “In addition, our Superintendent, Mrs. Tanya Larkin, has also received multiple degrees from WTAMU. She would like to express her gratitude towards the efforts you have put forth to help Pampa ISD.”

  • “It’s relieving to know that we can count on you, and that we share a common goal of providing our students with first class teachers that make a lifelong impact”.

  • “Again, thank you for living up to your vision of producing educators who are confident, skilled, and reflective professionals. Needless to say, our district heavily depends on your program producing quality professionals, as they account for nearly two thirds of our staff”.

Seventh for the EPP, additional data from teacher work samples (TWS) like lesson plans, the Dean and Superintendent Study, and the Graduating Senior Survey are provided in the SSR Addendum Exhibits.

Please see the EPP’s additional responses in the SSR Addendum on pages 111-112 and pages123-125. Thank you.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE7) Specialty Licensure/Certification Data].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE13) LBB Certification Reports].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE16) Principal Survey Results (2013-2015)].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE39) Validity and Reliability Data].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE55) Dean and Superintendent Study Protocol Data].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE56) Impact Letters from Area Superintendents].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE57) Impact Letters from Teachers and Other Partners].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE58) Hiring, Retention, and Promotion of Completer Data].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE59) Teacher Work Samples].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE60) Interview Data of Superintendents].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE75) WTAMU Graduating Seniors Survey Data].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE77) School Report Cards].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE78) District Performance Index].

[See SSR Exhibit 5.4.1. Program Impact].

Area for Improvement: Indicators of Teaching Effectiveness There is little evidence that the provider demonstrates, through structured and validated observation instruments and student

surveys that completers effectively apply the professional knowledge, skills, and dispositions that the preparation experiences were designed to achieve.
Rationale : The EPP provides several measures of teaching effectiveness but failed to show the original instruments validity and reliability.

Response:

First and foremost, the EPP is required to follow state protocols and statutory requirements in regard to our educator preparation program. As the governing authority within the state, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) distributes to principals statewide the annual Principal Survey of Teaching Effectiveness and the TEA Completer Survey to beginning teachers. The PDAS appraisal and the appraisal instrument to assess and evaluate Texas educators is another instrument supported by TEA. The PDAS has been used to evaluate teachers and has been proven to be both valid and reliable. The T-TESS will begin state implementation to replace the PDAS beginning in 2016-2017.

The surveys distributed by the Texas Education Agency to school districts statewide are identical instruments used by TEA each year to evaluate EPP programs, the effectiveness of new teachers, and the impact teachers have on P-12 student learning and development.

Through the use of these surveys and PDAS/T-TESS appraisal forms, the EPP believes that TEA follows the Principles of Assessment and supports only reliable assessment instruments and procedures. TEA uses only assessment procedures and instruments that have been demonstrated to be valid for the specific purpose for which they are being used. In collaboration with statewide partners of teachers, parents, and administrators, TEA has designed assessment survey tools that are appropriate for the target population .

In regard to the validity and reliability of these TEA instruments, the EPP has requested additional information from Dr. Tim Miller, Director of Educator Preparation, Testing, Program Accountability, and Program Management of the Texas Education Agency (TEA). We anticipate his response to be forthcoming.

Additionally as previously stated by the EPP in the SSR Addendum, for content validity and inter-rater reliability of EPP developed instruments, the EPP is currently taking a three-fold approach. The first approach is for the EPP to assemble an unbiased Validity and Reliability Committee, the second is to engage professional colleagues from other colleges within our university, and the third approach will be to engage education faculty from another university who were unknown to the EPP to undertake validity and reliability studies in partnership with our university.

For mutuality of benefit, the other university’s Department of Education Dean and faculty have requested copies of our Syllabi Analyses in exchange. Each group will use the EPP developed PEOs and CEI instruments to assess samples of candidate coursework submissions of KEI Assignments. If the validity and reliability studies achieve inter-rater reliability in the consistent test scores of 80% or higher when scored by two or more raters on identical validity and reliability studies from the three groups, the EPP is enabled to ensure that our instruments are valid and reliable.

Test validity refers to what characteristic the test measures and how well the test measures that characteristic. The particular job of teaching for which the test has been selected should be very similar to the job for which the test was originally developed. Through the job analysis of being a teacher as a systematic process used to identify the tasks, duties, responsibilities, and working conditions associated with teaching, and the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics required to perform that job, the EPP will continue to improve methods to test and to measure EPP-developed assessment tools that predict the success of our teacher candidates in the classroom.

The EPP’s plan for these validation and reliability studies is to examine the technical properties of the EPP-developed tests of the rubrics for Program Educational Outcomes (PEOs), and Candidate Evaluation Instrument (CEI) of the Ethical and Professional Dispositions used to assess our candidates over time through their coursework, field, and clinical experiences.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE39) Validity and Reliability Data].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE16) Principal Survey Results (2013-2015)].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE80) TEA Completer Exit Surveys (2013-2015)].

Area for Improvement: Satisfaction of Employers There is little evidence that the provider demonstrates, using measures that result in valid and reliable data and including employment milestones such as promotion and retention, that employers are satisfied with the completers’ preparation for their assigned responsibilities in working with P-12 students.

Rationale: The EPP provides several measures of employer satisfaction but failed to show the original instruments validity and reliability.

Response:

The EPP demonstrates measures used in the collection and analysis of valid and reliable data of district employment milestones such as hiring, promotion, and retention of our graduates/completers as evidence of employer satisfaction with the preparation of our graduates/completers in their assigned responsibilities of working with P-12 students.

Valid and reliable data was collected from Amarillo, Canyon, Claude, Dumas, Hereford, and Pampa ISDs of the districts’ hiring, retention, and promotion of WTAMU graduates/completers for 2014-2016. The EPP also conducted interviews of area superintendents from Amarillo, Canyon, Claude, Dumas, Hereford, and Pampa ISDs to ascertain their levels of satisfaction with our graduates/completers who they had hired to teach in their districts. These data demonstrate high levels of employer satisfaction with our graduates/completers and are provided in the SSR Addendum and Addendum Exhibits.

For 2014-2016, data collected from our primary partners in Amarillo and Canyon ISDs indicate the hiring of our WTAMU graduates/ completers are as follows:

  • Of our graduates/completers in 2014, out of 60 teachers hired for PK-5, Amarillo ISD hired 56 PK-5, out of 73 teachers hired for secondary, 65 Secondary, and out of 8 Special Education, 6 Special Education completers were hired (1 of 1 Administrator, 3 of 4 Diagnosticians, 1 of 1 Librarian, and 1 of 1 Speech Pathologist were also hired) as WTAMU graduates. Out of 148 teachers hired by Amarillo ISD in 2014, 133 teachers hired were our completers . 90% (89.8%) of the total number of teachers Amarillo ISD hired for 2014 are our graduates/completers.

  • In 2015, out of 109 teachers hired for K-5, Amarillo ISD hired 104 K-5, out of 72 hired for secondary, 65 Secondary completers were hired, and out of 17 Special Education completers, 17 Special Education completers were hired (3 out of 3 Administrators, 4 out of 5 Diagnosticians, 3 out of 3 Librarians, and 2 out of 2 Speech Pathologists were also hired) as WTAMU graduates. Out of 211 teachers hired by Amarillo in 2015, 198 teachers hired were our completers . 94% (93.8) of the total number of teachers hired by Amarillo ISD in 2015 are our graduates/completers.

  • In 2016, out of 55 Amarillo ISD hired for PK, 50 K-5, out of 52 teachers hired for secondary, 51 Secondary, and out of 10 Special Education hired, 10 Special Education were hired (9 of 11 Administrators, 1 of 1 Diagnostician, 1 of 1 Librarian, and 2 of 2 Speech Pathologists were also hired) as WTAMU graduates. Out of 132 teachers hired by Amarillo ISD in 2016, 124 teachers hired were our completers . 94% (93.9) of the total number of teachers hired in 2016 by Amarillo ISD are our graduates/completers.

The hiring data collected from Amarillo ISD and EPP analysis indicate trends of high employer satisfaction with 90% in 2014, 94% in 2015, and 94% in 2016 of all teachers hired district wide in PK-5, Secondary, and Special Education (including Administrators, Diagnosticians, Librarians, and Speech Pathologists) are WTAMU graduates/completers.

Data collected and analyzed from Canyon ISD indicates that 100% of the teachers hired in 2014 ( 56 total) are graduates with undergraduate and many with both undergraduate and graduate degrees from WTAMU. In 2015, 100% of teachers hired by Canyon ISD ( 50 total) are our graduates/completers. In 2016, 100% of teachers hired ( 46 total) are WTAMU graduates/completers. Disaggregated district data for Canyon ISD are provided in the Addendum Exhibits.

The EPP’s analysis of hiring trends for Canyon ISD demonstrates high employer satisfaction with 100% of all teachers hired in 2014, 2015, and 2016 are our graduates/completers with undergraduate and graduate degrees from WTAMU.

The hiring, retention, and promotion data from our primary partners in Amarillo and Canyon ISD demonstrate employer satisfaction with the teacher candidate production of our EPP. For example, of the 717 completers in 2010-2012, 529 were employed at 73.8% as the highest employment rate for WTAMU of the five institutions presented as previously stated in the SSR Addendum.

Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and Human Resource Directors from districts in our service area provided data that supports their hiring, retention, and promotion of our completers within their districts. Additional data from Dumas, Hereford, and Pampa ISDs are provided in the SSR Addendum Exhibits. Many of these same district leaders are also products of WTAMU and have been promoted to the positions they now hold as school Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents, and Human Resource Directors. The data they have graciously provided to the EPP is provided in the Addendum Exhibits. Many of our partners will also be invited to participate and to offer their availability during our onsite review.

Analysis of the five-year retention rates for the EPP and other sample institutions in SSR Exhibit 4.3.1 indicated that of 699 applicants to WTAMU, 646 were retained and 413 completed the program in 2012-2013. Of the 717 completers in 2010-2012, 529 were employed at 73.8%. This employment rate for WTAMU was the highest employment rate of the five institutions presented. Reported in FY2012-2013, the WTAMU five-year retention rate for 420 completers of 2007-2008, 294 were retained at 70.0%. The WTAMU five-year retention rate was second to Tarleton State University to the sample group of the five institutions reported. WTAMU’s five-year retention rate exceeded the rates of Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, and Prairie View A&M University.

Please see the EPP’s previous response in the SSR Addendum on pages 119-121. Thank you.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE16) Principal Survey Results (2013-2015)].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE39) Validity and Reliability Studies].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE58) Hiring, Retention, and Promotion of Completer Data].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE88) Retention Rates].

[See also SSR Exhibit 1.1.7 ASEP and LBB Performance Measures 2012-2013].

Area for Improvement: Satisfaction of Completers: There is little evidence that the provider demonstrates, using measures that result in valid and reliable data, that program completers perceive their preparation as relevant to the responsibilities they confront on the job, and that the preparation was effective.

Rationale: The EPP provides measures of completer satisfaction but failed to show the original instruments validity and reliability.

Response:

The methods for conducting validation studies for the EPP include an examination of Uniform Assessment Guidelines and to discuss the following three methods of conducting validation studies within the EPP. The Guidelines describe conditions under which each type of validation strategy is appropriate. They do not express a preference for any one strategy to demonstrate the job-relatedness of a test.

  • Criterion-related validation requires demonstration of a correlation or other statistical relationship between test performance and job performance. In other words, individuals who score high on the test tend to perform better on the job than those who score low on the test. If the criterion is obtained at the same time the test is given, it is called concurrent validity; if the criterion is obtained at a later time, it is called predictive validity.

  • Content-related validation requires a demonstration that the content of the test represents important job-related behaviors. In other words, test items should be relevant to and measure directly important requirements and qualifications for the job of teaching.

  • Construct-related validation requires a demonstration that the test measures the construct or characteristic it claims to measure, and that this characteristic is important to successful performance on the job.

For the EPP, an assessment test is considered "good" if the following can be said about the test:

  • The test measures what it claims to measure consistently or reliably. This means that if a person were to take the test again, the person would get a similar test score.

  • The test measures what it claims to measure. For example, a test of mental ability does in fact measure mental ability, and not some other characteristic.

  • The test is job-relevant. In other words, the test measures one or more characteristics that are important to the job.

  • By using the test, more effective decisions can be made about candidates.

The degree to which a test has these qualities is indicated by the two technical properties of reliability and validity. The EPP has requested additional reliability and validity data from Dr. Tim Miller of TEA.

On the TEA Exit Surveys from 2012-2015, of the 53 questions asked completers, the last question asked: “What is your overall evaluation of how well the educator preparation program prepared you? Select the one statement that most closely matches your current overall perspective on the program”.

Analyses of the survey results for 2014-2015 demonstrate that of WTAMU (N=381) and state (N=21,435) completers who submitted the survey:

  • 27% WTAMU and 26% state chose the statement: “I was sufficiently prepared by the program for the first year of teaching”; and

  • 71% WTAMU and 73% state selected the statement: “I was well prepared by the program for the first year of teaching”.

  • As evidenced by these data, 98% of WTAMU completers felt sufficiently and/or well prepared for their first year of teaching.

  • Only two percent selected the statement: “I did not feel sufficiently prepared for the first year of teaching”.

For 2013-2014, statements selected by WTAMU (N=351) and state (N=21,293) responses on the TEA Exit Survey included:

  • 25% WTAMU and 25% state selected the one statement: “I was sufficiently prepared by the program for the first year of teaching”; and

  • 74% WTAMU and 73% state chose the statement: “I was well prepared by the program for the first year of teaching”.

  • These data indicate that 99% of WTAMU completers felt sufficiently and/or well prepared for their first year of teaching.

  • Only one percent selected the statement: “I did not feel sufficiently prepared for the first year of teaching”.

EPP analyses of survey results for 2012-2013 demonstrate that WTAMU (N=289) and state (N=190,017) responses chose the statement:

  • 29% WTAMU and 24% state chose the statement: “I was sufficiently prepared by the program for the first year of teaching”; and

  • 69% WTAMU and 74% state selected the statement: “I was well prepared by the program for the first year of teaching”.

  • These data demonstrate that 98% of WTAMU completers felt sufficiently and/or well prepared for their first year of teaching.

  • Some errors appear to be the number of state (N=190,000) and the reported percentages for the last two statements. The percentages do not add up correctly for Question 53.

In the SSR Addendum and Addendum Exhibits, the EPP has demonstrated using the valid and reliable state-released data of the TEA Exit Surveys (2012-2015) that our program completers perceived their preparation had sufficiently and/or well prepared them for their first year of teaching for completer satisfaction. The complete surveys as provided as evidence in the Addendum Exhibits.

Please see the EPP’s previous response in the SSR Addendum.

Thank you.

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE39) Validity and Reliability Studies].

[See Addendum Exhibit (AE80) TEA Completer Exit Surveys (2013-2015)].