Tulare County Office of Education BTSA Induction Consortium

Tulare County Office of Education BTSA Induction Consortium Biennial Report 5/17/10 Page 1 of 15

Local Educational Agency CD Code 54-10546 Section A, Part I: Contextual Information Biennial Report Contextual Information Program Information Number of Schools Type of BTSA Induction Program Support Provider Model Used 07/08 08/09 09/10 Classroom-based Elementary 75 69 45 Full-time Released Middle 17 13 11 Consortium Part-time Released High 16 18 17 Retired Charter/Private 1 2 3 Participant Information Formative Assessment System 07/08 08/09 09/10 07/08 08/09 09/10 Number of Participating Teachers in Program Number of candidates recommended for Clear MS 170/171 105/171 135/108 150 157 This data (Year 1 / Year 2) or SS Credential (including ECO candidates) will be available in Number of Support Providers in Program Total number of Participating Teachers assigned to July 2010 207 169 127 299 238 and included supporting Participating Teacher (s) School Improvement or SAIT-identified settings in the next Total number of SPs assigned to School Biennial Candidate: Support Provider Radio 1.6:1 1.6:1 1.9:1 181 147 Report. Improvement or SAIT-identified settings Number of Participating Teachers Other relevant information recommended for Clear Credential via Early Completion Option 12 6 8 Program Standard(s) Changed from CFASST to FACT Visalia USD left Consortium to go back on their own Program Changes Significant changes made since the last Biennial Report or Program Assessment Review Explanation of Change 09/10 transition year; 10/11 full implementation 08/09 transition year; 09/10 full departure Program Specific Participating Teacher Information Year Number of Participating Teachers Number of Completers/Graduates Year 1 Year 2 07/08 170 171 150 08/09 105 171 157 09/10 135 108 This data will be available in July 2010 and included in the next Biennial Report. FACT Page 2 of 15

IHE Partners (include contact names) California State University, Fresno Fresno Pacific University Chapman University Program Sponsorship and Administration Advisory Board Members (include contact names) One from each active Consortium member (usually Superintendent, Personnel Director, or their designee) 07/08 57 members 08/09 50 members 09/10 48 members Attach Program Organizational Chart (Identify where the BTSA Induction Program Director is located) Tulare County Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Induction Consortium Administrative Organizational Chart LEA: TCOE Superintendent Assistant Superintendent, Instructional Services Additional Credential Programs sponsored by LEA (if applicable) Consortium is for the purpose of BTSA Induction only Statewide BTSA Induction Programs Program Director Program Coordinator Leadership Team District Superintendent Staff Development Providers Trainers Field Experience Reviewers Program Specialist Site Administration Participating Teachers and Support Providers Program Assistants Page 3 of 15

Section A, Part II: Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information Part IIa: Program Effectiveness Candidate Competence Assessment Tool (4-6 key assessments) New Mid-Year Survey 2009/10 End of the Year State Survey 2007/08 and 2008/09 Retention Data SA PT Follow-up Feedback Survey 2009/10 FACT Formative Assessment Context for Teaching Module FACT Formative Assessment Initial Assessment of Teaching Practice Module Description of Tool Include the assessment tool s range of responses (e.g. 1 to 5 scale, 1 = low) This survey was developed locally based on the CSTP and BTSA Induction Standards. There is a PT, SP, and SA version. Most questions are scored on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = strongly disagree). PT survey question #11 and SP question #15 are scored on a 1 to 5 scale. The survey is developed by the state BTSA Induction Task Force. There is a PT, SP, and SA version. It is taken online at the end of each year. Each BTSA Induction Program is sent aggregated data each summer. Most questions are scored on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 = strongly disagree). The data is organized so comparison can be made between 07/08 and 08/09 results. This data is collected by BTSA Induction Staff from multiple sources (district personnel staff, direct phone calls, Google searches, etc.) and submitted online at the state BTSA Induction website. This data includes teaching status of teachers two to five years out of the BTSA Induction program. The state, in turn, sends the compiled data back to the individual BTSA Induction programs. This survey was developed locally to collect data related to BTSA Induction graduates and their CSTP/Induction Standards effectiveness (as they relate to candidate competence) as they continue in their career. The survey is scaled on a 1 to 4 continuum (1 = not effective/4=very effective). The director collected data via face-to-face or phone interviews with the Leadership Team representative from each member district. PTs submit an electronic copy of the FACT documents Documents are scored by trained field experience reviewers Scores of 2 or better meet the standard; scores of 1 are remediated Consortium approved rubrics are used to establish expected results for scores 1-3 o 1 limited, needs work (advise and assist) o 2 good (complete minimum candidate competence) o 3 very good (thoroughly and thoughtfully done maturing beginning competence) PTs submit an electronic copy of the FACT documents Documents are scored by trained field experience reviewers Scores of 2 or better meet the standard; scores of 1 are remediated Consortium approved rubrics are used to establish expected results for scores 1-3 o 1 limited, needs work (advise and assist) o 2 good (complete minimum candidate competence) o 3 very good (thoroughly and thoughtfully done maturing beginning competence) Page 4 of 15

Candidate Competence Assessment Tool (4-6 key assessments) FACT Formative Assessment Inquiry Module FACT Formative Assessment Summary of Teaching Module Program Completion Description of Tool Include the assessment tool s range of responses (e.g. 1 to 5 scale, 1 = low) PTs submit an electronic copy of the FACT documents Documents are scored by trained field experience reviewers Scores of 2 or better meet the standard; scores of 1 are remediated Consortium approved rubrics are used to establish expected results for scores 1-3 o 1 limited, needs work (advise and assist) o 2 good (complete minimum candidate competence) o 3 very good (thoroughly and thoughtfully done maturing beginning competence) PTs submit an electronic copy of the FACT documents Documents are scored by trained field experience reviewers Scores of 2 or better meet the standard; scores of 1 are remediated Consortium approved rubrics are used to establish expected results for scores 1-3 o 1 limited, needs work (advise and assist) o 2 good (complete minimum candidate competence) o 3 very good (thoroughly and thoughtfully done maturing beginning competence) Program Completion Report (this report lists all program requirements including formative assessment). 100% completion is needed to successfully exit the program. Part IIb: Assessment Tool New Mid-Year Survey 2009/10 Summary of Data Include descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, range, percentage, standard deviation) PT Survey #4 My SP is knowledgeable and able to assist me with: content standards... mean 3.65... std. dev. 0.63 performance levels of students... mean 3.59... std. dev. 0.69 classroom management... mean 3.67... std. dev. 0.65 teaching EL students... mean 3.60... std. dev. 0.64 CSTPs... mean 3.72... std. dev. 0.58 development of the formative assessment process... mean 3.59... std. dev. 0.69 teaching Special Populations students... mean 3.49... std. dev. 0.71 using technology to advance student achievement... mean 3.37... std. dev. 0.78 analyzing student work... mean 3.57... std. dev. 0.73 % of Respondents PT: 94.2% SP: 90.5% SA: 65.6% Total # of Participants PT: 243 SP: 127 SA: 32 #11 Rank following from 1 to 5 with 5 being the most valuable aspect of this induction program: SP/PT relationship... mean 4.12... std. dev. 1.20 Professional Development received... mean 3.55... std. dev. 1.28 Formative Assessment process... mean 2.77... std. dev. 1.27 Page 5 of 15

Assessment Tool Summary of Data Include descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, range, percentage, standard deviation) Reflective practice... mean 3.36... std. dev. 1.27 PTRA cycle... mean 3.38... std. dev. 1.23 % of Respondents Total # of Participants SP Survey #4 I am knowledgeable and able to assist my PT with the teaching of: content standards... mean 3.75... std. dev. 0.46 performance levels of students... mean 3.79... std. dev. 0.41 classroom management... mean 3.89... std. dev. 0.32 teaching EL students... mean 3.71... std. dev. 0.46 CSTPs... mean 3.72... std. dev. 0.45 formative assessment process... mean 3.75... std. dev. 0.45 teaching Special Pop.... mean 2.67... std. dev. 0.49 using technology to advance student achievement... mean 3.42... std. dev. 0.63 analyzing student work... mean 3.85... std. dev. 0.36 #14 How valuable are the following in my development as an SP: Formative Assessment training... mean 3.44... std. dev. 0.62 Network meetings/ collaboration... mean 3.14... std. dev. 0.71 Informal meetings with other SPs... mean 3.07... std. dev. 0.86 Standards info (Induction Standards & CSTPs)... mean 3.39... std. dev. 0.66 Site Admin assistance... mean 3.02... std. dev. 0.89 Professional Development opportunities... mean 3.16... std. dev. 0.80 #15 - Rank following from 1 to 5 with 5 being the most valuable aspect of this induction program: SP/PT relationship... mean 4.58... std. dev. 0.91 Professional Development received... mean 2.93... std. dev. 1.47 Formative Assessment process... mean 2.75... std. dev. 1.36 Reflective practice... mean 3.56... std. dev. 1.16 PTRA cycle... mean 3.61... std. dev. 1.14 SA Survey #7 The TCOE BTSA Induction Consortium staff is responsive to the needs of both PTs and SPs... mean 3.47... std. dev. 0.60 Participating Teachers need additional support to help them more effectively: #8 apply the state-adopted CONTENT STANDARDS, CURRICULUM FRAMEWORKS, TEXTBOOKS, and other INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS in daily instructional practice... mean 3.25... std. dev. 0.84 #9 use/incorporate the TECHNOLOGY necessary to support student learning in daily instructional practice Page 6 of 15

Assessment Tool End of the Year State Survey 2007/08 and 2008/09 Summary of Data Include descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, range, percentage, standard deviation)... mean 3.25... std. dev. 0.84 #10 apply in daily instructional practice the strategies necessary to support the learning of DIVERSE STUDENTS and provide EQUITABLE ACCESS to the core curriculum for all students... mean 3.38... std. dev. 0.68 #11 apply the strategies necessary to create a HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT for student learning in daily instructional practice... mean 3.18... std. dev. 0.81 #12 apply the strategies necessary to support ENGLISH LEARNERS in daily instructional practice... mean 3.38... std. dev. 0.80 #13 apply the strategies necessary to support SPECIAL POPULATIONS (e.g., gifted, 504, special education, and at-risk students) in daily instructional practice... mean 3.50... std. dev. 0.66 #14 Participating Teachers need additional support to help them more effectively work with families of students... mean 3.02... std. dev. 0.77 PT Survey 07/08 08/09 #8 Overall, how often were the following types of informal support offered through BTSA in a timely manner to meet your needs: work with SP... mean 3.24, std. dev. 0.73... mean 3.28, std. dev. 0.77 work with other teachers/specialists... mean 2.76, std. dev. 0.83... mean 2.78, std. dev. 0.89 workshops/seminars/courses... mean 2.66, std. dev. 0.85... mean 2.77, std. dev. 0.78 % of Respondents PT: 07/08: 99.7% 08/09: 99.6% Total # of Participants PT: 07/08: 341 08/09: 276 #9 Please indicate approximately how often you engaged in the following assessment activities: SP formal or informal observation of my teaching... mean 1.84, std. dev. 0.99... mean 2.46, std. dev. 0.58 Collection of evidence of my teaching practice... mean 2.68, std. dev. 0.73... mean 3.01, std. dev. 0.68 Analysis of student work... mean 2.65, std. dev. 0.78... mean 3.18, std. dev. 0.86 Observation of experienced teachers... mean 1.06, std. dev. 0.98... mean 1.90, std. dev. 0.67 In-depth inquiry into my teaching practice... mean 2.28, std. dev. 1.00... mean 2.82, std. dev. 0.84 Reflection on my teaching... mean 2.83, std. dev. 0.58... mean 3.37, std. dev. 0.71 Examination of teaching against specific criteria... mean 2.04, std. dev. 1.04... mean 2.65, std. dev. 0.66 SP: 07/08: 84.1% 08/09: 85.2% SP: 07/08: 207 08/09: 169 #11b In your BTSA experience, by the end of the school year, which CSTP will you have investigated through your FA system? Engaging and Supporting all Students in Learning... 97.5%... 96.8% Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments... 96.2%... 94.3% Understanding and Organizing Subject Matter... 90.6%... 95.6% Planning Instruction/Designing Learning Experience... 91.8%... 93.7% Assessing Student Learning... 96.2%... 96.8% Developing as a Professional Educator... 91.2%... 92.4% Page 7 of 15

Assessment Tool Summary of Data Include descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, range, percentage, standard deviation) 07/08 08/09 #14 How clear were the following aspects of the BTSA Program: Requirements and expectations for BTSA participation... mean 2.64, std. dev. 0.75... mean 2.77, std. dev. 0.75 How to use FA to improve your teaching practice... mean 2.50, std. dev. 0.74... mean 2.63, std. dev. 0.79 Your BTSA plan for professional growth, e.g. IIP... mean 2.46, std. dev. 0.79... mean 2.62, std. dev. 0.77 % of Respondents Total # of Participants #18 BTSA Induction program s formative assessment and professional development activities helped you: Improve your teaching knowledge and skills... mean 2.56, std. dev. 0.84... mean 2.58, std. dev. 0.88 Improve your ability to use standards-based instruction... mean 2.33, std. dev. 0.92... mean 2.46, std. dev. 0.91 Improve your ability to use standards-based assessment.. mean 2.33, std. dev. 0.88... mean 2.45, std. dev. 0.89 Meet your students differing needs... mean 2.51, std. dev. 0.81... mean 2.48, std. dev. 0.92 Understand performance levels for students... mean 2.40, std. dev. 0.87... mean 2.36, std. dev.0.89 Use technology to support student learning... mean 2.19, std. dev. 0.92... mean 2.11, std. dev. 0.92 Teach English learners... mean 2.23, std. dev. 0.84... mean 2.42, std. dev. 0.90 Create a supportive and healthy environment for learning... mean 2.46, std. dev. 0.89... mean 2.50, std. dev. 0.87 Address equity and diversity in your teaching... mean 2.47, std. dev. 0.85... mean 2.50, std. dev. 0.90 Teach special student populations... mean 2.30, std. dev. 0.87... mean 2.24, std. dev. 0.87 Classroom management... mean 2.40, std. dev. 0.89... mean 2.50, std. dev. 1.00 Analyze student work... mean 2.53, std. dev. 0.88... mean 2.51, std. dev. 0.92 Work with families of students... mean 1.99, std. dev. 0.89... mean 2.13, std. dev. 0.90 Subject matter pedagogy... mean 2.20, std. dev. 0.86... mean 2.32, std. dev. 0.88 Improve student achievement... mean 2.28, std. dev. 0.84... mean 2.45, std. dev. 0.89 SP Survey #3 How useful was the formative assessment training in the following areas: Understanding the local context for teaching... mean 3.14, std. dev. 0.83... mean 3.16, std. dev. 0.83 Diverse needs of beginning teachers... mean 3.00, std. dev. 0.90... mean 3.11, std. dev. 0.85 Using formative assessment instruments... mean 3.13, std. dev. 0.88... mean 3.27, std. dev. 0.81 Using evidence to examine beginning teaching practice... mean 3.13, std. dev. 0.90... mean 3.17, std. dev. 0.84 Engaging in reflective conversations about teaching practice... mean 3.36, std. dev. 0.80... mean 3.39, std. dev. 0.74 Develop individualized induction plans with PTs... mean 3.05, std. dev. 0.87... mean 3.18, std. dev. 0.80 #4 How would you describe the knowledge and skills of the various BTSA professional development providers in the following areas: Beginning teacher development... mean 3.55, std. dev. 0.59... mean 3.56, std. dev. 0.60 Page 8 of 15

Assessment Tool Summary of Data Include descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, range, percentage, standard deviation) 07/08 08/09 The CSTPs... mean 3.69, std. dev. 0.49... mean 3.73, std. dev. 0.49 Formative assessments processes... mean 3.53, std. dev. 0.61... mean 3.60, std. dev. 0.59 Student academic content standards and frameworks... mean 3.40, std. dev. 0.68... mean 3.49, std. dev. 0.64 Interpersonal communication skills... mean 3.58, std. dev. 0.62... mean 3.57, std. dev. 0.59 Knowledge of adult learning theory... mean 3.31, std. dev. 0.78... mean 3.36, std. dev. 0.75 % of Respondents Total # of Participants #6 During this school year, how often did you have an opportunity to meet with other SPs for professional development and/or problem solving? 1 = 1 or 2 times, 2 = 1x every 2-3 months, 3 = 1x/month, 4 = >1x/month... mean 1.95, std. dev. 1.06... mean 1.77, std. dev. 1.04 #14 How clear were the following aspects of your BTSA program? Goals and Designs... mean 3.19, std. dev. 0.78... mean 3.32, std. dev. 0.69 Roles and responsibilities of SPs... mean 3.44, std. dev. 0.72... mean 3.54, std. dev. 0.64 BTSA Induction Program Completion Requirements... mean 3.18, std. dev. 0.77... mean 3.35, std. dev. 0.72 Articulation with teacher training programs... mean 2.86, std. dev. 0.90... mean 2.96, std. dev. 0.82 #16 To what extent do you agree that your BTSA formative assessment system (CFASST, FACT, or local system) is: Fair and representing your BTSA teachers skills and abilities... mean 2.86, std. dev. 0.82... mean 2.89, std. dev. 0.80 Effective in supporting your teachers professional development... mean 2.76, std. dev. 0.91... mean 2.87, std. dev. 0.83 Connected to IIP/ILP goals from year to year... mean 2.90, std. dev. 0.79... mean 3.00, std. dev. 0.80 #17 To what extent do you believe that BTSA helped your PTs: Improve their teaching knowledge and skills... mean 3.08, std. dev. 0.71... mean 3.11, std. dev. 0.70 Improve their ability to use standards-based instruction... mean 2.97, std. dev. 0.79... mean 3.06, std. dev. 0.68 Improve their ability to use standards-based assessment.. mean 3.10, std. dev. 0.74... mean 3.06, std. dev. 0.70 Meeting their students differing needs... mean 3.02, std. dev. 0.75... mean 3.07, std. dev. 0.71 Understand performance levels for students... mean 2.98, std. dev. 0.78... mean 3.06, std. dev. 0.67 Use technology to support student learning... mean 2.44, std. dev. 0.84... mean 2.47, std. dev. 0.89 Teach English learners... mean 2.75, std. dev. 0.85... mean 2.78, std. dev. 0.78 Create a supportive and healthy environment for learning... mean 3.08, std. dev. 0.76... mean 3.13, std. dev. 0.75 Address equity and diversity in teaching... mean 2.92, std. dev. 0.79... mean 2.99, std. dev. 0.75 Teach special populations... mean 2.80, std. dev. 0.79... mean 2.77, std. dev. 0.76 Page 9 of 15

Assessment Tool Retention Data SA PT Follow-up Feedback Survey 2009/10 Summary of Data Include descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, range, percentage, standard deviation) 07/08 08/09 Classroom management... mean 3.16, std. dev. 0.82... mean 3.11, std. dev. 0.83 Analyze student work... mean 3.08, std. dev. 0.72... mean 3.06, std. dev. 0.79 Work with families of students... mean 2.43, std. dev. 0.83... mean 2.50, std. dev. 0.78 Subject matter pedagogy... mean 2.77, std. dev. 0.84... mean 2.89, std. dev. 0.80 Student achievement... mean 2.89, std. dev. 0.80... mean 2.96, std. dev. 0.75 2 year retention rate Program Statewide Teaching 92.8% 84.4% Leadership -- 0.1% On leave -- 0.2% Not teaching -- 3.1% Unknown 1.8% 7.0% Substitute 4.5% 5.2% 4 year retention rate Program Statewide Teaching 86.0% 83.9% Leadership 0.6% 0.5% On leave 1.7% 0.5% Not teaching 3.5% 3.2% Unknown 8.1% 10.6% Substitute -- 1.4% 3 year retention rate Program Statewide Teaching 93.0% 82.3% Leadership 0.5% 0.2% On leave -- 0.4% Not teaching 1.1% 3.3% Unknown 4.3% 10.1% Substitute 1.1% 3.7% 5 year retention rate Program Statewide Teaching 85.6% 82.9% Leadership 1.9% 0.6% On leave 1.3% 0.4% Not teaching 4.4% 2.7% Unknown 5.6% 12.6% Substitute 0.6% 0.6% On average, to what extent have your (former) BTSA Induction participants demonstrated effectiveness in applying their knowledge and skills (candidate competence) in the following CSTP/Induction Standards areas? Addressing equity and diversity in teaching... mean 3.42... std. dev. 0.56 Creating a supportive and healthy classroom for student learning mean 3.68... std. dev. 0.48 Classroom management... mean 3.48... std. dev. 0.63 Teaching English learners... mean 3.26... std. dev. 0.73 Teaching Special Populations... mean 3.23... std. dev. 0.62 Understanding performance levels for students... mean 3.58... std. dev. 0.56 Using technology to support student learning... mean 3.45... std. dev. 0.68 Improving student achievement... mean 3.48... std. dev. 0.72 Working with families of students... mean 3.03... std. dev. 0.80 Collaborating with colleagues... mean 3.68... std. dev. 0.54 % of Respondents Total # of Participants 95.6% 409 97% 32 Page 10 of 15

Assessment Tool FACT Formative Assessment Context for Teaching Module FACT Formative Assessment Initial Assessment of Teaching Practice Module FACT Formative Assessment Inquiry Module FACT Formative Assessment Summary of Teaching Module Program Completion Summary of Data Include descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, range, percentage, standard deviation) Rubric score PT passing rate mean std. dev. 1 st review... 34.8%... 2.76... 0.67 2 nd review... 30.4%... 2.54... 0.77 3 rd or more... 34.8%... 2.55... 0.65 Rubric score PT passing rate mean std. dev. 1 st review... 51.9%... 2.76... 0.98 2 nd review... 18.5%... 2.71... 0.61 3 rd or more... 29.6%... 2.63... 0.69 This data will be available in July 2010 and included in the next Biennial Report. This data will be available in July 2010 and included in the next Biennial Report. % of Respondents The percentage of PT completion by June 30 th (of year 2) was 88% for 07/08 and 92% for 08/09. 07/08: 88% 08/09: 92% Total # of Participants 100% 134 99% 134 07/08: 171 08/09: 171 Page 11 of 15

Section A, Part III: Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data Program Effectiveness Areas of Strength Mid-Year Survey Based on the survey (i.e. mean scores, etc.), the following items have been identified as strengths: SP/PT relationship is the most valuable aspect of the program (as stated by PTs and SPs) Both SPs and PTs feel the SPs have strengths to share in the following areas: o Content Standards o Classroom management o CSTPs End of Year Survey Based on the following items from the End of Year Survey (SP and PT), the program is trending positive (improving) [according to the mean scores]: Survey & Question # PT SP #4 #8 #9 #11 #14 #18 #14 #17 In general, the professional development providers enhance the foundations of BTSA Induction (CSTPs, standards, beginning teacher development) Time spent working with Support Provider met PT needs Time spent with SP in formal/informal interactions o Time spent analyzing student work o Time spent on in-depth inquiry into teaching practice Time spent investigating CSTPs via FA The goals, design, and expectations of the BTSA program were clear & understood FA and professional development activities helped PTs o Improve teaching knowledge and skills Areas for Growth Mid-Year Survey Based on the survey (i.e. mean scores, etc), the following items have been identified as areas for improvement: SPs and PTs agree (originally 3.42 and 3.37 respectively on a 4-point scale) that SPs knowledge and their ability to assist PTs in using technology to advance student achievement is an area that could be enhanced. SAs indicated (3.5 on a 4-point scale) that PTs need additional support to help them more effectively apply the strategies necessary to support Special Populations in daily instructional practice. End of Year Survey Based on the following items from the End of Year Survey (SP and PT), the program is trending negative (needs improvement) [according to the mean scores]: Survey & Question # PT SP #18 #6 #17 Meeting with other SPs for professional development and problem solving. Both low mean scores and a negative trend indicate the need for more SP-SP interactions. FA and professional development activities helped PTs o Teach special student populations Page 12 of 15

Candidate Competence Areas of Strength o Improve ability to use standards-based instruction o Create a supportive and healthy environment for learning o Work with families of students o Subject matter pedagogy o Improve student achievement Retention Data Retention data indicates that completers of our program are successfully continuing in their education careers. As the years go by, more teachers move into leadership roles. Our programs combined teaching and leadership percentages for years 2-5 are 92.8%, 93.5%, 86.6%, and 87.5%. Statewide percentages for those years are 84.5%, 82.5%, 84.4%, and 83.5%. Our program out-performs the statewide results every year. FACT Context for Teaching, Initial Assessment of Teaching Module According to the mean rubric scores for the modules, candidates performed between good/complete (rubric score 3 minimum candidate competence) and very good/thoroughly and thoughtfully completed (rubric score 2 maturing beginning competence). SA PT Follow-up Feedback Survey The survey results indicated that our program graduates have proved themselves to be effective to very effective (candidate competence) in the following CSTP/Induction Standards Categories: Addressing equity and diversity in teaching Teaching English learners Teaching special populations Areas for Growth o Analyze student work FACT Context for Teaching, Initial Assessment of Teaching Module PT first time passing rates for Modules were a clear indication of a need for improvement: o Context for Teaching: 1 st time passing rate 34.8%, mean 2.76, std. dev. 0.67 o Initial Assessment of Teaching Practice: 1 st time passing rate 51.9%, mean 2.76, std. dev. 0.98 In one sense, the mean score indicates that at least minimum candidate competence has been achieved. The program, however, also looks at this as an area for growth because we desire to move the mean closer to maturing beginning competence in the future. Program Completion The percentage of PT completion by June 30 th (of year 2) was 88% for 07/08 and 92% for 08/09. This needs to be watched for future trends that would indicate the need for intervention. If the percentage remains above 90% in the future, no intervention actions will be taken. SA PT Follow-up Feedback Survey The survey results for Working with Families of Students was only in the somewhat effective to effective range. Page 13 of 15

Areas of Strength Using technology to support student learning Improving student achievement The survey referenced the highest marks for four areas of Candidate Competence: Creating a supportive and healthy classroom for student learning Classroom management Understanding performance levels for students Collaborating with colleagues Areas for Growth Section A, Part IV: Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance Program Effectiveness Data Source (Part III Area of Growth) Mid-Year Surveys SPs would benefit from additional technology training as it relates to student achievement. Common/Program Standard(s) Program Standard 5 Plan of Action or Proposed Changes SPs and PTs alike will be offered additional training in the use of technology to advance student achievement. Five new technology offerings have been added to the 2010-2011 professional development available to SPs and PTs. Mid-Year Survey SA Indicate that PTs need additional support to help them more effectively apply the strategies necessary to support Special Populations in daily instructional practice. End of Year Surveys SPs indicated that PTs need help with Teaching Special Populations and analyzing student work. Program Standard 6 Program leadership is working with county office Special Education experts to develop additional staff development that has been proven effective in facilitating the teaching of Special Populations. These professional development offerings will be piloted in 2010-2011. Training scripts for SPs training of the process for analyzing student work will be in place for 2010-11 during both veteran and new SP training sessions. End of Year Surveys Poor mean scores and a negative trend for SP-SP interaction and professional development. Program Standard 3 SPTalk (an online listserve) is being tested to enhance SP-SP interaction. SPgenerated questions, answers, and discussions are available to all SPs in the program. Program leadership monitors the listserve and gives input when necessary. SP staff development sessions with dedicated agenda time for SP-SP Page 14 of 15

Candidate Competence/ Performance Data Source (Part III Area of Growth) FACT context for Teaching, Initial Assessment of Teaching PT first time passing rates for the FACT Modules were clear indications of a need for improvement: Context for Teaching: 1 st time passing rate 34.8%, mean 2.76, std. dev. 0.67 Initial Assessment of Teaching: 1 st time passing rate 51.9%, mean 2.76, std. dev. 0.98 Common/Program Standard(s) Program Standard 4 Plan of Action or Proposed Changes interaction time are being piloted this spring (as a result of this study). The feedback so far (via professional development evaluations) indicates that problem solving and team building between SPs will enhance the work with their PTs and the formative assessment. The training script will be reviewed and modified to emphasize the specific requirements, purpose, and needed quality for candidate competence to be achieved. Samples of the acceptable documentation will be made available for SP review and training. This is our pilot year of using the new FACT formative assessment system. The experiences and exemplars that have been developed during this pilot year point towards much improved implementation in years to come. BTSA Staff have already developed an enhanced scoring rubric (with narratives describing what is expected as indications of candidate competence) that will be shared with SPs and PTs to help define what is needed to show candidate competence. Our program is working with another Cluster program to enhance our Exit Interview process to make it possible to additionally affirm the candidate competence that is already indicated by formative assessment evidence and completion rates. The plans of action mentioned above will be put in place to advance the goal of a mean score closer to rubric score 3 maturing beginning competence. Program Completion The Year 2 June 30 th completion rate indicates improvement could be achieved. Program Standard 1 Benchmark timelines for 2010-11 have been moved forward (FACT Module completion, etc.) to facilitate a timely June 30 th program completion. A closer monitoring of PT progress will soon be possible with the new online BTSA Induction Management System (BIMS see note below). The new BIMS tracking program (when fully operational in 2010-11) will make it possible for program leadership to monitor the PTs progress on a monthly basis, allowing additional support (from site/btsa Staff) or intervention to take place in a timely manner. SA PT Follow-Up Feedback Survey PTs Working with Families scored somewhat effective to effective range, indicating room for improvement. Program Standard 5 We will watch this to ascertain if it needs to be addressed in the future. We do not feel intervention is warranted at this time. Note: BIMS was created in-house as an online system used by PTs, SPs, and Field Experience Reviewers to facilitate timely submission, evaluation, and monitoring of FACT and other program required documents. It provides for email interaction and dialog exchange between all program entities (PT, SP, staff, Field Experience Reviewers, etc.). PTs progress through the program can be monitored monthly so mid-course corrections can be made in a timely manner. Page 15 of 15