€¦ · web viewwinton hills academy elementary school black, non-hispanic n no 15 3.4% 8 y no 376...

Potential ways of responding to questions of 7/26/2012

Context To provide context for the data we were able to provide with our Institutional Report, please recognize:

Our Transformation Initiative, first submitted in fall, 2009 (subsequently revised and resubmitted 2010 and 2011) was not reviewed until Spring, 2012. As one of the early Transformation Initiative institutions, we were provided little structure or feedback related to our efforts. We were not fully implementing because we did not have information as to how the Initiative had been perceived.

Our IR was uploaded in April 2012 as required; data for 2012 and the summer are in the process of being summarized and analyzed.

Evidence in some situations (such as the Teacher Performance Assessment) are not under our control.

We will do our best to respond to any data needs or requests as quickly as possible. We have continued to hone our data collection and analysis, and with the change in our web-based assessment tool (now Qualtrics) we are able to more quickly respond to requests.

Question: 82.7% of school-based diversity was reported as unknown

Our initial data collection system of mentor (school-based faculty) qualifications did not include race. The demographics form provided by NCATE related to faculty demographics indicates “include school-based faculty if possible”. The data reported were those provided voluntarily in response to a request to university supervisors. Recognizing the issues related to this incomplete data and our challenges to provide a diverse experience for our candidates, we revised our data collection system and implemented a direct survey at the end of Fall 2011. These are the data from the most recent survey:

Ohio general population: 11.5% black, 1.9 Latino, Asian <1%Hamilton County Public School Teacher Statistics: 93.8% white, 5% black. .6% Latino, .1% American Indian or Alaskan Native, .2% multiracial or did not specify

Mentor Teacher DemographicsResponse %

7-12 English/Language Arts 26 8%7-12 Social Studies 28 9%7-12 Mathematics 29 9%7-12 Sciences 26 8%Multiage Foreign Language 8 3%Early Childhood Education 31 10%Middle Level Education 23 7%Intervention Specialist: Mild/Moderate 43 14%Intervention Specialist: Moderate/Intense 24 8%Multiage Art 21 7%Multiage Music 0 0%

Elementary Education 82 27%Other 61 20% License:Professional 238 78%Permanent (certificate) 54 18%Lead Professional Educator 10 3%Senior Professional Educator 3 1% Education:Masters 245 81%Additional graduate work 52 17%Doctorate 5 2%Total 302 100%Please indicate all that apply to you:National Board Certified 19 14%Resident Educator Mentor or District Mentor 48 35%Teacher Leader Endorsement 32 23%Other awards or recognitions 75 54%Race:Latino of any race 3 1%Black or African American 33 11%American Indian or Alaskan Native 0 0%Asian 5 2%Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0 0%White 263 87%Total 304 100%

Question: Data from current pilot of the focused dispositions assessment were not available

Data collection was still underway when the IR was submitted. The spring pilot of the focused dispositions form yielded these data (items highlighted in yellow are areas for fall discussion with programs):

2012 Pilot of Detailed Dispositions Form for Urban TeachersPlease indicate the focus or foci of this observation. You will then be directed to a specific set of indicators.

# %Rapport and relationships with students 56 45%Communication and classroom language 39 31%Motivating students 24 19%Learning environment 23 18%Instructional management 41 33%Instruction 41 33%Assessment 18 14%Initiative 34 27%Reflection 34 27%Differentiating instruction 17 14%

Culturally responsive instruction 24 19%

Rapport and relationships with students

Stre

ngth

Obs

erve

d so

meti

mes

or

emer

ging

Poin

t for

disc

ussio

n

Resp

onse

s

I-Thou Interaction - interacts with each student at a person to person level 29 14 1 44Calls students by name 28 15 1 44Greets students at the door 10 32 1 43Makes personal conversation with students with more than superficial knowledge 24 17 2 43Smiles 37 7 0 44Makes eye contact 39 3 1 43Active listening - reflects back the emotion in a clarifying statement 29 13 1 43Gives evidence of having heard the student by reflecting the idea of feelings of the student 26 15 1 42Jokes to relieve tension 20 22 1 43Asks questions and makes comments that demonstrate personal interest 30 13 1 44Show humor 25 18 0 43Provides praise and reprimand without producing student embarrassment 25 19 0 44Show respect and give compliments 39 5 0 44Encourages attendance and enthusiastically personally attends extra curricular activities 17 16 6 39

Communication and classroom language

Stre

ngth

Obs

erve

d so

meti

mes

or

emer

ging

Poin

t for

disc

ussio

n

Resp

onse

s

Welcoming tone of voice 24 7 0 31Reflects a calm visage 25 4 0 29Clarifies understanding, recognizing that they may be responsible for the lack of understanding 17 11 1 29Paraphrases and expands on student ideas 16 13 1 30Provides support (e.g., "I appreciate how difficult this seems.") 17 13 1 31Varies pitch, volume, and inflection 15 11 4 30Nods and gestures to encourage and demonstrate enthusiasm 21 9 1 31

Motivating students

Stre

ngth

Obs

erve

d so

meti

mes

or

emer

ging

Poin

t for

disc

ussio

n

Resp

onse

s

Encouraging feedback, such as complimenting sincerely 15 4 1 20Praises the accomplishment/achievement 15 4 1 20Challenges students to think, problem solve, take up the challenge 10 8 3 21Asks questions that intrigue students 5 14 1 20Relates to students experiences in their community, as a class, as members of a school 9 10 1 20

Provides a rationale for the lesson, concept, skill that is accepted by students 8 12 0 20Allows students to make some decisions 14 6 0 20Involves students in discussion, activity, or teaching 18 2 0 20Enforces classroom routines 11 6 0 17Uses cooperative/collaborative learning structures 11 9 0 20Praises the accomplishment/achievement 16 3 1 20

Learning Environment

Stre

ngth

Obs

erve

d so

meti

mes

or

emer

ging

Poin

t for

disc

ussio

n

Resp

onse

s

Written communication is legible, clear, and attractive 16 4 0 20Books readily available in the room 6 7 4 17Relevant posters, changed frequently 11 5 2 18Pictures of the class/students 5 6 4 15Computers/software available and in use for reinforcing instruction 6 7 4 17Videos used as instructional media 10 4 2 16Arranges the classroom to facilitate interaction 6 7 4 17

Instructional Management

Stre

ngth

Obs

erve

d so

meti

mes

or

emer

ging

Poin

t for

disc

ussio

n

Resp

onse

s

Clarifies how the student might use feelings constructively 10 18 0 28Manages classrooms through clear procedures which are verbalized and reviewed 13 19 2 34Provides opportunities to make decisions about procedures 14 18 0 32Refrains from using negative judgments (e.g. should never, everybody ought, any fifth grader would understand this) 27 4 0 31Uses explicit reprimands (In this room people are quiet while others are talking. Please keep quiet for our speaker). 13 19 0 32Makes statements regarding self-management and personal responsibility rather than relying on teacher presence and control 15 15 0 30Moves around the classroom 26 4 3 33Assumes role of learner, listener, supportive adult as needed 26 6 0 32Provides clear rules and procedures 14 17 1 32Actively teaches rules and procedures 15 16 0 31Consistent with rules/procedures 20 12 0 32Reminds students of rules 13 18 0 31Provides nonverbal signals that behaviors need to change 12 17 1 30Consistently and fairly provides natural consequences 7 20 1 28Uses the least intense correction possible 20 10 0 30Ignore minor issues when students continue to be engaged; picks battles 23 8 0 31Use rationale rather than power arguments 16 12 0 28Respond positively to justified criticism 23 6 0 29Provides redundant cues - visual and verbal; kinesthetic and verbal; written and spoken 12 15 1 28Appropriate flexibility in applying rules 17 14 0 31

Makes rules together with students 6 16 2 24

Instruction

Stre

ngth

Obs

erve

d so

meti

mes

or

emer

ging

Poin

t for

disc

ussio

n

Resp

onse

s

Frequent and varied testing 7 17 6 30Provides adequate wait time 12 16 5 33Changes tack when lesson is lagging 8 22 3 33Probe for students' background, beliefs, and interests 19 14 1 34Explain the reason for activities 12 20 2 34Uses content specific pedagogy 21 12 0 33

Assessment

Stre

ngth

Obs

erve

d so

meti

mes

or

emer

ging

Poin

t for

disc

ussio

n

Resp

onse

s

Engages students in evaluating their own work 7 7 0 14Engages students in reviewing their progress 5 9 0 14Varies assessments using: 6 6 1 13learning logs 3 5 2 10performances 6 7 0 13portfolios/work samples 6 6 0 12post-test/pre-test 4 5 2 11questioning 8 5 0 13students as teachers 3 7 0 10

Initiative

Stre

ngth

Obs

erve

d so

meti

mes

or

emer

ging

Poin

t for

disc

ussio

n

Resp

onse

s

Seeks or accepts new tasks 22 5 1 28Acquires resources for teaching 17 9 1 27Identifies a mentor or model teacher who is active, positive, and engaged 12 8 0 20Generates new ideas, relationships, applications, products 15 6 4 25Seeks out and uses data and strategies to address classroom concerns 11 11 2 24Consciously modifies behavior toward students to obtain desirable results 10 12 0 22Makes predictions about the effort of one's behavior on students and tests those predictions 13 8 1 22

Reflection

Stre

ngth

Obs

erve

d so

meti

mes

or

emer

ging

Poin

t for

disc

ussio

n

Resp

onse

s

Separates one's opinions from data 18 5 1 24Verbalizes that conditions or events can improve 19 7 0 26Uses data as opposed to acting on impulse 13 12 0 25Analyzes own behavior 20 6 0 26Believes students are capable of liking him or her 24 3 0 27

Differentiating Instruction

Stre

ngth

Obs

erve

d so

meti

mes

or

emer

ging

Poin

t for

disc

ussio

n

Resp

onse

s

Analyzes student work and reteaches 8 3 0 11Implements IEP identified accommodations and adaptations 3 6 2 11Adaptive technology 4 5 1 10Alternative activities 4 5 0 9Inclusive instruction 8 4 0 12Independent study 3 4 1 8Learning contracts 3 5 1 9One on one 12 1 0 13Peer support 7 4 0 11Small groups 9 3 0 12Varied assignments and activities; no single activity/assignment longer than 20 minutes without movement or change 8 5 0 13Varied texts 7 4 1 12

Culturally Responsive Instruction

Stre

ngth

Obs

erve

d so

meti

mes

or

emer

ging

Poin

t for

disc

ussio

n

Resp

onse

s

Persevere despite challenges that may arise 12 4 0 16Demonstrate commitment to carrying out all objectives, activities, and projects to promote high standards 14 2 0 16Describe challenges through multiple lenses 12 4 0 16Demonstrate unique paths to problem solving 11 3 0 14Hold high expectations 16 0 0 16Emphasize strengths rather than deficits 14 1 0 15Demonstrates self-examination regarding relationships 11 4 0 15Creates learning opportunities adapted to diverse populations 11 3 0 14Ardently interested 12 3 1 16

Persistence 14 2 0 16Value of children's learning 15 1 0 16Putting ideas into practice 12 3 0 15Approach to at-risk students 12 4 0 16Professional/personal orientation to students 12 3 0 15Professional/personal orientation to bureaucracy 10 5 0 15Professional/personal orientation to fallibility 11 4 0 15Strong planning and organization 11 4 1 16

Question: The off-site team was not able to verify any data from these assignments of reflection within an early field experience, if data are ready at this point

Early field experiences are being implemented with the change to semesters in Fall 2012; data are not yet available. Assessments for the assignments in these field experiences are available at: http://www.uc.edu/cech-accreditation/programs/signature-embedded-assessments.html

Question: Half of the advanced candidates’ race/ethnicity reported as unknown

Our data warehouse has recently recoded student data in view of the new federal guidelines. We still have a number of candidates who prefer to indicate “unknown.” In that this is self-reported data it is voluntary, and we have no way to clarify or change the “unknown” race and ethnicity. With the recoding, and pulling data from the 2011-2012 academic year, we were able to derive these data for our advanced candidates:

Race/Ethnicity # PercentAmerican Indian or Alaskan Native 1 0.14%Asian-Pacific Islander 5 0.71%Black, Non-Hispanic 68 9.70%Latino 11 1.60%Non-Resident Alien 3 0.40%White 539 76.90%Mixed Race 6 85.00%Unknown 68 9.70%

701

Question: Can’t determine specifics for diversity in schools within which candidates do field experiences and frequency of schools used

Because of our large number of field experiences, NCATE required evidence is at the district level (see the directions for the data chart provided by NCATE). We have provided those data at 4.4.g. In an effort to provide more thorough evidence, however, we have provided data for the initial program which indicates the number of schools used in each district and the number of placements in those schools.

http://www.uc.edu/cech-accreditation/programs/signature-embedded-assessments.html

We have also provided the individual school data with number of placements for schools in Hamilton County, where all but a few placements are made. Advanced program placements are used by only one or two students each year, so we did not break down those data in that way.

4.4.g Data table on demographics of p-12 students in schools used for clinical practice 2011-2012

Initial Program School Districts

Hisp

anic

/Any

Ra

ce

Nati

ve

Amer

ican

Asia

n

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

Whi

te

Two

or M

ore

Race

s

Pove

rty

Leve

l

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Le

arne

rs

Stud

ents

with

Di

sabi

lities

Num

ber o

f sc

hool

s use

d

Num

ber o

f pl

acem

ents

Batavia Local 2.3% 0.8% 2.5% 89.2% 5.0% 0.5% 13.9% 1 1Tuslaw Local School District 97.8% 0.9% 14.0%

1 1

Bond Hill Academy 94.2% 2.9% 18.6%

1 1

Bridgeport Schools 5.8% 91.1% 2.6% 50.5% 22.0%

1 1

Centerville City Schools 1.8% 0.3% 7.4% 5.3% 81.1% 4.2% 1.7% 11.8%

2 2

Lakota Local Schools 3.9% 0.1% 5.6% 10.0% 76.1% 4.9% 9.7%

12 28

Cincinnati Public Schools 2.6% 0.1% 1.0% 66.9% 24.2% 5.3% 69.7% 3.7% 21.0%

44 318

Clermont North East 1.0% 96.3% 1.8% 42.6% 19.8%

1 1

Covington Independent Public Schools 4.0% 29.0% 56.0% 87.0% 2.0% 20.0%

2 5

Fairfield City Schools 5.7% 0.2% 2.3% 13.9% 73.0% 4.9% 29.4% 3.9% 13.2%

1 1

Fayetteville Perry HS 96.7% 1.8% 34.0%

6 10

Forest Hills Schools 1.5% 2.1% 1.5% 91.7% 3.1% 10.8% 0.5% 10.3%

7 25

Goshen Schools 2.1% 0.7% 94.5% 2.2% 47.8% 19.0% 2 2Hamilton City Schools 8.1% 0.7% 10.7% 75.4% 5.1% 69.2% 4.1% 16.6%

5 15

Hamilton County Department of Developmental Disabilities

Other data are not available100.0%

100.0%

4 45

Indian Hill Exempted Village 2.1% 7.5% 3.6% 83.8% 2.9% 5.1% 0.9% 8.7%

3 3

Dayton Public Schools 3.2% 0.4% 67.1% 25.2% 4.1% 92.5% 3.2% 19.8%

2 2

Kings Local High School 4.2% 2.0% 1.6% 89.1% 3.0% 17.1% 2.0% 13.3%

3 7

Newport Independent

2.0% 12.0% 75.0% 85.0% 2.0% 16.0% 1 8

SchoolsNorth College Hill City Schools 74.5% 17.9% 6.5% 68.8% 0.8% 19.1%

1 5

Norwood Special Learning Center 1.2% 0.6% 8.9% 89.0% 72.1%

100.0%

2 2

Kenton County Schools (KY) 1.3% 40.0% 1.4% 2.3% 95.5% 11.0%

3 3

Advanced Program School Districts

Hisp

anic

/Any

Ra

ce

Nati

ve

Amer

ican

Asia

n

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an

Whi

te

Two

or M

ore

Race

s

Pove

rty

Leve

l

Engl

ish

Lang

uage

Le

arne

rs

Stud

ents

with

Di

sabi

lities

Ashtabula Area City School District

10.60% 0.40% 8.80%

69.20% 10.90% 71.30% 4.70%

19.90%

Bethel Local School District 2.30%

95.20% 12.60% 2.10% 8.90%

Brunswick City Schools 1.70% 1.30% 1.50%

92.70% 2.70% 23.50% 0.70%

10.50%

Cincinnati Public Schools 2.60% 0.10% 1.00% 66.90%

24.20% 5.30% 69.70% 3.70%

21.00%

Claymont City Schools 0.80% 0.70%

95.30% 3.00% 61.00%

22.00%

Cleveland Metropolitan School District

13.20% 0.20% 0.70% 68.20%

14.60% 3.00% 100.00% 6.10%

22.90%

Columbus City Schools 6.80% 0.20% 2.10% 58.90%

27.00% 5.10% 81.90% 9.70%

17.10%

Deer Park Schools 3.00% 2.50% 7.00%

80.80% 6.70% 40.90% 1.60%

14.60%

Fairfield City Schools 5.70% 0.20% 2.30% 13.90%

73.00% 4.90% 29.40% 3.90%

13.20%

Forest Hills Schools 1.50% 2.10% 1.50%

91.70% 3.10% 10.80% 0.50%

10.30%

Hamilton City Schools 8.10% 0.70% 10.70%

75.40% 5.10% 69.20% 4.10%

16.60%

Hilliard City Schools 4.80% 0.20% 6.00% 5.70%

78.70% 4.70% 22.40% 7.30%

11.40%

Lakota Local 3.90% 0.10% 5.60% 10.00%76.10

% 4.30% 14.60% 4.90% 9.70%Lighthouse Community 100% 85%Mad River Schools 5.00% 0.40% 2.30% 8.40%

78.30% 5.70% 51.90% 0.80%

13.00%

Mariemont City Schools 1.00% 1.20% 2.10%

93.20% 2.40% 8.20%

10.10%

Martins Ferry Schools 0.90% 5.40%

87.90% 5.40% 56.20%

20.10%

Mason city Schools 3.30% 0.10%

14.10% 3.50%

75.30% 3.60% 6.40% 2.40% 9.10%

Middletown City6.60% 0.30% 16.20%

67.10% 9.70% 71.50% 4.20%

16.80%

Monroe Local Schools 4.30% 1.40% 3.70%

87.30% 3.20% 25.20% 2.80%

11.30%

New Albany-Plain Local School District 2.90%

10.30% 6.10%

76.70% 4.00% 7.00% 1.90%

11.30%

Nordonia Hills City School District 1.60% 3.40% 12.40%

79.90% 2.50% 21.30% 1.00%

10.20%

North Olmsted City Schools 3.40% 3.10% 2.60%

86.90% 4.00% 38.60% 6.60%

14.20%

Northwest School District 1.70% 1.50% 24.70%

64.90% 7.20% 45.10% 2.10%

14.50%

Norwood City Schools 8.20% 0.60% 9.60%

77.80% 3.40% 60.40% 5.50%

16.10%

Olentangy Local School District 2.30% 0.10% 7.20% 4.00%

82.70% 3.70% 7.40% 1.70%

11.10%

Pickerington Schools 4.40% 0.20% 3.30% 17.90%

66.60% 7.70% 16.60% 2.70%

12.40%

South-Western City Schools District

10.30% 0.20% 2.00% 12.10%

71.00% 4.40% 54.60% 10.90%

14.50%

Springboro Community Schools 1.20% 3.10% 1.60%

91.40% 2.60% 6.30% 0.40%

12.30%

Sycamore Schools 3.30%

11.80% 7.70%

71.60% 5.60% 16.00% 3.70%

10.50%

Upper Arlington Schools 0.90% 6.10% 0.80%

89.60% 2.50% 1.40% 1.10% 8.80%

West Clermont Schools 1.40% 0.10% 1.30% 1.20%

93.70% 2.40% 31.40% 1.10%

14.00%

Individual School Data for Hamilton County (in the format provided by the state):

Org

aniza

tion #

Plac

e-m

ents

Race

Econ

omic

Disa

dvan

tage

Fl

ag

Lim

ited

Engl

ish

Profi

cien

cy F

lag

(Enr

ollm

ent)

2010

-201

1 Sc

hool

Yea

r

2011

-201

2

Enro

llmen

t

Pct o

f Tot

al

Enro

llmen

t

Academy for Multilingual Immersion Studies

Black, Non-Hispanic

N No 32

11.1%

1Y

Yes 45

21.7%

No 216

76.0%

Hispanic Y Yes 69.2

143 %

No 16

5.6%

Multiracial Y No 11

3.9%

Academy Of World Languages Elementary School

Asian Y Yes 33

14.6%

Black, Non-Hispanic

N No 41

12.0%

1Y

Yes 115

51.0%

No 270

78.5%

Hispanic Y Yes 48

21.3%

White, Non-Hispanic Y Yes 16

7.2%

Aiken College and Career High School

Black, Non-HispanicN No

148 22.0

%

10 Y No 480

71.4%

Multiracial Y No 16

2.3%

White, Non-Hispanic N No 12

1.8%

Carson Elementary School


29 4.3

%

Y No 320

47.7%

4 Hispanic Y Yes 21

81.5%

Multiracial Y No 49

7.3%

White, Non-HispanicN No

31 4.5

%

Y No 233

34.8%

Chase Elementary School


14 4.2

%

Y No 270

82.6%

1 Multiracial Y No 14

4.4%

White, Non-Hispanic Y No 22

6.6%

Cheviot Elementary School


17 2.9

%

Y No 154

27.4%


7.4%


73 12.9

%

Y No 263

46.7%

Clark Montessori High School


171 25.3

%

Y No 166

24.6%

MultiracialN No

30 4.4

%

2 Y No 12

1.8%


249 36.9

%

Y No 32

4.8%

College Hill Fundamental Academy


94 19.4

%

Y No 349

72.2%


3.2%


3.4%

Covedale Elementary School


38 6.7

%

Y No 130

22.7%

3Multiracial

N No 19

3.4%

Y No 25

4.4%


197 34.4

%

Y No 152

26.7%

Ethel M. Taylor Academy


62 16.1

%

1 Y No 296

76.7%

Multiracial Y No 18

4.7%

Evanston Academy Elementary School Black, Non-Hispanic

N No 31

7.8%

3 Y No 349

87.0%

Fairview-Clifton German Language School

Asian N No 26

3.8%


67 9.9

%13 Y No 14.3

%

97

Multiracial N No 39

5.7%


393 57.7

%

Y No 38

5.6%

Gilbert A. Dater High School


113 14.8

%

Y No 280

36.8%

11Multiracial

N No 10

1.4%

Y No 20

2.7%


180 23.7

%

Y No 150

19.7%

Hartwell Elementary School


31 8.2

%

Y No 164

43.8%

Hispanic Y Yes 33

79.9%


6.0%


32 8.4

%

Y No 111

29.6%

Hughes Center High School


83 21.2

%

Y No 250

64.0%

13White, Non-Hispanic

N No 31

7.9%

Y No 17

4.3%

Hughes STEM High School


86 17.0

%

Y No 354

69.8%

Multiracial Y No 14

2.7%


N No 25

4.9%

Y No 21

4.1%

James N. Gamble Montessori High

Black, Non-Hispanic N No 72

24.6%

School

Y No 120

40.7%

1 Multiracial N No 13

4.3%


52 17.6

%

Y No 28

9.6%

John P Parker Elementary School


46 10.3

%

Y No 348

77.9%


3.9%


10 2.2

%

Y No 15

3.5%

Midway Elementary School

Black, Non-Hispanic

N No 41

7.1%

YYes

25 47.5

%

No 300

52.3%

2 Hispanic Y Yes 19

35.8%

Multiracial Y No 49

8.6%


33 5.8

%

Y No 139

24.2%

Mt. Airy Elementary School

Black, Non-Hispanic

N No 40

6.9%

YYes

14 69.5

%

5 No 488

83.8%

Multiracial Y No 25

4.3%


2.8%

Mt. Washington Elementary School


30 7.0

%

Y No 89

20.6%

MultiracialN No

12 2.9

%

9 Y No 24

5.6%

White, Non-Hispanic N No 26.0%

113

Y No 156

36.0%

North Avondale Montessori Elementary School


148 30.1

%

Y No 187

37.8%

1Multiracial

N No 29

5.9%

Y No 10

2.0%


89 18.1

%

Y No 14

2.7%

Oyler School


21 3.4

%

Y No 142

22.8%

13 Hispanic Y No 13

2.1%

Multiracial Y No 25

4.0%


67 10.8

%

Y No 352

56.6%

Pleasant Hill Elementary School


62 9.2

%

2 Y No 570

85.1%

Multiracial Y No 19

2.9%

Riverview East Academy


41 8.8

%

Y No 159

33.9%


4.4%


58 12.5

%

Y No 181

38.6%

Robert A. Taft Information Technology High School


114 22.4

%

4 Y No 355

70.1%


4.5%

Roberts Academy: A Paideia Learning


4.7%

Community

Y No 365

71.2%

Hispanic YYes

140>95%

1 No 14

2.7%

Multiracial Y No 43

8.4%


12 2.3

%

Y No 49

9.5%

Rockdale Academy Elementary School


29 6.8

%

3 Y No 345

82.8%

Multiracial Y No 29

7.0%

Roll Hill School


42 7.9

%

1 Y No 458

85.7%

Multiracial Y No 18

3.3%


2.2%

Roselawn Condon Elementary School


56 13.0

%

4 Y No 352

80.9%

Multiracial Y No 13

3.0%

Rothenberg Preparatory Academy

43Black, Non-Hispanic

N No 13

3.9%

Y No 300

93.1%

Sands Montessori Elementary School

Asian N No 10

1.6%


43 6.9

%

Y No 84

13.4%

2Multiracial

N No 39

6.2%

Y No 16

2.5%


355 56.7

%

Y No 70

11.3%

Sayler Park Elementary School

Black, Non-Hispanic Y No 6.3%

20

Multiracial Y No 17

5.4%


N No 39

12.4%

Y No 233

73.1%

School For Creat & Perf Arts High School


283 20.4

%

Y No 536

38.6%

MultiracialN No

45 3.2

%

9 Y No 61

4.4%


341 24.6

%

Y No 102

7.4%

Shroder Paideia High School


163 22.9

%

Y No 487

68.6%

MultiracialN No

10 1.5

%

5 Y No 11

1.6%


22 3.1

%

Y No 12

1.7%

Silverton Paideia Elementary School


45 13.3

%

Y No 243

71.7%


6.5%


11 3.1

%

Y No 11

3.3%

South Avondale Elementary School


27 5.2

%

3 Y No 470

91.2%

Multiracial Y No 13

2.5%

Walnut Hills High School Asian N No

53 2.5

%Black, Non-Hispanic N No

420 19.6

%

Y No 286

13.3%

HispanicN No

20 .9%

6 Y No 13

.6%

MultiracialN No

93 4.3

%

Y No 24

1.1%

White, Non-HispanicN No 1

,133 52.8

%

Y No 96

4.5%

Western Hills University High School


114 17.4

%

Y No 399

61.1%


5.4%


42 6.4

%

Y No 50

7.7%

Westwood Elementary School

Black, Non-Hispanic

N No 22

7.1%

YYes

12 78.9

%

No 241

76.4%


5.7%


10 3.2

%

Y No 16

5.2%

William H Taft Elementary School


10 3.4

%

4 Y No 258

85.6%

Multiracial Y No 19

6.3%

Winton Hills Academy Elementary School


15 3.4

%

8 Y No 376

86.5%

Multiracial Y No 29

6.6%

Withrow University High School


228 28.9

%Y No

514 65.3

%


1.4%


2.6%

Woodward Career Technical High School


207 21.1

%

3 Y No 713

72.6%

Multiracial Y No 15

1.6%


25 2.6

%

Y No 15

1.5%

Deer Park Jr/Sr High School


13 2.1

%

Y No 37

6.1%

2Multiracial

N No 15

2.5%

Y No 23

3.7%


340 55.6

%

Y No 163

26.7%

Finneytown Secondary Campus


144 18.2

%

Y No 172

21.8%

MultiracialN No

21 2.6

%

Y No 12

1.5%


370 46.9

%

Y No 58

7.3%

Anderson High School

Asian N No 16

1.3%


16 1.3

%

8 Y No 11

.9%

Hispanic N No 15

1.2%

Multiracial N No 32

2.5%


,073 83.8

%

Y No 104

8.1%

Ayer Elementary School

Asian N No 21

3.4%


2.2%


535 83.9

%

Y No 41

6.5%

Maddux Elementary School

Multiracial N No 18

3.0%


N No 439

75.8%

Y No 88

15.2%

Mercer Elementary School

Asian N No 11

1.5%

Multiracial N No 20

2.8%


N No 568

76.6%

Y No 117

15.8%

Nagel Middle School

Asian N No 23

2.1%

Hispanic N No 13

1.1%


2.8%


934 81.9

%

Y No 110

9.6%

Summit Elementary School

Asian N No 12

2.2%


3.7%


449 81.7

%

Y No 49

8.9%

Turpin High School

Asian N No 21

1.8%

Hispanic N No 10

.8%


1.5%


,044 88.3

%

Y No 68

5.8%

Wilson Elementary School

Asian N No 16

2.5%

Multiracial N No 23

3.4%


N No 586

89.9%

Y No 13

2.0%

Indian Hill Elementary School

Asian N No 33

7.5%

Multiracial N No 12

2.7%


N No 354

79.5%

Y No 16

3.6%

Indian Hill Middle School

Asian N No 34

6.5%

Hispanic N No 14

2.6%


N No 427

82.0%

Y No 16

3.0%

Madeira Elementary School

Asian N No 15

3.2%

Hispanic N No 12

2.6%


2.4%


379 81.8

%

Y No 32

6.9%

Madeira High School

Asian N No 12

2.5%


N No 403

85.7%

Y No 25

5.3%

Mt Healthy High School


215 22.7

%

Y No 432

45.5%

Hispanic Y No 16

1.7%

MultiracialN No

21 2.2

%

4 Y No 49

5.2%


125 13.1

%Y No 8.3

%

79

North Elementary School


88 8.8

%

Y No 562

56.4%

Hispanic YYes

16 51.5

%

1 No 24

2.4%

MultiracialN No

21 2.1

%

Y No 57

5.7%


77 7.7

%

Y No 150

15.1%

South Elementary School


72 7.1

%

Y No 685

67.6%

1 Hispanic Y No 15

1.5%

Multiracial Y No 49

4.8%


64 6.3

%

Y No 109

10.7%

North College Hill Elementary School


90 14.7

%

Y No 342

55.9%

MultiracialN No

15 2.5

%

2 Y No 36

5.8%


54 8.8

%

Y No 69

11.3%

Bevis Elementary School


27 6.9

%

Y No 61

15.8%


4.9%


121 31.4

%

Y No 141

36.5%

Colerain Elementary School


32 4.3

%

Y No 101

13.5%

MultiracialN No

36 4.8

%

2 Y No 38

5.1%


374 49.7

%

Y No 166

22.0%

Colerain High School


172 8.2

%

Y No 277

13.1%

10Multiracial

N No 52

2.5%

Y No 54

2.6%


,160 55.1

%

Y No 362

17.2%

Colerain Middle School


50 8.0

%

Y No 97

15.4%

MultiracialN No

18 2.8

%

1 Y No 14

2.2%


304 48.1

%

Y No 142

22.4%

Monfort Heights Elementary School


19 3.4

%

Y No 30

5.2%

MultiracialN No

11 2.0

%

1 Y No 13

2.3%


322 56.8

%

Y No 160

28.2%

Northwest High SchoolAsian N No

11 1.1

%Black, Non-Hispanic N No

142 13.9

%

7 Y No 202

19.7%

MultiracialN No

33 3.3

%

Y No 32

3.2%


393 38.3

%

Y No 193

18.9%

Pleasant Run Elementary School


63 16.6

%

Y No 113

30.0%

MultiracialN No

17 4.5

%

2 Y No 26

7.0%


107 28.3

%

Y No 41

10.8%

Pleasant Run Middle School


113 14.6

%

Y No 179

23.0%

MultiracialN No

22 2.9

%

1 Y No 35

4.5%


212 27.2

%

Y No 195

25.1%

Norwood High School


11 1.8

%

Y No 38

6.2%

Hispanic Y No 13

2.1%

2Multiracial

N No 10

1.6%

Y No 13

2.1%


315 51.4

%

Y No 196

31.9%

Norwood Middle School Black, Non-Hispanic Y No

29 9.6

%1 White, Non-Hispanic N No 34.5

%

106

Y No 154

50.1%

Bridgetown Middle School

Asian N No 11

1.8%


1.9%


1.9%


93.8%

Delshire Elementary School

Multiracial Y No 19

3.9%


183 37.7

%

Y No 242

49.8%

John Foster Dulles Elementary School


2.2%


95.0%

Oak Hills High School

Asian N No 36

1.3%


1.4%

17 Hispanic N No 18

.7%

Multiracial N No 62

2.3%

White, Non-Hispanic N No 2,505

93.8%

Rapid Run Middle School

Multiracial N No 13

2.1%

1 White, Non-Hispanic N No 582

94.9%

Heritage Hill Elementary School

Black, Non-Hispanic YYes

14 8.4

%

No 62

46.8%

3 Hispanic Y Yes 126

76.3%

Multiracial Y No 11

8.3%


11 8.3

%

Y No 25

18.9%

Lincoln Heights Elementary School

2Black, Non-Hispanic

N No 20

8.2%

Y No 212

88.7%

Princeton Community Black, Non-Hispanic N No 15.4

Middle School

164 %

Y No 388

36.5%

Hispanic YYes

48 67.4

%

30 No 26

2.4%

MultiracialN No

27 2.5

%

Y No 31

2.9%


262 24.6

%

Y No 140

13.2%

Princeton High School

Asian

N No 21

1.4%

YYes

12 13.5

%

No 11

.7%


337 21.5

%

Y No 562

35.9%

25

Hispanic

N No 18

1.2%

YYes

43 48.5

%

No 34

2.2%

MultiracialN No

34 2.2

%

Y No 27

1.7%


378 24.2

%

Y No 141

9.0%

Sharonville Elementary School


17 5.3

%

Y No 80

25.3%

Hispanic Y Yes 52

70.6%


5.4%


111 34.9

%

Y No 75

23.5%

Springdale Elementary School


93 24.0

%

Y No 84

21.6%

Hispanic Y Yes 17

59.2%

4Multiracial

N No 21

5.4%

Y No 15

4.0%


86 22.2

%

Y No 69

17.9%

Stewart Elementary School

Asian N No 11

3.3%


23 6.7

%

Y No 22

6.2%

1Hispanic Y

Yes 65

72.6%

No 15

4.3%

MultiracialN No

19 5.5

%

Y No 15

4.3%


131 37.5

%

Y No 106

30.2%

Woodlawn Elementary School


36 20.5

%

8 Y No 110

63.1%

Multiracial Y No 18

10.2%

Hilltop Community Elementary School

MultiracialN No

11 2.7

%

3 Y No 14

3.4%


282 68.3

%

Y No 87

21.1%

Reading Community High School Black, Non-Hispanic N No

16 3.5

%


N No 303

66.4%

Y No 25.6%

117

St Bernard Elementary School

Black, Non-Hispanic Y No 65

22.9%


5.0%


65 23.0

%

Y No 123

43.4%

Taylor High School1


430 71.6

%

Y No 140

23.3%

Winton Woods Elementary School


93 21.1

%

Y No 219

49.7%

Hispanic Y Yes 25

45.9%

3Multiracial

N No 30

6.7%

Y No 20

4.5%


32 7.3

%

Y No 38

8.6%

Winton Woods High School

Asian N No 12

1.1%

Black, Non-Hispanic

N No 378

34.6%

YYes

11 29.0

%

No 402

36.8%

11Hispanic Y

Yes 17

45.0%

No 22

2.1%

MultiracialN No

57 5.2

%

Y No 41

3.8%


118 10.8

%

Y No 45

4.1%

Winton Woods Intermediate School


116 23.5

%Y No

237 47.9

%

Hispanic Y Yes 15

59.5%

6Multiracial

N No 22

4.4%

Y No 27

5.5%


43 8.6

%

Y No 32

6.4%

Winton Woods Middle School


140 28.5

%

Y No 218

44.3%

Hispanic Y No 15

3.1%

5Multiracial

N No 14

2.8%

Y No 16

3.2%


47 9.5

%

Y No 36

7.2%

Question: Do all candidates take the two courses identified as requiring field experiences? What about advanced candidates?

Field experiences are described in 3.4.e Descriptions of requirements for field experiences and clinical practice in programs for initial and advanced teacher candidates and other school professionals available both in the IR and on our web page. In terms of the courses with embedded field experiences, all candidates in those programs do take those courses. For example, in Reading in the Content Areas for the special education initial program, all candidates have related field experiences at Hughes STEM High School and the course is taught on sight. Supervisors are available on site throughout the day to provide support and consultation.

Question: The offsite team was not able to review any current items related to embedded field experiences such as a developed list of courses/schedules for the quarter change, how programs are being marketed, progress of changes to syllabi, consistent changes to include urban field experiences. Full implementation of TPA, and any new formative and summative measures.

These questions all appear to address our transformation initiative. The revised courses are available in each program through aims. Recognizing that these are difficult, we are in the process of providing more detailed alignments and descriptions for our candidates. We did not describe any efforts at marketing, and are unable to provide any information in that marketing was not part of the

transformation initiative and we didn’t foresee an interest in marketing as related to the standards. Our syllabi have indeed changed, and we are now using this format:

Course Name and Number:

Description:Credit Hours:Required or Elective:Faculty Members who Teach the course:Prerequisites:Textbook(s):Other Resource Materials:

Marker Assignments: Marker assignments are those assignments essential to the candidate outcomes for the course. These assignments are performance assessments aligned with program and unit standards that are required of all course instructors. In most cases the data are then submitted to the Office for Assessment and Continuous Improvement for aggregation and reporting.

Learning Outcomes: Upon completion of this course, the candidate will be able to:The candidate will be able to: As measured by:

Alignment with Transformation Initiative:In view of this conceptual framework and our urban mission, the goal for our Transformation Initiative is to improve the performance of students in high needs schools by preparing educators who recognize the moral imperative to meet the needs of each student. We will prepare educators who are committed to each student, caring about each individual, and competent in evidence-based and data driven instruction. (Describe the application of the conceptual framework in this course)

Alignment with Conceptual Framework: Describe how the course addresses institutional standards

Alignment with Specialized Program Association:

Alignment with Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession:

Alignment with State Requirements:

Attendance Policies: Students are expected to attend all required class sessions, to actively participate in class and in the Blackboard learning environment, and to complete all assignments in a timely manner. Infrequent and inconsistent attendance, participation, and work completion will negatively influence the benefits that may be obtained from the course as well as lead to a lower grade. If it is necessary for you to miss class due to extenuating circumstances, it is your responsibility to obtain class notes, assignments, and/or handouts from Blackboard and/or from a classmate as well as to become aware of any announcements that were made in class. You do not need to report your absence to the instructor; it is your responsibility to determine what was addressed in the class.

Academic Integrity Policy The University Rules, including the Student Code of Conduct, and other policies of the department, college, and university related to academic integrity will be enforced. Any violation of these regulations, including acts of plagiarism, cheating, or falsifying field work will be dealt with according to the severity of the misconduct. Dishonesty in any form may result in a failing grade in a course and/or suspension or dismissal from a program (e.g., graduate or undergraduate).

Diversity: The University of Cincinnati embraces diversity and inclusion as core values that empower individuals to transform their lives and achieve their highest potential. This course offers a challenging, yet nurturing intellectual climate with a respect for the spectrum of diversity and a genuine understanding of its many components — including race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, age, socio-economic status, family structure, national origin, sexual orientation, disability and religion — that enrich us as a vibrant, public, urban research university.

This course is energized by the spirit of pluralism — the quest to celebrate differences within an intellectually stimulating environment, to seek understanding across social, economic and cultural

barriers, to pursue transformation through sustained interaction with others, and to empower all members of the University of Cincinnati community. You are invited to explore your own diversity!

Social Networking Statement: Please be aware of photos, comments, or group memberships on Facebook or other internet sites that could be embarrassing to the school or employer in which you are to be placed may be grounds for removal from that placement. These include photos of you or others pictured on your site engaged in drinking, doing drugs, acting in a manner that might be considered lewd or sexually suggestive, or acting in a way that the school, district, or students' parents would find objectionable. Please recognize that this is true even if your friends have posted and labeled photos of you on their sites. Parents, students and district personnel frequently look at Facebook pages and search for names of teachers. You are considered a role model for students, and your behavior must be exemplary at all times. Granting access to any Pre-K – 12 students to your personal social media pages is not advisable in any instance. Pictures and posts on such social networking sites are available to the public, regardless of how you may set your privacy settings. Your position in cohort and in your student teaching placements may be in jeopardy if the college or the school determines misconduct is present due to posts or pictures available through the web.Electronic Communication Policy;

Grading:

Course Schedule:Week1234567891011121314Exam Week

All programs will implement the Teacher Performance Assessment in Fall 2012. Data for the pilot and field studies for the 2011-2012 academic year are provided here:

Teacher Performance Data Field Test Data (All submissions through May 17, 2012)

The following tables present the number of candidates who were rated at each level for each of the 13 rubrics of the Teacher Performance Assessment Field Tests (Spring 2012). We are still working on formatting the data in ways that are useful for the programs.

All participants (April and June Data, 125 submissions)

1 2 3 4 5 Other1 2 11 37 41 3

2a 3 30 37 252b 6 26 59 33 13 9 31 60 21 B,E,F,G4 5 40 57 20 B,E,G5 12 23 70 17 2 E6 12 59 51 2 E7 12 59 51 2 E8 15 39 47 22 1 E9 4 55 58 7 E

10 10 61 51 311 10 53 44 1812 10 53 49 9 E

Secondary English Language Arts - AYA Candidates (5)

RubricsRatings at Each Level

1 2 3 4 5 Other1 5

2a 1 1 2 12b 1 3 13 1 44 1 1 35 3 26 3 27 2 38 1 1 1 29 1 1 3

10 2 2 111 2 312 2 2 1

Elementary Mathemantics - ECE Candidates (56)


1 2 3 4 5 Other1 4 23 27 2

2a 7 33 142b 7 23 24 13 5 5 25 19 24 5 14 29 16 2 B, E5 2 16 27 7 E6 4 9 37 5 E7 7 27 21 E8 7 17 22 9 E9 3 25 26 1 E

10 3 32 19 211 4 26 18 812 4 24 22 5 E

Elementary Literacy - MDL Candidates (10)


1 2 3 4 5 Other1 1 2 7

2a 2 7 12b 1 2 73 1 2 5 14 1 3 3 25 1 3 56 2 2 5 17 1 4 58 1 3 5 19 5 4 1

10 2 3 511 3 4 312 2 2 6

Elementary Math - MDL Candidates (25)


1 2 3 4 5 Other1 1 4 12 7 D

2a 2 10 10 32b 2 9 13 13 2 10 10 34 2 7 12 45 10 10 56 2 5 15 37 1 16 88 3 8 10 49 1 10 12 2

10 3 11 1111 1 13 9 112 2 13 9 1

Secondary English Language Arts - MDL Students (3)


1 2 3 4 5 Other1 3

2a 32b 1 1 13 1 34 2 1

5 1 2 36 1 27 1 1 18 39 1 1 1

10 311 2 112 2 1

Secondary Social Sciences - MDL Candidates (9)


1 2 3 4 5 Other1 7 2

2a 1 5 32b 2 73 2 6 14 2 3 45 1 3 56 2 5 1 17 3 68 2 1 3 29 2 6 1

10 4 4 111 4 3 212 5 3 1

Secondary Mathematics - MDL Candidates (9)


1 2 3 4 5 Other1 7 2

2a 5 3 12b 4 3 23 2 3 44 1 2 5 1 F5 4 4 16 1 2 5 17 4 58 1 3 3 29 4 5

10 1 6 211 1 1 712 1 3 4 E

Secondary Science - MDL Candidates (8)


1 2 3 4 5 Other

1 7 12a 3 4 12b 1 3 3 13 2 3 34 2 2 45 2 2 46 2 2 3 17 1 1 58 5 2 19 4 3 1

10 1 2 3 211 1 2 3 212 2 5 1

If a scorer is unable to assign a score a condition code is assigned. The TPA Field Test Condition Codes are:

A- Planning rubric is unscorableB- Video technical issues: unplayableC- Video technical issues: audio unintelligibleD- Video exceed length requirements by fieldE- Missing/duplicate artifactsF- Materials unreadable, wrong artifact, blank filesG- Materials unrelatedH- Not in English

The following charts depict all participant ratings, then participant ratings by field handbook.

1 2a 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

11

3026

31

40

23

59 59

39

55

61

53 53

37 37

59 6057

70

51 5147

58

51

4449

41

25

33

21 2017

2 2

22

73

18

9

3 1 2 1

Number of Each Rating by Rubrics- All Programs (N=125)

12345

1 2a 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

1

2

3

4

5

6

5

1

3

1

3 3

1 1

2

3

1

2

1

Number of Each Rating by Rubrics - A/YA English Language Arts Student and Secondary English/Language Arts (N=5)

12345

1 2a 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

4

7 75

1416

9

27

17

25

32

2624

23

33

2325

2927

37

2122

26

1918

22

27

14

24

19

16

75

9

12

8

5

21

2 2

5 5

24

7 7

3 34 4

Number of Each Rating by Rubrics - ECE Candidates and Elementary Mathematics Handbook (N=56)

12345

1 2a 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 1 1 1 1

2

1 1

2

3

22 2 2 2

3 3

2

4

3

5

3

4

2

7 7 7

5

3

5 5 5 5

4

5

3

6

1 1

2

1 1 1

Numer of Each Rating by Rubrics - MDL Candidates and Elementary Literacy Handbook (N=10)

12345

1 2a 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

12 2 2 2 2

1

3

1

3

12

4

109

10

7

10

5

16

8

1011

13 1312

10

13

10

12

10

15

8

10

1211

9 9

7

3

1

34

5

34

21 1

Number of Each Rating by Rubrics - MDL Candidates and Elementary Mathematics Handbook (N=25)

12345

1 2a 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

1

2

3

4

3 3 3

1

3

1 11 1 1 1 1 11

3

2 2 2

1

3

1

2 2

1 1 1

Number of Each Rating by Rubrics - MDL Candidates and Secondary English/Language ARts Handbook (N=3)

12345

1 2a 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

7

5

7

6

3

5 5

6

3

6

4

3 3

2

3

1

4

1

2

1 1

2

11

2 2 2

3

2

3

1

2

4 4

5

1

2

Number of Each Rating by Rubrics - MDL Candidates and Secondary Social Sciences Handbook

12345

1 2a 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

7

3 3 3

5

4

5 5

3

5

2

7

4

2

1

2

4

1 1 1

2

5

4

2 2

4

2

4

3

4

6

1

3

1 1 1 1 1 1

Number of Each Rating by Rubrics - MDL Candidates and Secondary Mathematics Handbook

12345

1 2a 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 120

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

7

4

3 3

2 2 2

5

2

3 3 3

5

1 1 1

3

4 4

3

1 1

2 2

3 3

2 2 2 2

1

5

4

2 2 2

1 1 1 11 1

Number of Each Rating by Rubrics - MDL Candidates and Secondary Science Handbook

12345

Other baseline data are not yet fully collected, aggregated, or analyzed.

€¦ · web viewwinton hills academy elementary school black, non-hispanic n no 15 3.4% 8 y no 376...

Documents