Operational excellence is examined by determining the extent to which operations, programs and services within the college are managed in ways that meet candidate needs. In addition, candidates are quesioned about their perceptions of the efficacy and importance of their learning experiences as related to key elements of the Conceptual Framework-i.e. the extent to which  1)Techonology, 2) Assessment, 3) Communication,4) Knowledge, and 5) Experiences with Diverse Populations were a part of their learning. Annual operations surveys are administered to all graduates in the last class in the program.

Increase semester credit hour production in undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs.

Semester Credit Hour production for undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral programs provide a measure for tracking growth in the various departments at each level in the College of Education. This is a critical measure that provides information to our analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. For example, some master's level programs have experienced a drop in enrollment over the past two years attributed to online programs offered by another University at reduced cost. Strategic planning to address this threat is informed by this data set. Growth in Undergraduate SCH Production should meet or exceed 2%.  Although undergraduate growth was 13% last year, the previous year it was only 1.2%.  It seems reasonable with this discrepancy to leave our goal at 2% for 2011-2012.

For the year long period including Summer 2011, Fall 2011 and Spring 2012, semester credit hour production in the undergraduate programs totaled 49,104 SCH representing a decrease of 6.7% from the previous year.
Total semester credit hour production in the masters-level graduate programs for the same period totaled 19,008 SCH, a decrease of 9.2%.
Total semester credit hour production in the doctoral-level graduate programs was 2,933 SCH, which represented an increase of .5%.
Overall, combined semester credit hour production in the College of Education decreased by 6.8%.

In the coming year, the college will allocate additional resources to recruiting efforts. In the undergraduate programs, a faculty member from each department will be provided one course release in order to facilitate program entry and recruiting at the various sites where the programs are offered. At each of two satellite locations, additional advising services will be made available to transfer students, and additional University resources have been awarded for targeted marketing of programs at each level. A new instructional facility, the SHSU-Woodlands campus opens in June 2012. Marketing and recruiting efforts to raise public awareness should gain additional momentum in that recruitment area. The unit has also acted to strengthen partnerships with community college partners, specifically at Lone Star-North Harris, Lone Star-Cypress Fairbanks, and Lone Star-Montgomery. In collaboration with School district partners, additional enrollment in both the masters and doctoral programs will be facilitated by recruiting cohorts and offering professional development to support school district initiatives.

Candidate ratings of the quality of services and experiences offered by the College of Education provide several measures of efficiency and effectiveness. The Conceptual Framework of the unit is the organizing framework for programs, services, teaching and evaluation. Thus, an important measure of the efficacy of programs is evaluation of the extent to which learning experiences of candidates were connected to key elements of the Conceptual Framework. In addition, candidates rate the assessment practices within the programs, the quality of interactions that they experience with diverse peers, faculty and P-12 students. They also rate the quality of management and organization of their learning experiences. A survey to assess the quality of operations, services and programs is disseminated to all graduates during the final class in their program and data is collected, analyzed and reviewed in order to promote improved efficiency and effectiveness of operations and services in the college.

Candidates are surveyed upon completion of their program as to the quality of learning experiences connected to the conceptual framework. Questions in this section relate to creating authentic technological environments, communicating effectively, use of assessment and feedback to improve P-12 learning, use of learner profiles for improving instruction, all key elements of the unit's Conceptual Framework. Since initial candidates’ ratings were high or very high at 89.3% last year, and the advanced program ratings were 87.6%, the goal this year will be 80% rather than 70% of respondents will rate the connection of the program to the elements of the Conceptual Framework as high or very high.

Through examination of survey responses in academic year 2011-2012, 86% of candidates completing an initial program indicated that their experiences were of high or very high quality. 11% selected a neutral response, and 4% responded that their experiences were of low or very low quality. In the advanced programs, 86 % rated their experiences at high or very high quality, with 8% selecting a neutral response, and 5% indicating low or very low quality. This result exceeds the stated goal of 80%. Accreditation standards for NCATE convey an expectation that the conceptual framework provides the basis for coherence among curriculum, instruction, field experiences, clinical practica, assessment and evaluation, thus the expected response from candidates at any level should clearly indicate a strong connection across all learning experiences. To achieve higher levels of satisfaction in this area, these data will be reviewed by faculty in every program during "Data Day" activities early in the Fall 2012 semester. Where necessary, faculty should make changes in learning activities and coursework expectations. In addition, a committee representative of each program and department will review the Conceptual Framework, document, logo and various representations to improve clarity among faculty, staff and students regarding this shared vision for the unit's efforts.

Candidates rating of the quality of assessment by professors and supervisors within the unit. Questions in this section related to accuracy and fairness of assessments, how assessment practices were modeled and used, and assessment of field experiences. Since initial candidates’ ratings last year were high or very high at 93.2% last year, and the advanced program ratings were 87.6, the goal this year will be 80% rather than 70% of respondents will rate the quality of performance assessment as high or very high.

91% of candidates in the initial programs rated the quality of assessment as high or very high, with 8% selecting a neutral response, and 2% reporting quality that was low or very low. In the advanced programs, 86% of candidates responded that quality of assessment was high or very high, with 8% choosing a neutral response and 7% indicating that quality was low or very low. While these ratings exceed the stated goal of 80% at high or very high, this area is one which should be a clear strength.   

Candidates report their perception as to the quality of their interactions with faculty, peers, and P-12 students of other races, languages and ethnic traditions. Questions in this section relate to interactions with diverse faculty, peers, school based faculty and P-12 students. Since initial candidates’ ratings last year were high or very high at 87.7% last year, and the advanced program ratings were 78.5, the goal this year will be 75% rather than 70% of respondents will rate the quality of interactions with diverse persons as high or very high.[

At the end of each program, candidates provide responses that examine their satisfaction with interactions with diverse peers, faculty and students. Scores reported are aggregated for three semesters, Summer 2011-Spring 2012. These data reveal that 82% of candidates initial programs rate quality at high or very high, with 15% choosing a neutral response, and 3% rating quality at low or very low. Candidates in advanced programs indicate that 76% of interactions were of high or very high quality, with 13% selecting a neutral response, and 13% indicating low or very low quality.

Candidates report their perception as to the management and organization of learning experiences. Questions in this section relate to types of field experiences, access to needed courses, access to library materials, quality of department holdings, access to technology, and overall quality of field experiences. Since initial candidates’ ratings last year were high or very high at 94.9% last year, and the advanced program ratings were 89.3, the goal this year will be 80% rather than 70% of respondents will rate the learning experiences high or very high.

Candidates, upon completion of their programs, provided the following ratings as to the quality of the management and organization of learning experiences: initial programs-81% at "high " or "very high", 15% at neither "high" or "low", and 4% at "low" or "very low" quality; in the advanced programs, 82% of candidates reported "high" or "very high", 12% at neither "high" or "low", and 7% at "low" or "very low".  In this area responses for candidates in both groups reported reduced quality this year over last.

Accreditation standards for NCATE convey an expectation that the conceptual framework provides the basis for coherence among curriculum, instruction, field experiences, clinical practica, assessment and evaluation, thus the expected response from candidates at any level should clearly indicate a strong connection across all learning experiences. To achieve higher levels of satisfaction in this area, these data will be reviewed by faculty in every program during "Data Day" activities early in the Fall 2012 semester. Where necessary, faculty should make changes in learning activities and coursework expectations. In addition, a committee representative of each program and department will review the Conceptual Framework, document, logo and various representations to improve clarity among faculty, staff and students regarding this shared vision for the unit's efforts.

The goal for interactions with diverse peers, faculty and P-12 students was candidate ratings of 75% at "high" or "very high quality". The scores for advanced programs barely exceeded this cut score, so faculty examination of the data, by program, will be conducted prior to setting goals for the future. Candidates in all initial and advanced programs are preparing for employment in diverse learning communities, thus this result requires analysis as to the nature of internships and field experiences in the public schools.

Enhance quality and effectiveness in the academic programs

As the leader of the educator preparation unit, the College of Education will assure candidate preparedness for teaching through benchmark assessments at entry, entry to clinical experience, and at exit. In addition, the college monitors candidate performance and employer satisfaction after graduation. The assessment system for initial candidates includes measures of proficiency which occur at specified transition points. These measures are aligned with institutional, state and professional standards.

Upon completion of the initial certification programs, candidates are required to submit a Teacher Work Sample which provides evidence of their ability to consider the contextual factors of the classroom, develop goals for instruction, develop an assessment plan appropriate to those goals, design and deliver effective instruction, evaluate student learning and reflect upon the teaching and learning related to the unit of instruction. The Teacher Work Sample assessment is scored using a blind scoring protocol and assigned a score of 3, 2 or 1. As a key performance indicator, the percent of candidates scoring 3 should meet or exceed 60%.

Candidates, in the Fall semester, achieving a score of 3 was 54%, with 62% achieving a score of 3 in the Spring semester. Thus, the goal of 60% of candidates scoring an overall 3 on TWS was not achieved in the fall semester, exceeded in the spring semester and 1% less than the anticipated goal for the combined groups in 2011-2012.

At this transition point, all candidates must meet several criteria including course completion, basic skills and college performance requirements and must demonstrate novice level dispositions. Dispositions are assessed in CIEE 3374 for those candidates in EC-6 and 4-8 programs, in order to proceed to Level 2 Field Experience Coursework. Candidates complete a self-assessment of their development and submit evidence to support their rating to their instructor. A score of 8 at the novice level indicates target level performance in the areas of values, commitment, ethics and organization/ flexibility.

For Summer 2011, Fall, 2011 and Spring 2012, EC-6 and 4-8 candidates assessed in CIEE 3374 demonstrated the target score of 8 at a rate of 97%, with a mean score of 7.92.  

Demonstration of emerging level dispositions is required for progression toward certification, one step of which is entry to CONTENT METHODS. Performance at this level requires that the candidate complete a self-assessment of personal dispositions development and provide evidence to the instructor to support the ratings in the areas of values, commitment, ethics, and organization /flexibility. Target level performance requires a score of 8 by the instructor.

Eighty-nine % of EC-6 and 4-8 certification candidates demonstrated dispositions at the emerging level with a mean score of 7.75 for Summer 2011, Fall 2011, and Spring 2012. Of the 316 assignments submitted by candidates for this period, 94.9% were assessed by faculty.

Entry to STUDENT TEACHING requires demonstration of emerging level dispositions in the Content Methods block, along with course completion in the content area and successful completion of the Instructional Lesson Plan in CONTENT METHODS.

In Fall 2011 and Spring 2012, the process for assessing student dispositions in the Content Methods Block was abandoned by faculty because we are revising the assessment instruemtn; thus, no scores for candidate Dispositions were available for this cohort of candidates.

Candidate quality and effectiveness in the field requires acquisition of content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills, the ability promote learning by P-12 students, and professional dispositions. The key assessments reported in this area include measurements of candidates' professional dispositions at multiple transition points and candidate scoring on the Teacher Work Sample. These assessments represent only a fraction of the outcome measures used within the programs to assure that graduates possess the knowledge, skills and dispositions to be effective teachers. With reference to the Teacher Work Sample scores, the faculty has endeavored over several semesters to eliminate bias in the blind scoring process used for Teacher Work Sample evaluation. These efforts have resulted in a system that completely conceals the prior score for any reviewer, and also established verification scoring for any TWS products scored at the unacceptable level. Reviews of the results in Fall 2011 and in Spring 2012 reflect the lowest number of target level scores for each semester. This reduced level of high scores is attributed to that elimination of bias in scoring. Faculty will review the TWS scores at Data Day in the fall to establish goals for future semesters. Further analysis at the component level of the TWS will also be conducted to guide faculty development of curriculum. With reference to the assessment of professional dispositions for undergraduate candidates, faculty have advocated for a more effective assessment of candidate dispositions for several years. A new summative assessment instrument was introduced in 2011-2012 during the student teaching semester. Faculty will be reviewing outcome data on that assessment in the coming months to determine their satisfaction with the instrument and to analyze candidate outcomes. As a follow up to the new summative assessment, a faculty committee worked over many months to develop a new formative instrument, aligned to the new institutional standards for Dispositions and Diversity Proficiencies. The new assessment process will replace the instruments and the process beginning in Fall 2012. Faculty in each program will be trained in August by the DDP committee, the new instruments and rubrics will be ready for use in TK20 by fall. The new assessment will make use of an individual portfolio developed and maintained by each candidate as they progress through the program.