edTPA SCORES and PASS RATES (Annual Reporting Measure 6: Ability of Completers to Meet Licensing Requirements) All teacher candidates must pass edTPA, an evidence-based performance assessment of teacher candidate effectiveness, before they apply for licensure to teach in the Illinois. The Illinois State Board of Education sets the minimum total “pass” scores. This assessment, developed by Stanford University, is widely used throughout the U.S. to measure classroom effectiveness by focusing on student learning. As of 2019-2020, SIU’s Teacher Education Program students have a 100% pass rate on the edTPA in nearly all subject areas since fall 2015. Special Education has a 98% pass rate (64/65 candidates), Agriculture Education has a 97% pass rate (31/32 candidates), and Physical Education’s rate is 94% (16/17 candidates). According to the 2019-2020 data, our students’ best attempt averages are at or above the state and national averages during this latest data cycle in agriculture, early childhood education, elementary literacy, elementary mathematics, secondary English, secondary history/social science, secondary mathematics, and physical education. Special Education and World Language best attempt averages are above the national averages. It should also be noted that, while IL waived the edTPA requirement for all IL candidates in spring 2020 due to COVID, SIU candidates submitted edTPA. The data reflecting the average scores for SIU, Illinois and across the nation for the different fields of study follows. Subject Area SIU Best Attempt Avg (# Scores) Illinois Avg (# Scores) National Avg (# Scores) Agriculture 46.8 (6) 46.5 (19) 45.5 (312) Early Childhood 41.1 (8) 41.5 (304) 41.0 (3,943) Elementary Literacy 46.6 (29) 45.2 (946) 44.2 (4,045) Elementary Math 45.2 (9) 45.4 (364) 44.9 (3,869) Music (Performing Arts) 42.6 (3) 46.4 (226) 45.1 (2,072) Physical Education 41.0 (1) 41.0 (235) 39.7 (2,105) Secondary English 46.3 (10) 46.5 (269) 46.3 (3,033) Secondary History/Social Science 46.4 (10) 45.9 (273) 44.9 (3,079) Secondary Math 41.0 (1) 39.9 (196) 39.6 (2,576) Secondary Science NA (0) NA NA Special Education 45.3 (15) 46.7 (633) 44.2 (6,174) Visual Arts 44.6 (3) 52.6 (100) 50.2 (909) World Languages 35 (1) 37.3 (120) 35.6 (991)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
edTPA SCORES and PASS RATES (Annual Reporting Measure 6: Ability of Completers to Meet
Licensing Requirements)
All teacher candidates must pass edTPA, an evidence-based performance assessment of teacher candidate effectiveness, before they apply for licensure to teach in the Illinois. The Illinois State Board of Education sets the minimum total “pass” scores. This assessment, developed by Stanford University, is widely used throughout the U.S. to measure classroom effectiveness by focusing on student learning.
As of 2019-2020, SIU’s Teacher Education Program students have a 100% pass rate on the edTPA in nearly all subject areas since fall 2015. Special Education has a 98% pass rate (64/65 candidates), Agriculture Education has a 97% pass rate (31/32 candidates), and Physical Education’s rate is 94% (16/17 candidates).
According to the 2019-2020 data, our students’ best attempt averages are at or above the state and national averages during this latest data cycle in agriculture, early childhood education, elementary literacy, elementary mathematics, secondary English, secondary history/social science, secondary mathematics, and physical education. Special Education and World Language best attempt averages are above the national averages.
It should also be noted that, while IL waived the edTPA requirement for all IL candidates in spring 2020 due to COVID, SIU candidates submitted edTPA.
The data reflecting the average scores for SIU, Illinois and across the nation for the different fields of study follows.
Subject Area SIU Best Attempt Avg
(# Scores) Illinois Avg (# Scores) National Avg (#
Secondary Math 41.0 (1) 39.9 (196) 39.6 (2,576) Secondary Science NA (0) NA NA Special Education 45.3 (15) 46.7 (633) 44.2 (6,174) Visual Arts 44.6 (3) 52.6 (100) 50.2 (909) World Languages 35 (1) 37.3 (120) 35.6 (991)
PASS RATES on CONTENT AREA TESTS (Annual Reporting Measure 6:
Ability of Completers to Meet Licensing Requirements)
Assessment code-Assessment name Test Company
Group Assessed
Number taking tests
Average scaled score
Number passing
tests
Pass rate (%)
105-SCIENCE: BIOLOGY Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2019-2020
0
*
0
0
105-SCIENCE: BIOLOGY Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2018-2019
7
*
7
100
206 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2019-2020
8
*
8
100
206 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2018-2019
4
*
4
100
207- ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2019-2020
12
262
12
100
207- ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2018-2019
5
*
5
100
246- SOCIAL SCIENCE: HISTORY Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2019-2020
10
257
10
100
246- SOCIAL SCIENCE: HISTORY Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2018-2019
1
*
1
100
208- MATHEMATICS Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2019-2020
1
*
1
100
208- MATHEMATICS Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2018-2019
2
*
2
100
260- FOREIGN LANGUAGE: SPANISH Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2019-2020
1
*
1
100
260- FOREIGN LANGUAGE: SPANISH Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2018-2019
2
*
2
100
143- MUSIC Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2019-2020
1
*
1
100
143- MUSIC Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2018-2019
1
*
1
100
212- MUSIC Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2019-2020
2
*
2
100
212- MUSIC Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2018-2019
0
*
0
0
144- PHYSICAL EDUCATION Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2019-2020
1
*
1
100
144- PHYSICAL EDUCATION Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2018-2019
1
*
1
100
145- VISUAL ARTS Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2019-2020
3
*
3
100
145- VISUAL ARTS Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2018-2019
5
*
5
100
155- LEARNING BEHAVIOR SPECIALIST I Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2019-2020
15
272
15
100
155- LEARNING BEHAVIOR SPECIALIST I Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2018-2019
23
270
23
100
163- SPECIAL ED. GENERAL CURRICULUM Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2019-2020
15
258
15
100
163- SPECIAL ED. GENERAL CURRICULUM Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2018-2019
23
259
23
100
170- AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2019-2020
5
*
5
100
170- AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2018-2019
7
*
7
100
197- ELEM: SUBTEST 1: LANG & LIT Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2019-2020
37
255
37
100
197- ELEM: SUBTEST 1: LANG & LIT Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2018-2019
42
253
42
100
198- ELEM: SUBTEST 2: MATHEMATICS Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2019-2020
37
257
37
100
198- ELEM: SUBTEST 2: MATHEMATICS Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2018-2019
42
257
42
100
199- ELEM: SUBTEST 3: SCI/SOC. SCI Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2019-2020
37
262
37
100
199- ELEM: SUBTEST 3: SCI/SOC. SCI Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2018-2019
42
259
42
100
200- ELEM: SUBTEST 4: FINE ARTS/PHY. DEV & HEALTH Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson
All program completers, 2019-2020
37
265
37
100
200- ELEM: SUBTEST 4: FINE ARTS/PHY. DEV & HEALTH Evaluation Systems Group of Pearson All program completers, 2018-2019
42
263
42
100
* Scaled scores are not calculated when fewer than 10 students take an exam.
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
Teacher Education Program
Candidate Preservice Assessment of Student Teaching (CPAST)
Table of Contents
Overview of the Assessment……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. …..2
Assessment Data ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13
For Spring 2020, COVID-19 prevented many candidates from continuing in the field experiences. The CPAST mid-terms were complete by the
shutdown. As recommended by OSU, we did not complete the CPAST at final. Therefore, this assessment narrative has the last three
complete cycles of CPAST final data (Fall 2018, Spring 2019, Fall 2019) in the usual three-cycle data charts and an additional chart for the
Spring 2020 CPAST mid-term data, as comparing mid-term data with final data is not appropriate.
2
Overview of the Assessment
What is this item of evidence?
The CPAST Form was created as part of the Valid and Reliable Instruments for Educator Preparation Programs (VARI-EPP) Project.
VARI-EPP is a group of Ohio EPPs who have collaborated since 2014 in order to develop instruments that meet CAEP Accreditation
requirements. The CPAST assessment has two subscales: Pedagogy (13 rows) and Dispositions (8 rows). The CPAST Pedagogy
assesses a student teacher’s pedagogical knowledge/skills as demonstrated in student teaching. The CPAST Dispositions assesses the
professional dispositions of a student teacher, including behaviors toward students and other stakeholders, professionalism and
professional development.
How was the quality of this evidence determined or assured?
According to the CPAST Handbook, valid data from 1,203 teacher candidates from 23 EPPs in Ohio were collected during the
academic year of 2015-2016. Of the 1,203 teacher candidates, 32 were recruited to participate in the inter-rater reliability study, in
which each teacher candidate was evaluated by two supervisors – their primary university supervisor (i.e. the supervisor who was
formally assigned by the EPPs to supervise the teacher candidate during the student teaching), and a secondary rater (i.e. a supervisor
who completed a minimum of three observations of the teacher candidates throughout the semester). Analyses were performed on the
CPAST Form regarding validity (content, construct, and concurrent) as well as reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater reliability)
and met standards for instrument development.
What criteria of success have been established on the assessment?
According to the CPAST Handbook, CPAST is encouraged to be used as a coaching tool and as such, no particular "cut" score was
set. If programs want to set a minimum of a "2" for each row, VARI-EPP warns that this may skew results and that one of the
following should be considered: 1) an overall score value or 2) a minimum performance for some (but not all) rows deemed to be
essential to faculty. In order for our Unit to look at specific areas of strength and improvement, we have set “2” as the minimum score
for each element.
How is the evidence used to support improvement?
3
At the Unit Accreditation Coordinating Council (UACC) meetings, consisting of all program coordinators, and clinical supervisors
meetings, trends over time and comparisons of data from candidates across programs are analyzed. Areas of strength and areas for
improvement are identified. Recommendations are then brought to the appropriate stakeholders to be discussed and implemented. This
assessment tool and its data are used by programs as a key assessment when reviewing their programs, their candidates’ progress, and
completing their required reports.
At what point in the TEP is the assessment given?
The CPAST is given at the Exit Point of the program during the EDUC 401 clinical, or student teaching semester, at mid-term and at
final.
To what standards is the CPAST aligned?
CPAST is aligned to the edTPA, CAEP, and InTASC standards.
CPAST Category CPAST Item edTPA Rubric InTASC/CAEP Standard
Planning for Instruction and Assessment
A. Focus for Learning: Standards and
Objectives/Targets
1, 4 7a
B. Materials and Resources 2 7b
C. Assessment of P-12 Learning 5 6b
D. Differentiated Methods 3, 4, 7, 11 2c
Instructional Delivery
E. Learning Target and Directions 1, 9 7c
F. Critical Thinking 7, 8, 9 5d
G. Checking for Understanding and
Adjusting Instruction through
Formative Assessment
8, 10 8b
H. Digital Tools and Resources 5, 9 CAEP 1.5
I. Safe and Respectful Learning
Environment
6 3d
J. Data-Guided Instruction 10, 11, 14, 15 CAEP 2.3
4
Assessment K. Feedback to Learners 12, 13 6d
L. Assessment Techniques 5 7d
Analysis of Teaching M. Connections to Research and
Theory
3, 10, 15 CAEP 1.2
Professional Commitment and Behaviors
N. Participates in Professional
Development
O. Demonstrates Effective
Communication with Parents or Legal
Guardians
10d
P. Demonstrates Punctuality 9o
Q. Meets Deadlines and Obligations 9o
R. Preparation 3d
Professional Relationships
S. Collaboration 6, 10, 15 10b
T. Advocacy to Meet the Needs of
Learners or for the Teaching
Profession
3, 15 10j
Critical Thinking and Reflective Practice U. Responds Positively to Constructive
Criticism
10, 15 9n
References:
Brownstein, E., Dent, N., Yao, X. J., & Boger, B. (2017). Candidate Preservice Assessment of Student Teaching (CPAST Form)
Handbook. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/CPAST%20Handbook%20and%20FAQ%201_9_18%20(1).pdf
CPAST Student Teaching Instrument vs. edTPA Rubrics Crosswalk. Retrieved from