cwu home     site map         

Early Childhood Education Program

1.   Please describe your program's assessment process and what standards you are measuring in relation to the NCATE and State standards of knowledge (content, pedagogy and professional), skills (professional and pedagogical) and dispositions. Is the system course based, end of program based, or other? Be sure to reference how the faculty in your program was involved in developing the assessment process. In addition, describe how the assessment of standards relates to the unit's and program's conceptual framework.

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

The Early Childhood Education program faculty at Central Washington University elected to base our assessment system on a standards approach. All the courses offered in the ECE program were reviewed and modified, where necessary, to align with Washington State and CWU’s Center for Teaching and Learning standards. The skills and content knowledge components were denoted as being embedded in each required and elective class within the ECE program.

CWU’s ECE students were then provided with a template of Washington & CTL standards so that as they proceed through the program towards their BA degree and ECE endorsement they could focus on providing evidence that directly addressed the knowledge and skills of each standard. Students are encouraged to address the standard multiple times through multiple artifacts from a variety of courses that represented their breath, depth, and growth in each of the areas addressed by the standards. Artifacts are suggested by the faculty but the student is free to submit any artifact that they wish to address each of the standards.

For example from the Washington State Common Core Standard 1 for ECE states: “Child Development and Learning The Early Childhood Education teacher knows, understands and is able to apply child development and learning concepts and principles” (See chart below.)

Some courses do not directly address standard 1 while others support the standard but are not a primary source of skills & knowledge covered by the objective. The chart above shows which courses are secondary supports for standard 1 (S) and which are primary (P) for developing the skills and content knowledge noted by standard 1. The students are able to post evidence that provided evidence of addressing the standard from multiple artifacts that are developed in the Primary and Secondary source courses as well as the field experiences.

It was felt by the ECE faculty that multiple opportunities to address a standard was essential to seeing the development of the students’ skills and content knowledge as well as providing a wider array of evidence that addressed the standard in individual situations. Since students self select the artifacts that will be posted on an individual basis, it allows individual student strengths and personalities to emerge as they address each skills set. The freedom to produce and self evaluate what artifacts to submit and how each will be designed to address the standards places the decision making with the individual students. This student decision making is consistent with the constructivist model of education that is the philosophy of the Early Childhood Education program and leads to a greater depth of development and personal ownership in skills and content knowledge.

The ECE faculty members both on campus and at the branch centers review the individual students’ submissions as they complete each class. During the review of each new artifact the class instructor monitor the degree that the standard has been addressed by each new artifact posting. Once a quarter during the ECE program meetings the results of the previous quarter’s assessments are reviewed for strengths and weaknesses of both the assessment system as well as individual students and faculty. These quarterly reviews will be the foundation of any changes that are to be implemented for the following quarter, for immediate weaknesses, or the following academic year. Since the majority of the ECE courses are not offered every quarter it makes better sense to collect data throughout the adademic year before implementing course and program changes. All tenured, tenure track, one year appointments, and adjuncts are invited to all meetings but are expected to participate in the quarterly and yearly program review meetings.

2. Below is an analysis of the frequency with which your program cites CTL, WA State Standards/Competencies, and/or national standards within your LiveText artifacts, rubrics, and reports. Please examine the charts and write your program's interpretations and conclusions based on the information provided. (e.g., Are the standards dispersed appropriately in your program? Are all the standards represented as you wish them to be? After reviewing this analysis are there changes your program would recommend making to the way you cite standards or assess your candidates using LiveText?)

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

The ECE program has had a lot of growth over the past two years in the use of the electronic portfolio system. The program faculty has been standards and benchmark driven in the classroom instruction and activities but was not as deeply committed to the LiveText portfolio system initially. The program data reflects the shift in the use of the electronic portfolio system for collecting data on individual students, courses, and the overall program.

The ECE Faculty consists of:
Campus Program has 2 Full-time Tenured faculty teaching (.25 & .16) in the ECE program, plus 2 one-year contract instructors (.75 & .50), and 3 adjuncts (0.3, 0.2, 0.2) instructors. Des Moines Center: 3 Full-time Tenured faculty teaching (.75, .50, & .25) in ECE. Plus 2 one –year contract instructors each teaching part-time in ECE and Elementary Education.

It has been difficult to move the faculty, instructors, and adjuncts towards consistent use of the electronic portfolio system due to the lack of consistent full-time faculty dedicated to ECE program. Over the past year the faculty has become more consistent in the use of the electronic portfolio system as well as the students becoming more familiar with the requirements.

The data present is skewed due to the sequence of courses offerings. The Des Moines cohort and the Ellensburg campus do not offer all the courses every quarter. So, the data will be more beneficial in determining the full coverage of the standards after a full calendar year of data has been collected. At the current time the data collected is within the range expected.

The spread across the standards is as would be expected given the point that the students are in the sequence of courses for the academic year. However, there are some standards that lack variance. These courses and instructors will be monitored throughout the remaining year and thoroughly reviewed during the end of year program review meeting.

The ECE program at CWU has not converted to the 2007 Washington State Standards as of April 2007. We are currently in the planning and implementation stage of making the conversion from the 2002 to the 2007 standards. Given that we are operating on the 2002 standards the new standards 7-9 are underrepresented in the current data set.

3. Below you will find one sample of your Live Text Report that identifies an aggregation of candidate learning outcome data. Please examine all of your reports in the LiveText exhibit area and discuss the accuracy, consistency, and fairness of the data, as well as what improvements could be made in the program assessment rubrics, courses, artifacts, or reporting. Include your interpretations relative how well your candidates are meeting standards. After examining all of your report data, list any changes your program is considering.

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

A review of the data collected in the LiveText portfolio suggests that there are emerging trends that include:

1. The Des Moines cohort students received ratings that are slightly above the Ellensburg campus students. This discrepancy may be attributed to one or a combination of many factors. The program review and discussion by faculty yielded the following possibilities.
A. Cohort students have more of a support network since they are moving through the program together each term.
B. Faculty members are more familiar with the cohort students since they would have them in several different classes over their program career.
C. The ratio of faculty to instructors is much lower for cohort students than the main campus students at this time, as has been the situation since 2003.
D. The required double major cohort students at the Des Moines center are better prepared compared to the major/minor students typically found on the main campus. E. Variances in the individual faculty members scoring of the artifacts maybe skewing the data. A suggestion of scoring the same artifacts by different faculty was discussed as well as an end of program review of the artifacts by a faculty team. F. The rubrics may not be detailed enough to produce fine discriminations in the outcomes.

2. The candidates’ artifacts addressing the learning outcomes, as evidenced by their electronic portfolio, are relatively consistent across the standards. These data are within the bounds of what was expected by the program faculty.

3. The Field Experience standard indicates an expected discrepancy between the cohort and main campus students. The Des Moines cohort data represents 2 senior field experiences (EDEC 493 Practicum and Student Teaching) where the Ellensburg campus has students in an introductory practicum (EDEC 292) included in the data set. Students entering the cohort program complete their introductory practicum at a community college while approximately 60% of the main campus students take EDEC 292 as part of their CWU campus program. Hence, the discrepancy in the Field Experience standard is expected as the main campus program includes data on novice as well as end of program students.

4. The curriculum development appears to be a weak area judging from the program outcome artifacts. This is an area that the faculty discussed during our program meetings and will investigate further as the end of the year program meeting. One of the options discussed was to increase the number of curriculum development credits required in the ECE minor from 3 to 6 as it is for the ECE majors.

5. Given that the ECE program converted from a course based to a standards based assessment it was felt that we should collect data through the Spring quarter before making any major changes in the assessment rubrics. This will be revisited at the end of year program meeting when the data is more populated.

4. Below you will find a chart of the CTL Standards aggregated by course. Please examine the data results and discuss any improvements if any you might consider for your program. Using these data, please reflect upon your candidates' success in meeting standards. Compare these data to the data provided in the WEST B and E charts that follow. Is there consistency in the rates of success? What do these data tell you?

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

The data above represents the ECE program faculty’s decision to convert from a course based program to a standards based program. In the course based approach the artifacts represented the goals of the course to a high degree as indicated by the instructor’s assessment. However, when the standards based approach was employed it becomes obvious that our program has a weakness in the planning and promotion of learning within the classroom. While this weakness is not a major deficit, as evidenced by the 90% plus pass rate CWU’s ECE students have on the WEST-E, it is still a program weakness. The standards approach allows students to post multiple artifacts to address the learning standard from a variety of sources and/or classes. So, it is obvious that lesson planning and promoting learning is a program goal that needs to be examined by all classes that either directly or indirectly address this standard.

The Lesson development and creation of the learning environment standard will be a focus point for discussion on the agenda for the end of year program review.


Please find below the West B data for the teacher residency program. Please use these data, the LiveText data, and the West E data found below to predict candidate success in your program. Given theses summaries, are there changes to your program or to the unit your program recommends the CTL consider?

  • Between 2005-2007, 49% of the candidates passed all three sections of the exam their first attempt, 84% passed the reading portion in their first attempt, 82% math their first attempt, and 65% passed writing their first attempt.
  • The mean number of candidates not passing reading portion is 11%, math 12%, and writing 25%.

CTL WEST B Data Summary 2002 to Present


Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

The ECE program has consistently produced students who were well trained as measured by the West-E (90%+ pass rate), archival data from the students’ work, field experience assessments, and feedback from graduates and peer educators in the field. The program faculty has consistently held that competency in content as well as methodology is essential in preparing teacher education candidates. It would be ideal if the WEST B were required of ECE students earlier in their college career so deficits could be addressed prior to entering the professional certification courses. However, the reality is that the WEST –B is only a screening tool for minimum competencies. It is only as the students engage in the 24 – 45 credits taken in the ECE program that their degree of competency in basic skills is revealed. And while a high level or rigor is maintained in the basic skills areas the focus in the ECE program classes is on pedagogy. So, typically the basic profile of a student’s strengths and weaknesses within the basic skills areas do not change dramatically during their Professional Education and endorsement area training. Hence the pre to post assessment process reveals little that was not anticipated by the student or the faculty. The conclusions drawn from reviewing the data to date are: 1. The alignment of the data collected from the entrance exam (WEST – B) through the preparation process artifacts to the final competency assessment (WEST –E) holds great potential for program assessment. But at this time it is too early in the assessment process for the program to confidently draw conclusions about the program from the pre to post assessments. We do not have enough complete data sets (entering the program to graduating with the endorsement) to confidently draw conclusions. 2. From the individual student point of view the assessment measures are repeatedly assessing what has was derived from the initial assessment, with little real diagnostically usable information being collected. 3. As the ECE program makes the conversion from the 2002 to the 2007 standards the pre to post assessment alignment will be reviewed with formal considerations being given to data collected on students who have completed the entire sequence of assessments.

6. The WEST E is administered by ETS as a state requirement for program Exit, measuring content knowledge by endorsement area. ETS has not sent the final corrected data summary at the time of this report, however, the data we keep on a continuously updated basis is described below in the following graph. The graph compares 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 data by endorsement area. We suspect the 2006-2007 data will change after all scores are received from ETS. According to this set of data, 2005-06 pass rates were 90%. Remember all candidates must pass the test to be certified, so they take it multiple times. We are working on authenticating a different process that will show how many times candidate take the test and when. The 2006-07 data indicates pass rates of 87%. If your program is one of those with a pass rate below 80%; what program recommendations are you considering that will positively affect the rate of passing the WEST-E for 2007-2009?

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

The ECE program has consistently produced students who were well trained as measured by the West-E (90%+ pass rate), archival data from the students’ work, field experience assessments, and feedback from graduates and peer educators in the field. As the ECE program makes the conversion from the 2002 to the 2007 standards the pre to post assessment alignment will be reviewed with formal considerations being given to data collected on students who have completed the entire sequence of assessments.


Please find below the EBI teacher and principal data for all program completers. Discuss and report in the space provided what your program recommends the unit should accomplish to improve overall satisfaction, or what your program is doing to improve the trend.

  • This survey is administered through OSPI and is contracted through Educational Benchmarking Inc. These data are collected for all new teachers in public schools by surveying new teachers and their principals.
  • Response rate average over the seven years n=105
  • The graph represents a seven year average satisfaction trend by category
  • Highest satisfaction ratings are in the areas of:
    • Student learning
    • Instructional strategies
    • Management, control and environment
  • Lowest satisfaction ratings are in the areas of:
    • Reading skills
  • 5 year Principal responses followed similar patterns as teachers n=41


Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

In initially reviewing these data the ECE program was relatively pleased with the overall satisfaction rate for CWU graduates. Internally we have noticed that students need more practical experience in the classroom prior to reaching student teaching so, our recommendation would be to implement additional field experiences for teacher education candidates throughout their Professional Teacher Certification program


Please find below first year and third year teacher survey results summarized by graphing mean responses for each question.

  • This survey is administered by CTL and data trend summary represents 2004-07
  • The average response rate for 2004-2007 is 15%
  • First year teacher N= 375, Third year teacher n =200
  • The graph and subsequent ANOVA demonstrates a significantly higher average satisfaction rating from first year teachers when compared to third year teachers (p<.05)
  • Highest satisfaction ratings are in the areas of:
    • Subject matter knowledge
    • Application of EALR's
  • Lowest satisfaction ratings are in the areas of:
    • Classroom management
    • Involving and collaborating with parents

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

The ECE faculty has not seen the longitudinal data on CWU Certified Teachers before our March meeting so, the below comments are more discussion points rather than conclusions. 1. The satisfaction rate will be highly influenced by the building, faculty, environment, etc. that the teacher is working in at the time they are surveyed. Is this a good reflection on CWU’s program? 2. How were the survey questions worded? Are the findings indicative of their training strengths and weaknesses or of their personal strengths and weaknesses? For example, were they not trained deeply enough in parental involvement techniques or are they simply not good at following through with their training? 3. The program emphasis has moved from the EALR’s to the operationalizing of the standards (national, state, district, etc.). So, should the questioning be based more on standards instead of a specific set of standards? 4. The ECE faculty would like to have more information about this data collection before we consider it in program change discussions.


Please find below a comparative analysis of candidate dispositions from beginning candidates to finishing candidates. Please comment on the changes you observe in your candidates over time and describe how and why you think this occurs. What does your program specifically do to engage candidates in developing professional teacher dispositions?

  • This inventory is administered by the CTL at admissions (N=645), and again at the end of student teaching (N= 195). Some of the 645 candidates have not yet student taught, which is why the n's are different.
  • There is a significant difference in 12 of 34 items (p<.05) between beginning candidates and candidates completing student teaching
  • Change is in the preferred direction from agree to strongly agree
  • This means somewhere between entry and before exit, the teacher program candidates are developing stronger professional beliefs and attitudes that reflect the underlying values and commitments of the unit's conceptual framework. Future work will include data that tells us where this change is occurring and if there are difference caused by demographic variables. If you want to read more about this disposition instrument, the validation study is published on the OREA web site under research.

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

These data are what the ECE faculty expected to see. A stronger agreement between the candidates’ beliefs and the conceptual framework that the courses they are taking are based on philosophically.



Final Student Teaching Evaluation Report on LiveText

  • The data report is too large to be placed in this document. Please access the data by going to this link on our assessment system web site
  • The report reveals the final assessment of elements found in state standards IV and V
  • Candidates are generally performing at a high level, although there are some candidates as depicted by the colors green and red who are not performing to standard.
  • Examination of those elements indicates some agreement with results provided in the 1st and 3rd year teacher survey.

Please look at these data carefully and discuss with your program faculty some ways the teacher residency program can begin to address the few but common deficits occurring in candidate knowledge and skills relative to the State standard elements. If you need to refer to state standards please refer to this link in the assessment system website:


Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

The program faculty has not spent a lot of time reviewing the Student Teaching Evaluations up to this point. However, the following discussion points have been noted. 1. The variance in the degree that students apply and use the constructivist model needs to looked at in more detail. The secondary education, special education, elementary, early childhood, etc. segregated data would help us isolate where the philosophical differences are within the program. 2. The collective Student Teaching Data is not as valuable as would be data from each endorsement area. 3. The parent and community elements are going to be difficulty to address due to the lack of access for CWU students. Some classes do have field experiences (Math Night, Health Fairs, etc.) where the CWU students interact with parents and community members but this may not be enough. 4. Increasing the number of field experiences students have prior to student teaching seems to be an option that might address several of the areas that are of concern. 5. The CWU ECE program will continue to review the data at our program meetings to better understand the implications of this data for our program.


Please examine these data and report any discussions your program has regarding the reported results.

  • This survey is conducted by Career Services and reported to OSPI. The report, however, has been reanalyzed and the summary reflects the new analysis, which covers 2002-2006.
  • Average response rate = 57%
  • Of that 57%, the average percent of graduates who get jobs in state is 94%
  • The average percent of graduate still seeking a position is 27%
  • Two percent of the 57% have decided not to teach
  • For 2005-2006; 35 % of the program graduates responded to questions regarding ethnicity and gender. Out of the 35% who responded, 90% were Caucasian, 5% were Hispanic, 3% were African-American, and 1.8% were Asian.

Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

The following discussion points were generated based on the above data. 1. The ECE faculty would like to see data broken down by program. The composite data does not provide enough insight into the endorsement areas that may be overpopulated with graduates compared to the job availability. The percentages may not represent the reality of the situation due to the lack of a more comprehensive data set. 2. It has been discussed previously in the program meetings that a senior seminar series be created to address the transition from college student to educational faculty member. The data presented in the Career Development report support such a seminar class.






© Central Washington University   |   All Rights Reserved