cwu home     site map         

Student Teaching 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:

Student Teaching (EDCS 442) is the capstone experience for the professional education courses at CWU. As such, the standards assess in all other courses are (re)assessed during the course of the experience, as are the NCATE Standards One (Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions) and Four (Diversity). The only data entered into LiveText is the Final Student Teaching Evaluation data, but many other forms of assessment are used over the course of the quarter-long experience. This data is undertaken, submitted, and used by various constituents involved in the Student Teaching experience. (able to cut and paste comparisons spreadsheet?)

Students complete and submit the following:

An observation/teaching log detailing the number of days/hours observing in the classroom in which they are placed and he number of days/hours serving as the lead instructor (responsible for all aspects of the classroom, including planning and management).

The Documentation of Collaboration and Discussion of Constructivism document—the student teacher (candidate) must initiate a discussion of the necessity of including constructivist methodologies over the course of the Student Teaching experience. If the Cooperating Teacher (CT) is unfamiliar with the philosophy/methods used in Constructivism, it is contingent upon the student to explain what Constructivism is and why it is important to be able to use the philosophy/methods/approach during the Student Teaching Experience. The conversation must include ways (documented on the form completed and submitted by the student) in which the Constructivist approach will be used in the particular classroom and in the particular unit developed by the Candidate.

The Unit Plan—this must be a two-week minimum thematic unit designed in conjunction with the Cooperating Teacher. The student is responsible not only for the development of the unit, but also the implementation of the unit (and any corollary reflections about modifications). The student must submit the unit via LiveText for review by the University Field Supervisor, who will not issue a Final Student Teaching Evaluation until the unit is completed and submitted.

The Professional Growth Plan is completed at the end of the experience and is a reflective document that demonstrates Candidate ability to critically reflect on areas of strength and areas in need of improvement, and allows Candidates to identify resources and opportunities for growth to occur in becoming and education professional. The document is completed and submitted to the University Field Supervisor, who reads and offers critique and then submits the document to the Office of Field Experiences.

Cooperating Teachers complete and submit the following:

The Cooperating Teacher Experience and Orientation form to document that the University Field Supervisor has provided an orientation, an handbook, and an explanation of the duties and timelines associated with the experience of Student Teaching.

An optional Video Critique Form, where the Cooperating Teacher provides specific feedback and critique to the Candidate after reviewing a recorded lesson.

The Student Teacher Attributes form, which gives indications of Candidate performance in the broad/general areas of attendance, preparation, presence, timeliness/readiness, initiative, flexibility, sensitivity, ability to learn, desire for improvement, commitment to profession, and oral and written communication evidenced by the Candidate. This form is completed twice during the experience and is unique in that only the Cooperating Teacher completes this form.

Evaluation of the Supervisor. This form is completed at the end of the experience by the Cooperating Teacher and is used to provide useful and timely feedback to both the University Field Supervisor and to the University regarding the performance of the University Field Supervisor over the course of the quarter.

University Field Supervisors complete and submit the following assessments:

Formal and Informal observation forms from visits to Candidate.

State of Washington Performance-based Pedagogy Assessment (PPA) form. This form is completed twice during the Student Teaching experience—once at MidTerm as a formative tool for improvement and goal-setting and a second time just before the Final Student Teaching Evaluation is completed.

MidTerm Evaluations are completed and kept by the University Field Supervisors (not submitted to the Office of Field Experiences). The items assessed are the same as those on the Final Student Teaching Evaluation.

Final Student Teaching Evaluations are completed and submitted once the Candidate has completed the quarter. This evaluation is completed in both hard-copy form (shared with the Candidate and Cooperating Teacher, with the Candidate receiving a copy) and on LiveText for data analysis and programmatic considerations.

Submission of Candidates’ Professional Growth Plans.

The program exists today as an evolution over the last several years as state standards, mandates, and NCATE accreditation rules and standards have changed. University Field Supervisors have been involved in the process of discussion program goals and assisting in the establishment of appropriate assessments to provide analysis of student outcomes to the program. In the last two years, University Field Supervisors have been more involved in this process, meeting at least four times per year to discuss general issues and concerns, but at least once per year to discuss program data and to recommend changes to the Department of Education based on trends in the data from the Final Student Teaching Evaluation. In addition, the Director of Field Experiences has been named a Program Coordinator and represents University Field Supervisors at weekly Program Coordinator meetings, acting as a liaison between the Field Supervisors (who reside and work throughout the State of Washington) and the Department of Education.

Because this is the capstone course (as stated earlier), all assessment items and standards are intricately connected with both the program’s conceptual framework (note the documentation provided by Candidates regarding Constructivism) and the standards related thereunto. (provide excel spreadsheet of connections)

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:

As with all programs, there is definitely a need for ongoing dialogue and discussion regarding the connections between WAC standards and the Student Teaching experience at CWU. In looking at the current distribution of referents, it is important to note that all WAC standards are addressed in the Student Teaching experience (at a minimum of 3).

In looking at the distribution, it is readily discernable that some areas of the Final Student Teaching Evaluation may need to be re-visited, particularly in reference to Instructional Planning, Performance Assessment, Professionalism, Technology as it relates to pedagogy and instruction, and Communication. Revisiting WACs and the language included in the Final Student Teaching Evaluation (and, indeed, in other documents and forms used during the Student Teaching experience) is both necessary and eagerly anticipated.

With the advent of the newly passed Standard V, CWU is currently discussing the entire professional core sequence of courses (those required by all Candidates who wish to be recommended for licensure in the State of Washington). These discussions have been inclusive of University Field Supervisors and the Program Coordinator (Director of Field Experiences). There has been recognition that University Field Supervisors offer a critical link to the practice of education and the ‘final product’ of CWU courses.

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.

Links for reviewing the Student Teaching data and state standards: (Start typing below the links)


Program Interpretations and Conclusions:

Based on the LiveText Data, the areas of greatest concern for EDCS 442 remain the same as the last three years: namely, instructional planning, classroom management, school-home-community connection, and assessment.

Field Supervisors met in September and created a list of recommendations that they believe will strengthen student performance in these areas. The recommendations were:

Data was broken out by quarter, by Year-long (PDS) cohorts, and cumulative scores (both with and without PDS). In our discussions, we focused specifically on the Cumulative w/ PDS scores to give us the broadest sense of student performance.

The discussions generated as a result of the data can be broken into three categories: trends found in the data that need to be discussed with professional core sequence faculty leaders to bring all courses into alignment; to provide anecdotal evidence from observations of and discussions with students (as well as classroom teachers and building administrators) regarding the categories reflected in the data; and issues that Field Faculty feel need to be addressed regarding professional perceptions by, and connections with, on-campus faculty who teach the professional core sequence courses.

Trends found in the data indicated that, for the past three years, generally speaking, the areas of greatest concern, based on ‘ratings’ during Student Teaching, have consistently been in the following categories: Planning, Management, Assessment, and the School/Home/Community Connection. Variance in quarters existed, but the overall trend was for these areas to be of most concern, based on Final Student Teaching Evaluation ‘ratings.’ It should be noted, however, that the student ratings in these areas were not ‘low’ in regards to percentages, but these were the areas that were the ‘lowest’ when aggregated.

Areas of greatest strength for the past three years were Foundational Knowledge, Diversity, Professionalism, and Communication.

In discussing the data, it is to be noted that the majority of the areas assessed on the Final Student Teaching Evaluation trended up over the last few years—even in the majority of the areas identified as areas of concern (compiled by Gary Ballou and Dr. Lynn). The general theme that emerged from our meeting was, “If assessment drives instruction, how is assessment of students in our courses, including Student Teaching, driving decisions about current and needed courses and the instruction within them in relation to uniformity?” Those present at the meeting felt that it is imperative that we, as faculty in the Department in Education, model the behavior expected of our students in our course work. The data indicate that there are areas of concern, though growth is occurring, and recommendations made by the supervisors include the following:

1. (For Office of Field Experiences) Disaggregate data for all majors over the last three years, as well as data for students who completed the program as cohort members at Centers to ascertain specific areas in need of improvement and areas of strength for students in these departments/Centers.

2. (For Office of Field Experiences) The need to require that a resume be attached to the Student Teaching Application so that students may highlight their own experiences in classrooms. The current application does not allow for elaboration, and supervisors felt that the inclusion of a resume would allow them to present the student more fully in regards to educational abilities and experiences.

3. (For Office of Field Experiences) The need to re-visit the items on the Final Student Teaching evaluation once discussions have begun and decisions have been made regarding state standards and programmatic changes. Items need to be more aligned to/emergent from research and standards-based items.

4. (For DOE) Need conversations between Field Faculty and a variety of interested on-campus parties (both at Ellensburg and at Centers), including professional core sequence faculty, the CTL, and the PEAB, as well as instructors in student’s major areas—particularly in colleges other than CEPS.

5. (For DOE) A course that specifically focuses on management strategies needs to be developed and implemented. This course should focus on both pro-active and reactive strategies, as well as cater to both elementary and secondary students (separate courses), as the management needs in these grade levels differ dramatically. Some discussion will need to occur about the viability of adding such a course, and, if it is, what courses will need to be ‘cut’ or down-sized, or whether the number of credits required to graduate need to be increased. These discussions should happen relatively quickly so that decisions are made and sent through appropriate channels for results to occur.

6. (For DOE) How do we incorporate/embed the pedagogy assessment criteria into our syllabi, align artifacts to model for students how to meet specific targets and standards in course work prior to Student Teaching, and provide examples of ineffective or substandard work for our students so that when they reach the Student Teaching experience they are more fully familiar with both the Pedagogy Assessment as an instrument and with the types of evidence that is ‘acceptable’ to present?

7. (For DOE) The need to increase our placements in regard to diversity. This may mean not placing student teachers (other than PDS students) in the Kittitas Valley…particularly Elementary Ed majors who complete so many of their practica in local schools.

8. (For DOE) A related issue is that the department needs to adopt a codified definition of diversity/diversity statement that is connected to/aligned with all documents, courses, and forms completed on students. The current emphasis by the state on diversity as ethnicity dramatically limits placements that could be considered ‘diverse’, and adopting a definition of diversity and connecting it to course and field work will make those connections clearer during times of accreditation and site visits. If we truly are creating facilitators of learning in a diverse world, we should describe what that diversity is and demonstrate to students how we do so throughout the courses taken in the TEP at CWU.

9. (For DOE) Perhaps removing the ‘option’ of taking courses after student teaching—or at least re-visiting which courses could be taken. Having 444 and 302 available for completion after student teaching does a disservice to our students. If 442 is to be a true capstone course, all courses should be prerequisite. Failing that, a re-visiting of which courses can be taken after Student Teaching should occur.

10. (For DOE) We need to decide on one set of standards across all courses offered in the DOE, professional sequence and majors that everyone follows. In addition, specific standards from various professional organizations could be added, but all courses should address a single set of standards (state, programmatic, CTL, etc.). State standards make the most sense, especially with accreditation and site visits looming, but this needs to be thoroughly discussed.

11. (For 311 Faculty, specifically) Need conversations regarding what should be included in the Unit Plan in 311 so that it reflects, more directly, what is being asked of students in the Student Teaching experience. The increase in the amount of scripted lessons is decreasing the amount of autonomy that Student Teachers (and, indeed, classroom teachers) have in terms of deciding which curriculum to teach, how, and how it is measured. These discussions, it was felt by those present, need to focus on usable unit plan components that contain reachable, measurable standards and outcomes/evidence. The rubric for such a unit plan also needs to be discussed. As Dr. Jones stated, the objectives and plans need to be ‘meetable and beatable.’

12. (For 431 Faculty, specifically) Offering some real, practical, hands-on experiences in the course that will lead students to more fully understand the issues in multicultural classrooms. A departmental definition of diversity will assist in this effort, but the recommendation is to move students beyond the theoretical and give them practical experiences in multicultural settings. One idea was to have a course akin to Pre-Autumn that focuses specifically on diversity, with standards and competencies well-articulated, that would be, perhaps, a pre-requisite to admission into the program. Students must have the theoretical foundations, but it is imperative that students also have experiential foundations that will serve them well in their ‘capstone’ experience (Student Teaching).

13. (For Secondary Ed Faculty) There needs to be additional field experience (to Pre-Autumn) prior to the Student Teaching experience. The recommendation would be that the methods course that is part of the major include a field experience so that students have some additional field experience prior to Student Teaching. There are staffing and monetary implications to such a recommendation, but it is felt that our secondary education majors are underserved and lack practical experience that is absolutely essential in today’s public school classrooms. This will also benefit both the student and the Field Faculty when seeking placements, as we can use this as a positive aspect of the program at CWU.

14. (For Secondary Ed Faculty) Aligning the unit and lesson planning portion of the methods course to the 311 course in the DOE so that students know what to expect and have concrete examples to use once they begin the Student Teaching experience.

15. The need to extend an invitation to all faculty in the DOE and in COTS and CAH who prepare teachers to ‘shadow’ Field Faculty one day in either the winter or the spring, to get these faculty into the field to see their students in action. This will also begin to re-establish professional connections that have deteriorated over time. This has been an on-going issue raised by Field Faculty…that the professional connections between them and the instructors of the classes their student teachers take has decreased and that more connection is needed.

16. The need to extend an invitation to Student Teachers (in a panel type forum) to discuss the Teacher Education Program, and how they either did or did not feel prepared in specific areas. One idea would be to have Program evaluations go out to students and require them to be filled out prior to the end of Student Teaching. In addition, however, there should be some forum for students to be able to voice their opinions about the program (for better or worse).

Discussions focused particularly on Items 3, 4, 5, and 7. These items are all experience-based…students will get better at them as they develop professionally. What we would like to see is students making huge strides DURING Student Teaching in these areas. This means having courses that better prepare them for the eventualities and realities of today’s public school classroom. Having more field experiences and/or more focus during the field experiences would assist all majors in increasing their abilities and awareness of the issues related to these items.

Of particular concern was the school, home, and community connection (Item 7). Field Faculty felt that all students struggle with this, given the advent of scripted curriculum, and limited time in the classroom with the students, and being in an area of the state that may or may not be one with which they are familiar. It was noted that PDS students struggle with this as well, and they are in the same classroom for a year. It was felt that more discussion is needed regarding how we can encourage our students to seek ways to make the connections between these entities. We all know, the stronger the connection, the more supported the student, the more apt the student is to succeed. Perhaps the field experience attached to the 431 class will be effective here…in that a student’s placement for Student Teaching would be connected to the experience (where students could do research on the local area, SES, ethnicity, linguistic diversity, special services, etc.) of the district.

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 indicate that we have high numbers of students who demonstrate success during student teaching. However, the concern raised by Field Supervisors with regard to this data is the use of the terms ‘Exemplary/Proficient,’ ‘Partially Proficient,’ and ‘Incomplete,’ as these are not terms that are used in any of our assessment data during Student Teaching. Field Supervisors were unsure of how these descriptors correlate with the numerical scores associated with the Final Student Teaching Evaluation Data that are recorded in LiveText.

Particularly problematic for me are the inclusion in one category the terms ‘Exemplary’ and ‘Proficient.’ There is no definition of these terms.

The numerical system that is used on the Final Student Teaching Evaluation is based on a scale of 1 to 5.

a. 1 indicates the student teacher’s performance does not meet the competency requirements and is unable to perform, even when assisted, as necessary to develop a meaningful and positive experience for all students.

b. 2 indicates the student teacher has mixed results in demonstrating a particular competency and needs assistance either to perform competently or explain reasons for his her action(s). (would this be ‘Partially Proficient’?)

c. 3 indicates the student teacher’s performance meets most of the competency requirements and is able to implement and display positive impact on students. (Would this be ‘Partially Proficient’?)

d. 4 indicates the student teacher’s performance exemplifies best practice most of the time. (Would this be ‘Proficient’?)

e. 5 indicates the student teacher’s performance exemplifies best practice all of the time. (Would this be ‘Exemplary’?)


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:

There is no obvious or implicit ‘correlation’ between West-B and West-E and LiveText data for Student Teaching because Student Teaching is not ‘technically’ a program. In addition, these three assessments measure different skills and areas of knowledge: The West-B measures basic skills in a number of academic/content areas that may or may not be related to a student’s major; the West –E measures content-specific knowledge and skills related to a student’s major; and the data aggregated in LiveText for Student Teaching looks, for the most part, at pedagogy and ability to deliver instruction (and items associated therewith).

If there is any correlation, it may be that those students who struggle with writing skills on the West-B may also be the students who struggle with writing unit plans and creating effective lesson plans, but there is no hard and fast data to support this supposition. The data from the last three years indicate that Candidates most often score lowest in Planning, Management, School-Home-Community Connections, and Assessment. Better writing skills may help with writing better unit and lesson plans. Perhaps tracking individual student’s West-B scores and correlating this information with specific, discrete skills connected with course outcomes and standards should be undertaken. A suggestion from University Field Supervisors would be to include, as the Standard V changes are being implemented, a writing component to the admissions, retention, and completion requirements for courses in the DOE…and not just in the professional core classes. Other institutions have programs that are based on Writing Across the Curriculum (and even Reading Across the Curriculum) that ‘replace’ the English Composition and Literature components of basic and breadth requirements. It may be in the DOE’s best interest to determine the level of writing and reading competence it would like to see in its Candidates and to begin implementing some writing and reading requirements for program admission and continuation/completion.

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:

Student Teaching is not represented in the program data.


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:

As suggested in the response to question number 5, instituting some sort of Reading Across the Curriculum that is embedded in education courses particularly, but across other departments if possible, may help with the reading/writing skills of candidates. Currently, the Content Area Reading course is required of all secondary Candidates, but if reading were to become a more central component of courses offered in the DOE, this may help improve both Candidate performance and principal perception. This said, the reading/writing issues facing Candidates in higher education must be addressed in the PK-12 system so that Candidates come to university better equipped.


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:

Analysis of the last three years’ Final Student Teaching Evaluation Data indicate that University Field Supervisors are in agreement with the data in the CTL survey. In addition to Classroom Management and the School-Home-Community connection, Instructional Planning and Assessment are also two areas that were identified as in need of improvement. Currently, University Field Supervisors are ensuring that they have conversations with Candidates in the Student Teaching experience regarding these four areas. They have recommended to the DOE that a Classroom Management course or courses be developed and implemented ASAP (one for elementary and one for secondary has been suggested) to address the former issue. In regards to the latter issue, having Candidates, during the Student Teaching experience, conduct demographic and historical data about the location/neighborhood in which they are teaching might be an option. Also, requiring Candidates to implement some sort of parental/community volunteerism (either during the instructional day or as an after-school program) might be a possibility.

The issue with implementing these requirements is, of course, is that of time—Candidates are already required to squeeze a tremendous amount of work and paperwork into the 10-week experience. One option we have been discussing is the option of requiring students to complete the Student Teaching experience over two quarters (either Fall/Winter or Winter/Spring, with no Spring beginning date). This, of course, leads to questions of credit increases, issues for students being considered ‘full-time’ should we decide to make the experience 8 credits per quarter, etc. No solutions have been solidified, but the discussions are occurring.


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:

The data here are not useful the way they are presented because they do not delineate the actual questions with which students agreed and/or disagreed (and to what extent). Without this information, knowing how to respond or give direction/suggestions to the program is not possible.



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:

This data is constantly being looked at by University Field Supervisors. We would love to work with other faculty to address the areas in most need of improvement, though as stated in the question, most Candidates perform well in most items most of the time. As we are only one course in the professional sequence, input from others about how the program can help address those areas most in need of improvement would be appreciated.

Please refer to response to question number 3 for specific recommendations by Field Supervisors for types of changes that may be necessary.


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:

Because Student Teaching is not Program, but a course within a Program, we have not had specific conversations about how, where, and when our Candidates get jobs, but report to Career Services when we find out this information from our Candidates (and direct them to do so as well). As for the numbers regarding ethnicity and gender, it is imperative that the DOE begin targeted recruitment efforts to gain more representation from under-represented groups in the State of Washington. In addition, programs across the CTL should be conducting targeted campaigns as well.






© Central Washington University   |   All Rights Reserved