Skip to Content

College of Education


Accreditation

Consistent with the 2016 CACREP Standards regarding data-driven program evaluation and modification, the Counselor Education program has designated four key sources of outcome data for consideration. These sources are distinct from evaluation of the program’s pedagogy which are assessed via measurement of student learning outcomes based on course content evaluation rubrics.

Systematic Program Evaluation Summary

This data reflects student performance and feedback after completing the program, the input from which will be used to guide program practice and policy. Each section will integrate data for each program, providing indications of program strength and areas for enhancement, followed if appropriate by the intended program modifications. For the purposes of this report, the utilized sources of data include:

  • Counselor Education Program Alumni Surveys sent to graduates of each program (School Counseling, MCFC, CMHC (2019) & Ph.D.) by the Program in the spring of each year;
  • Input from Advisory Boards and program employers
  • Ed.S. student performances on the National Counseling Exam (NCE); and,
  • Ed.S. student performances on the Praxis School Counseling Exam

 

Feedback on the Ed.S. Programs

For this reporting period, the Program received feedback from 12 out of 12 School Counseling graduates (100%) and 12 out of 12 MCFC graduates (100%).

While the Clinical Mental Health program did admit student for the summer 2017 term, the programs has yet to graduate any students, so there is not data for this report specific to that program. It is anticipated that such data will be available for the 2018-19 report.

 

School Counseling Program

Based on the quantitative data, “strength” was a topic in which at least 80%, or 10 out of 12, respondents, rated the experience as “strongly agree:”

Strengths to itemized questions:

No specific items were endorsed by the required number of respondents.

Strengths based on write-in comments:

  • Caring of faculty (9)
  • Level of preparedness
  • Practice of basic communication skills
  • Cohort model

Areas for enhancement

  • More track specific assignments in core courses 2
  • More preparation on educational policy and school practices 3
  • Ensure quality of teaching by adjuncts 3
  • More practice on implementing theory into intervention 2
  • Ensure suitability of sites for practicum & internship requirements 2

Comments on Specific Faculty or Courses

  • Drs Limberg, Crews and Ohrt were each singly identified as noteworthy

Recommendations

Based on the quantitative data, “area for enhancement” was a topic in which 80%, or 8/10, rated the experience as “strongly disagree:” Based on the feedback gathered for this reporting period, there were no such topics or areas of concern.

 

Marriage Counseling and Family Counseling Program

Based on the quantitative data, “strength” was a topic in which at least 80%, or 10 out of 12 respondents, rated the experience as “strongly agree:”

Strengths to itemized questions:

  • No specific items were endorsed by the required number of respondents.

Strengths based on write-in comments:

  • The clinical experience and knowledge of the faculty (4)
  • USC – community connections and resources
  • Focus on theory and evidence-based practice

Comments on specific faculty or courses

  • Carlson is a wonderful resource and professor
  • All faculty were helpful, kind and approachable

Areas for enhancement

  • Communication of the administrative and procedural practices for the program
  • More group leadership emphasis
  • Better supervision of PhD student supervisors (2)
  • Stronger EDCE 503: Family Counseling course
  • Stronger EDCE 700: Multicultural Counseling course (3)
  • More experience counseling couples

Based on the quantitative data, “area for enhancement” was a topic in which 80%, or 10/12, rated the experience as “strongly disagree:” Based on the feedback gathered for this reporting period, there were no such topics or areas of concern.

 

Clinical Mental Health Program

This academic year marks the launching of this specialization. As students enrolled in the CMHC program recently completed only their first year of study (2017-18), there is no data available from alumni. However these students will be surveyed in spring of 2019 and their input added to the Systemic Program Evaluation report for AY 2018-2019.

 

Advisory Board Input

MCFC Advisory Board: April 18, 2018

Present:

Community Representatives & Program Graduate Employers

  • Garnett- Palmetto Health Counseling
  • Thompson – Family Intervention Services
  • Sheridan – USC Counseling Center
  • Swartz – Firm Foundations Counseling
  • Deems - LRADAC

USC Representatives

Faculty- Dr’s. Carlson, Gold, Haber

Identified areas of program strength

  • Student professionalism
  • Student imitative
  • Knowledge of theory
  • Case conceptualization

Identified areas for program growth

  • Emphasize site commitment in terms of hours and responsibilities
  • More preparation in linkage between treatment planning and processing
  • Emphasize reliance on basic counseling skills in times of client reluctance
  • Focus on fostering client investment into therapeutic direction and process

 

School Counseling Advisory Board

This data was not available at the time of the preparation of this report.

 

CHMC Advisory Board

At the time of the preparation of this report, membership in this advisory board is still being finalized. Since the members of this bard will be invited as representative s of those community-based sites in which the CMHC students are conducting practicum in fall, 2018 and internship during the spring, 2019 term, the professional members and supervisors have yet to work with any USC students specific to this new track. It is anticipated that board membership, meetings and feedback will be included in the subsequent years annual program evaluation reports, beginning with the report dated 2018-2019 academic year.

 

Ed.S. Student Performances on the National Counseling Exam

This data is based on the reports of student performances on the fall, 2017 and spring, 2018 National Counseling Exam. The data to be reported is based on 5 MCFC students and 6 School Counseling students who sat for the exam. Out of those MCFC students, 4 out of 5 students (80%) passed the exam. The program requested, but did not receive, aggregate data comparing mean program performances to CACREP and non-CACREP program performances.

 

Ed.S. Student Performances on the Praxis School Counseling Exam

The source for this data is the office of the Graduate Director, College of Education. The data to be reported is based on 9 students who sat for the exam in spring, 2018. All 9 students (100%) passed the exam with an average score of 175 as compared to the minimum criteria of 156. Once again, these scores can be viewed as confirmation of the efficacy and effectiveness of the program’s pedagogy and learning experiences for the School Counseling students.

 

Feedback on the Ph.D. Program

Of the 6 students who completed the Ph.D. program, feedback was received from none. This result is puzzling as the same data distribution system, which proved so successful in past years was replicated but this year generated no student responses. The program will need to reconsider the distribution and collection process once again to return to the 100% return rate of the 2017 report.

 

Demographic Program Outcomes 2017-2018

Outcomes Reporting School Counseling Ed.S. Marriage, Couple and Family Counseling Ed.S. Counselor Education and Supervision Ph.D.
Graduates  12  9  6
Credentialing Examination Pass Rates  100 11  n/a
Completion Rate  100 90 90
Job Placement Rate  100 90  100