the csu systemwide evaluation of teacher preparation

EVERYTHING YOU EVER WANTED TO KNOW , HOW CSU STANISLAUS

COMPARES, AND WHAT WE DO WITH THE INFORMATION?

The CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation

CSU Systemwide Evaluation

HISTORY & PURPOSEA Rich Body of Ev idence for

Improving Teacher Preparation

2

The CSU Systemwide Evaluation

2013

2001

Two Sources of Evidence

First-Year CSU

Teaching Graduates

School Site Supervisors

3

Locating First-Year Teachers & Supervisors

Identify CSU Program

Completers

Each CSU Campus

provides a list of all

MS/SS/ES program

completers

Identify Completers

Employed as First Year Teachers

CalSTRS provides a list of all teachers

& their employing

school district

Identify School of Employment & Contact Info

BTSA database

School district HR Depts.

School/District

Websites

Add School Demographics &

Supervisor Contacts

California Public

Schools Directory

4

Data Collection Process

CTQ emails a survey invitation from your Dean to all completers of MS-SS-ES Credential Programs who serve as teachers in public schools, charter schools or private schools in all locations.

CSU asks the school principal to give the evaluation materials to the school manager who is most knowledgeable about the teacher of interest.

5

Efforts to Maximize Survey Participation

Evaluations are completed using a secure, convenient online website that is available 24/7 for over 2 months.

Each survey invitation includes an encouraging letter from Chancellor White

Respondents are assured anonymity and confidentiality

6

7

Reports, Reports, ReportsChancellor and Trustees

Bakersfield Chico CSUDH East Bay

Fresno

Fullerton Humboldt CSULB CSULA CSUMB

Northridge

Pomona Sac State CSUSB SDSU

SFSU

SJSU

SLO

CSUSM

Sonoma

Stanislaus

CSUCI

CST Program

8 Private IHEs

Chancellor’s Office Center for Teacher Quality

Each Campus ReceivesSeparate Reports aboutMS, SS and ES Programs.

Each Report IncludesCampus-Specific andSystemwide Results.

Key Features of CTQ Evaluation Reports

Reports include item-level results and composite results for 24 broad domains of the University’s learning-to-teach curriculum

Longitudinal graphs show domain-level changes over time

Reports include program-specific results and cross-program results

Teacher results are juxtaposed with supervisor results for items and domains that are common to both surveys

8

Intended Uses of the Data9

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT• Better prepared teachers• Improved student

performance

PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY• CSU Improvement and

Accountability Plan (IAP)• WASC Accreditation• Grants and other

initiatives requiring evaluation results

Improvement and Accountability Plan10

MSCP

MS Priority Area 1: English LearnersMS Priority Area 2: Special LearnersMS Priority Area 3: At-Risk StudentsMS Priority Area 4: Fieldwork SchoolMS Priority Area 5: Campus-Defined Priorities

11

At-Risk Students12

CSUStan Exit Survey

77% of end of program candidates (n=61) rated themselves as well or adequately prepared to know about the resources in the school and community for at-risk students and families.

13

Student Teaching Evaluations

98% of University Supervisors (n=43) rated student teachers as showing exemplary or significant evidence on TPE 8 Learning about students, which is related to understanding at-risk students; and,

63% of Credential Candidates (n=89) felt that they received excellent to good preparation in knowing about resources in the school and community for at-risk students/families.

14

Action Plan

Contact principals to identify programmatic and curricular deficits and work to address these areas. Also make a concerted effort to improve the response rate.

Faculty use a common definition of “at-risk student”: students who are "at risk" of failing academically, for one or more of any several reasons (minority status, economically and academically disadvantaged, family circumstances, and academic standing).

Special emphasis on defining and identifying these students will be covered in each course.

15

SSCP

SS Priority Area 1: English Learners SS Priority Area 2: Special LearnersSS Priority Area 3: At-Risk StudentsSS Priority Area 4: Content-Area ReadingSS Priority Area 5: Fieldwork SchoolsSS Priority Area 6: Campus-Defined Priorities

16

English Learners17

Action Plan

Increase participation in surveyContinue to provide PLCs for faculty and student

teachers/interns on SIOP and GLADMaintain MediaSite with instructional videos related to

instructing English learners Incorporate CCSS and the new ELD standards into courses

for the Fall 2013

18

EDSE

ES Priority Area 1: English Learners ES Priority Area 2: At-Risk StudentsES Priority Area 3: Fieldwork SchoolsES Priority Area 4: Campus Defined Priorities

19

Fieldwork Schools20

CSUStan College Wide Survey

On questions related to fieldwork, 75% (n=16) of Spring 2013 respondents rated their preparation to work in multicultural settings as being either excellent or good.

21

Action Plan

Increase participation from supervisors and teachersEnsure schools used for fieldwork are diverseCooperating teachers, university supervisors, and student

teachers meet to ensure valuable experiences

22

Summary

The CSU Teacher Quality Survey does matter We would love to increase our participants Can you offer any suggestions?

We have a variety of data points we use at end of program that also inform our program

All data is used to make program improvements

Thank you for being our partner!

23