The CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation
description
Transcript of 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