Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation in the California State University System: A Comprehensive Look at the Outcomes of Teacher Preparation that.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
Advertisements

Literacy in the middle years of schooling focusing on Aboriginal Students.
Connecting Teacher Evaluation to Student Academic Progress Implementing Standard 7 0 August 2012.
Metropolitan State College of Denver Alternative Licensing Programs Two year Alternative Licensing Program-ALP-2 ( formerly called the Teacher in Residence-TiR)
Briefing: NYU Education Policy Breakfast on Teacher Quality November 4, 2011 Dennis M. Walcott Chancellor NYC Department of Education.
JACK O’CONNELL State Superintendent of Public Instruction California Department of Education Jack O’Connell State Superintendent No Child Left Behind Act.
Pennsylvania’s Continuous Improvement Process. Understanding AYP How much do you know about AYP?
No Child Left Behind The Federal Education Law and Science Education May, 2004.
Continuum of Teacher Development and Shared Accountability Leading to Increased Student Performance Teaching Quality Policy Center Education Commission.
Texas State Accountability 2013 and Beyond Current T.E.A. Framework as of March 22, 2013 Austin Independent School District Bill Caritj, Chief Performance.
The Status of the Teaching Profession 2003 The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning California State University, Office of the Chancellor Policy.
Student Learning Targets (SLT) You Can Do This! Getting Ready for the School Year.
Massachusetts Department of Education EDUCATOR DATABASE Informational Sessions Overview: September 2005 Web:
A Comprehensive Look at the Outcomes of Teacher Preparation Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation in the California State University 1.
Introduction & Background Laurene Christensen National Center on Educational Outcomes National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO)
Assessment & Accountability TEP 128A March 7, 2006.
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006.
Validity 4 For research to be considered valid, it must be based on fact or evidence; that is, it must be "capable of being justified."
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIVERSE LEARNERS Susan Brody Hasazi Katharine S. Furney National Institute of Leadership, Disability, and Students Placed.
Alternate Accountability Understanding the Alternate Accountability Process in Wisconsin June
Certification and HQT Christina Linder, Director Certification and Professional Standards Teacher Quality
Evaluation of Math-Science Partnership Projects (or how to find out if you’re really getting your money’s worth)
Reaffirmation of Accreditation: Institutional Effectiveness Southern Association of Colleges and Schools February 2008 Stephen F. Austin State University.
Impact of fine arts on academic success A Comparison study EDRS 5305 Fall 2004 Dr. Teresa Cortez.
Leveraging Race to the Top to Maximize the Use of Data To Ensure College & Career Readiness Aimee R. Guidera Achieve ADP September 10, 2009.
STATE ACCOUNTABILITY OVERVIEW Back To School| August 19-22, 2013 Dean Munn Education Specialist Region 15 ESC.
Research conducted by SRI International California State University, Office of the Chancellor | Policy Analysis for California Education | University of.
Design (1) A discipline-level disaggregation of national data on STEM teachers and (2) a longitudinal examination of that data using SAS 9.3 Definition:
CSU Math and Science Teacher Initiative California Mathematics Council-South November 7, 2009 Joan Bissell, Director Mathematics and Science Teacher Initiative.
Where We Are, and Where We Are Headed Learning Forward Kansas April 9, 2014.
The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning California’s Teaching Force 2004 Key Issues and Trends Research conducted by SRI International California.
Streamlined NCATE Visits Donna M. Gollnick Senior Vice President, NCATE 2008 AACTE Annual Meeting.
SLOs for Students on GAA February 20, GAA SLO Submissions January 17, 2014 Thank you for coming today. The purpose of the session today.
Update on Virginia’s Growth Measure Deborah L. Jonas, Ph.D. Executive Director for Research and Strategic Planning Virginia Department of Education July-August.
HEAD OF THE CLASS A Quality Teacher in Every Pennsylvania Classroom.
Guilford County Schools Parent and Community Surveys Presentation January 24, 2015 Prepared By Nancy Burnap, Ph.D Research Strategies, Inc. Presented By.
GSSR Research Methodology and Methods of Social Inquiry socialinquiry.wordpress.com January 17, 2012 I. Mixed Methods Research II. Evaluation Research.
SLOs for Students on GAA January 17, GAA SLO Submissions January 17, 2014 Thank you for coming today. The purpose of the session today.
California State University, Sacramento Higher Education Symposium January 22, 2003 Recommendations from Commissioned Report: “An Accountability Framework.
High School Reform: Learning From Rigorous Research Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education High School Initiative Regional High School Summit St.
March 7, 2013 Texas Education Agency | Office of Assessment and Accountability Division of Performance Reporting Accountability Policy Advisory Committee.
An examination of retirement rate patterns among California pre-K–12 certificated educators California Educational Research Association Annual Conference.
Profile of Virginia’s Instructional School Personnel Presented to the Special Education Advisory Committee on September 29, 2011 Mrs. Patty S. Pitts Assistant.
CSU Math and Science Teacher Initiative and STEM CAP: Making it Work September 26, 2009 Dr. Joan Bissell Director, Teacher Education and Public School.
Teachers for a New Era: Evidence Study at California State University, Northridge Beverly Cabello Evidence Co-Leader, Teachers for a New Era James David.
Quality Jeanne M. Burns, Ph.D. Louisiana Board of Regents Qualitative State Research Team Kristin Gansle Louisiana State University and A&M College Value-Added.
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
Mathematics/Science Partnerships and Troops-to-Teachers By Sander Langebeeke And Kentavius Means.
School-level Correlates of Achievement: Linking NAEP, State Assessments, and SASS NAEP State Analysis Project Sami Kitmitto CCSSO National Conference on.
Texas Tech University PROGRAM-LEVEL ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP WRAP-UP SESSION FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 11,
CSU Center for Teacher Quality Assessing Teacher Preparation Outcomes for Program Improvement and Institutional Accountability CSU Academic Council Meeting.
Spending/ Fiscal Allowable Expenses Equitable Services Needs Assessment Potluck
What Works And Is Hopeful Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst, Ph.D. Director Institute of Education Sciences United States Department of Education About High.
1 Restructuring Webinar Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr., Ph.D. Director Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs Office of Elementary and Secondary.
Evaluation Results MRI’s Evaluation Activities: Surveys Teacher Beliefs and Practices (pre/post) Annual Participant Questionnaire Data Collection.
Program Information for Applicants School Leadership Program U.S. Department of Education 2005.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004 Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT)
CHARTER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATIONS (CMO) AND CHARTER SCHOOL RELATIONS: AN EXPLORATION OF THE SOCIAL NETWORKS AHMET ULUDAG PH.D – ACCORD INSTITUTE.
Nevada Mathematics and Science (MSP) Program Grants Technical Assistance Meeting November 2014.
Overview of SB 191 Ensuring Quality Instruction through Educator Effectiveness Colorado Department of Education Updated: June 2012.
understanding LCFF & LCAP LCAP Priorities: Conditions of Learning
Implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Highly Qualified Teacher & Paraprofessional Requirements December 2010.
REPORT CARD ON EDUCATOR PREPARATION
Your introduction to this year’s English exam.
Faculty Role in AP Credit
California State University Math and Science Teacher Initiative
UNDERSTANDING LCFF & LCAP LCAP Priorities: Conditions of Learning
Maryland State Board of Education October 25, 2011
The ELA Common Core Standards in Your Classroom (6-12)
Presentation transcript:

Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation in the California State University System: A Comprehensive Look at the Outcomes of Teacher Preparation that is Uniform Throughout a University System

Purposes of the Systemwide Evaluation ► To see how well recent reforms in teacher preparation are working in practice. ► To provide information that campuses can use to strengthen programs for teachers. ► To compile systemwide data that addresses popular criticisms of teacher preparation.

How the Systemwide Evaluation Was Initiated and Funded ► The Deans of Education wanted to see how well their reforms were “paying off.” ► The Chancellor of the CSU System wanted to respond to state-level critics. ► Consultations with the Academic Senate were open, inclusive and “up front.” ► Chancellor Reed provided discretionary funding to get the evaluation started.

Self-Evaluation or Independent Evaluation? ► An Independent Contractor provides technical expertise to a university and credibility in political circles. ► A Self-Evaluation addresses better evaluation questions and is more cost-effective in actual practice.

Indicators of Effectiveness in the Preparation of Teachers ► Reports of Program Effectiveness by Teaching Graduates and K-12 Principals. ► Direct Evidence of Teaching Practices by Observing or Interviewing Graduates. ► K-12 Student Achievement Data that are Validly Linked to the Preparation of Beginning Teachers.

Two Populations Respond to Evaluation Surveys In California ► Graduates of CSU Teacher Preparation Who are Fully Certificated and Have One Year of Teaching Experience. ► School Principals Who Are Not Part of the CSU and Who Actively Supervise the Program Graduates for One Year.

How the University Locates Its Teaching Graduates ► School districts provide the names and addresses of schools where CSU graduates are teaching. ► The State Department of Education and the State Teachers Retirement System also provide teacher employment information. ► This help is provided because one request comes from a central office that represents 21 large institutions. ► In 2001 the University located 94 percent of its graduates in this way. In 2002, the CSU found 89 percent of its graduates.

How the CSU Surveys Its Teaching Graduates and Their Principals ► The CSU randomly selects a sample of graduates from those who were located. ► The CSU mails a survey to each sampled graduate, addressed to the teacher at school. ► The CSU mails a second survey with similar questions to each sampled school’s principal. ► The principal’s packet includes the name of the teacher whose preparation the principal is asked to evaluate.

Responses by CSU Graduates and Their Principals ► Last year the CSU sent questions to 4,436 teaching graduates and received responses from 2,442 of them for a 55 percent return. ► We sent surveys to 4,012 principals and received responses from 2,002 of them for a response rate of 50 percent. ► Data analysis showed that answers given by graduates and their principals were significantly correlated with each other.

Figure 1: Teaching Participation Rate Among CSU Credential Graduates 10,457 = Total Number of CSU Credential Graduates in Teachers for One Full Year Right After CSU Graduation Teachers for Less Than One Year Not Teachers in First Year After Graduation 9,944 = 95 % 2%3%

79% 80% 81% 85% 74% 73% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Figure 5: CSU Preparation to Teach Reading in California's Urban, Metropolitan, Suburban and Rural Schools Principal Evaluations of Graduates Principal Evaluations of Graduates Evaluations by Graduates Percentages of CSU Teaching Graduates Who Were Well- or Adequately- Prepared to Teach Reading-Language Arts in Two Groups of K-8 California Schools: Gold: Urban and Metropolitan Schools Yellow: Suburban and Rural Schools

79% 81% 68% 75% 67% 68% 55% 65% 75% 85% Figure 6: Conventional vs. Alternative CSU Preparation to Teach Reading-Language Arts in Grades K-8 Former Student Teachers Former Intern Teachers Former Emergency Teachers Blue: Evaluations by Graduates Red: Evaluations by Graduates

Figures 7-10: Percentages of School Principals (K-8) Who Reported that Particular CSU Teaching Graduates Under Their Active Supervision Were Well Prepared or Adequately Prepared to Teach Four Core Subjects in Multiple-Subject Teaching Assignments (Grades K-8) Legend for Figures 7-10: Orange: Percentage Earned by the Entire CSU System in Each Year Blue: Percentages Earned by Specific Campus in Each Year 83% 81% 91% 95% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 7: Preparation to Teach Reading-Language Arts 83% 80% 89% 88% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 8: Preparation to Teach Mathematics (K-8) 74% 85% 78% 87% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 9: Pedagogical Preparation to Teach Science 77% 80% 91% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 10: Preparation to Teach History-Social Science

Reported for the California State University System By Teacher Education, Evaluation and Assurance Office of the Chancellor January 2003