1. Assessing Impact on P12 Learning: A Multiple Measures Approach Leslee PetersonLeslee Peterson, Assessment Coordinator Micki M CaskeyMicki M Caskey, Associate Dean Portland State University

2. CAEP 4.1: P-12 student impact Candidates During the PSU Program edTPA Field Evaluation Surveys Completers During Employment Employer Surveys Teacher Evaluations

3. Candidates: During the program Candidates demonstrate impact on learners to graduate edTPA (new 2016) Planning - using research-based instruction to meet learners needs Instruction – demonstrating dispositions that foster learning Assessment – actual impact on learning across groups Field Experience Evaluation (new 2017) Aligned with InTASC and Danielson Framework Program-level data only: Cooperating Teacher Survey (60% response) “My teacher candidate positively impacted student learning. “ 93% Agree or Strongly Agree 2014 92% Agree or Strongly Agree 2015

4. Completers: After the program Employer Survey Principals survey (30% response) “Teacher’s ability to impact student learning (consider test scores and other measures used by your school and district)” 78% Proficient or Distinguished Oregon survey of employers (OACTE) InTASC based questions, none specific “student learning outcomes” <10% response rate, not disaggregated by program (not usable) Rating generally positive PSU graduate’s teacher evaluation data Districts provide de-identified teacher evaluation data according to the state-mandated, district-adapted, rubrics aligned with research related to teacher efficacy (Danielson, 2007, 2013; Marzano, 2016; Marzano & Toth 2013)

5. Teacher Evaluation Data

6. Using the data Completer data is shared with programs for their review and use in program renewal GTEP: noted weakness in assessment areas; GTEP has revised their program since these graduates and anticipates stronger data in future years. SPED: noted most areas were emerging or better which is acceptable for first year teachers. Would like to disaggregate by first versus second and third year teachers; would like to know district averages for benchmarking

7. Future directions for data gathering Gather more information on teacher evaluation data for benchmarking. Exploring feasibility of student surveys in program and after program New key assessment during program looking at equitable student learning across all groups

8. References Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Danielson, C. (2013). The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument. Retrieved from the Danielson Group website: www.danielsongroup.org Marzano, R. (2016). Four Marzano Teacher Evaluation Domains. Retrieved from the Learning Sciences International website: http://www.marzanoevaluation.com/evaluation/four_domains/ Marzano, R., & Toth, M. (2013). Teacher evaluation that makes a difference: A new model for teacher growth and student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.