1. Sustaining Preparation Program Evaluation with Data Systems: Georgia Example
Bob Michael
Associate Vice Chancellor, University System of Georgia
Carla Tanguay
Associate to the Dean for Clinical Practice, Georgia State University
Tatiana Rivadeneyra
Director of Accreditation, Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation

2. Goals for this Session
To gain strategies for creating systems for data reporting, sharing, and use at the state and university levels.
To acquire new ways for organizing university faculty and stakeholders to use data for continuous program improvement.
To attain new ideas about data reporting, sharing, and use in various contexts to support continuous improvement.

3. In your current role, how do you use data to inform improvement?

4. Our vision for Educator Preparation Program (EPP) evaluation includes:
well-defined performance measures and student outcomes linked to program completers;
state policy established for public reporting and dissemination of all aggregated and disaggregated data;
processes for reporting, sharing, and using data to support EPPs and other stakeholders in determining the degree to which their completers are prepared to educate diverse learners to be life-long learners leading to increased workforce capacity;
EPP evaluation protocols that support programs in identifying strengths and needs with performance measures aligned with evidence-based practices reflected in state and national teacher and leader standards; and,
a feedback loop where EPP data is used to inform state policy.

5. Creating systems for data reporting, sharing, and use at the state level
Reporting Data
Program Preparation Effectiveness Measure (PPEM)
PPEM Dashboard & Timeline
Sharing Data
Multi-agency longitudinal data system
State agency data sharing agreement
Using Data
EPP Needs Assessment
Technical Assistance Modules
Data conversations for program improvement

6. Preparation Program Evaluation Measure (PPEM) Current Component Distribution
In-program Measures– 50%
GACE content assessment scores
edTPA classroom performance assessment scores
Outcome Measures – 50%
TAPS classroom observation scores from first teaching year
Surveys of inductee teachers and their employers from first teaching year

7. Sample Data Set E In-program Measures Outcome Measures 30% 20% 10%
Provider
edTPA raw score
edTPA index score
GACE
Raw score
GACE index score
TAPS raw score
TAPS index score
Survey raw score
Inductee Survey index score
Employer Survey index score
Total index score A
2.62
4.8
224.2
1.7
19.1
16.0
3.29
7.9
138.3 B
2.98
19.2
226.1
2.4
19.4
17.6
3.17
6.7
152.7 C
2.87
14.8
254.2
13.7
19.9
22.1
2.95
4.5
159.5 D
2.81
12.4
259.4
15.8
21.5
3.08
5.8
161.2 E
2.93
17.2
254.6
13.8
19.6
19.7
3.24
7.4
165.6 F
3.09
23.6
258.1
15.2
19.5
18.9
3.03
5.3
168.3 G
2.90
265.8
18.3
20.4
25.4
3.07
5.7
171.1 H
3.15
26.0
257.3
14.9
19.8
20.9
3.14
6.4
174.6 I
261.8
16.7
20.2
23.9
3.13
6.3
179.2 J
3.10
24.0
261.7
20.1
23.2
3.32
8.2
180.2 K
29.2
256.9
16.1
3.39
183.2 L
3.47
38.8
250.6
12.2
21.7
3.22
7.2
187.1 M
3.16
26.4
270.1
20.0
20.3
25.0
3.30
8.0
187.4

8. Creating systems for data reporting, sharing, and use at the university level
Reporting Data
GAPSC/USG/CAEP/Title II
TPMS; BANNER
Sharing Data
Data sharing: the LiveText Assessment System
Unit Level data summaries: Professional Education Faculty Committee Reports
Program level data summaries: strengths, needs, and goals
Using Data
Unit vs. Program level responsibilities/oversight for professional development
Grassroots experiential learning and input
Feedback loop for continuous improvement and evolution of policies/procedures

9. Professional Education Faculty (PEF) Infrastructure of Support
Unit Level Goals
PEF Committees
Assessment & Accreditation
(CAEP 1, 3, 4, 5)
Clinical Partnerships & Induction
(CAEP 2)
edTPA Ad-hoc
(CAEP 1, 4)
Unit Level Coordination Team
Unit Assessment Coordinator
Associate Dean
Associate to the Dean for Clinical Practice
Department edTPA Coordinators
Grass Roots Experiential Learning and Input
Clinical Practice Teachers
Faculty
Students
edTPA Liaisons
Field Supervisors
Program & Course Design, Signature Assignments, Key Assessments,
Program Level Professional Development and Resources
Teacher Preparation Reform
Program Level Goals
Syllabi Review & CEEDAR Modules

10. Alignment with CAEP Standard 4: Program Impact
CAEP’s Standard 4 is about providers demonstrating the impact of its completers on P-12 student learning and development, classroom instruction, and schools, and the satisfaction of its completers with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation.
The provider establishes a suite of evidence/measures that are to be found, developed, accumulated, measured, analyzed and interpreted as the basis for an EPP’s claim that it has effectively prepared teachers and other education professionals.

11. Guiding Questions???
What evidence/measures do you have that would demonstrate graduates’ impact, effectiveness, and satisfaction? What research methodologies could you feasibly employ to gain such information?

12. Ways to hit the mark… Component 4.1
Direct measures of student learning and development
Addresses diverse subjects and grades
P-12 impact or growth data from state teacher evaluations (if available)

13. Ways to hit the mark… If state data are not available:
Teacher-linked student assessments from districts
Classroom-based research (e.g., action research, case studies)
Describe data sources and model/formula
If state data are is available
Describe data sources and model/formula
Describe EPP’s analysis and evaluation of the information
Interpret data and judge implications
If validity cannot be credibly established for state sources, supplement with other valid evidence.

14. Ways to hit the mark… Component 4.2 P-12 Student Surveys
Teaching Observations
Aligned to the 4 InTASC categories
Aligned to state standards for teachers / local teacher evaluation framework
P-12 Student Surveys
Aligned to the InTASC categories
Corroboration for observation/evaluation data

15. Ways to hit the mark… Component 4.3 Component 4.4 Employer Surveys
Aligned to the InTASC
Corroboration for observation/evaluation and data
Component 4.4
Completer Surveys
Aligned to the InTASC
Aligned to state standards for teachers / local teacher evaluation framework
Triangulate with observation/evaluation, survey, and impact data

16. Considering Your State Contexts
State Systems
EPP Engagement
CAEP Alignment
What are some state systems already in place for data reporting, sharing, and use?
How might those systems be modified or new systems created to support EPP faculty & stakeholders?
How do you engage faculty & stakeholders to use data for program improvement?
How do you report, share, and use data at the EPP level?
What new ideas support your efforts in sustaining a process for continuous improvement?
What strategies support a process of continuous improvement as aligned to CAEP 4?

17. Closing Connections What will be important to share with my team?
Who should I connect with later? When? What should I follow-up on?