1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Figure 1: Teaching Participation Rate Among CSU Credential Graduates 10,457 = Total Number of CSU Credential Graduates in 2000-01 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% 160353

14. 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 1999-00 Graduates Principal Evaluations of 2000-01 Graduates Evaluations by 2000-01 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

15. 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 1999-2000 Graduates Red: Evaluations by 2000-2001 Graduates

16. 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% 1999-20002000-2001 Figure 7: Preparation to Teach Reading-Language Arts 83% 80% 89% 88% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1999-20002000-2001 Figure 8: Preparation to Teach Mathematics (K-8) 74% 85% 78% 87% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1999-20002000-2001 Figure 9: Pedagogical Preparation to Teach Science 77% 80% 91% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1999-20002000-2001 Figure 10: Preparation to Teach History-Social Science

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