1 / 23

The CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation

The CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation. CSU Systemwide Evaluation. Everything you ever wanted to know , How CSU Stanislaus compares, and what we do with the information?. CSU Center for Teacher Quality. The CSU Systemwide Evaluation. History & purpose

clark
Télécharger la présentation

The CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The CSU Systemwide Evaluation of Teacher Preparation CSU Systemwide Evaluation Everything you ever wanted to know , How CSU Stanislaus compares, and what we do with the information? CSU Center for Teacher Quality

  2. The CSU Systemwide Evaluation History & purpose A Rich Body of Evidence for Improving Teacher Preparation 2001 2013

  3. Two Sources of Evidence

  4. Locating First-Year Teachers & Supervisors

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. Reports, Reports, Reports Each Campus Receives Separate Reports about MS, SS and ES Programs. Chancellor and Trustees Each Report Includes Campus-Specific and Systemwide Results. Bakersfield CSUCI Chico CSUDH East Bay Northridge CSULB CSUMB Sonoma Fullerton Humboldt CSULA Fresno Pomona SJSU Sac State CSUSB SDSU CST Program CSUSM SFSU SLO 8 Private IHEs Stanislaus Chancellor’s Office Center for Teacher Quality

  8. 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

  9. Intended Uses of the Data

  10. Improvement and Accountability Plan

  11. MSCP • MS Priority Area 1: English Learners • MS Priority Area 2: Special Learners • MS Priority Area 3: At-Risk Students • MS Priority Area 4: Fieldwork School • MS Priority Area 5: Campus-Defined Priorities

  12. At-Risk Students

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. SSCP • SS Priority Area 1: English Learners • SS Priority Area 2: Special Learners • SS Priority Area 3: At-Risk Students • SS Priority Area 4: Content-Area Reading • SS Priority Area 5: Fieldwork Schools • SS Priority Area 6: Campus-Defined Priorities

  17. English Learners

  18. Action Plan • Increase participation in survey • Continue to provide PLCs for faculty and student teachers/interns on SIOP and GLAD • Maintain MediaSite with instructional videos related to instructing English learners • Incorporate CCSS and the new ELD standards into courses for the Fall 2013

  19. EDSE • ES Priority Area 1: English Learners • ES Priority Area 2: At-Risk Students • ES Priority Area 3: Fieldwork Schools • ES Priority Area 4: Campus Defined Priorities

  20. Fieldwork Schools

  21. 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.

  22. Action Plan • Increase participation from supervisors and teachers • Ensure schools used for fieldwork are diverse • Cooperating teachers, university supervisors, and student teachers meet to ensure valuable experiences

  23. 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! 

More Related