Standard Two: Understanding the Assessment System and its Relationship to the Conceptual Framework and the Other Standards Robert Lawrence, Ph.D., Director of Assessment Tift College of Education Mercer University

Why We Assess To provide evidence of candidate transformation To demonstrate program effectiveness To demonstrate faculty effectiveness To demonstrate unit effectiveness To engage in a process of continuous improvement that results in ongoing modification and improvement in both our teacher education programs and in our candidates’ performance.

Critical Success Factors Related to Assessment What a unit must have in place to make its assessment process meaningful and to demonstrate program, unit and faculty effectiveness: 1. An organizational culture that values collaboration and a shared vision and responsibility among all members of the unit; 2. Strong leadership from the Office of the Dean or unit head; 3. A commitment by faculty to a process of continuous improvement, from both a programmatic and a personal /professional perspective; and 4. Reliable and valid instruments that yield useful data to faculty, students and the unit.

NCATE Standard 2 NCATE Standard 2 stipulates that the unit must have an assessment system that collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the performance of candidates, the unit, and its programs.

Setting the stage for assessment An effective assessment system ensures that multiple assessments are used to generate data for informing program and unit changes. Both qualitative and quantitative date provide information that can be used for instituting changes where necessary.

Assessment: A Soul-Washing Experience

The Conceptual Framework A Conceptual Framework establishes the shared vision for the unit’s efforts in preparing educators to work effectively in P-12 schools. It provides direction for our programs, courses, teaching, candidate performance, scholarship, service and accountability. A Conceptual Framework is knowledge-based, articulated, shared, coherent, and consistent with the unit and the institution’s mission - and is continuously evaluated.

The Conceptual Framework Reflects the unit’s: Conceptual Framework missionVision Candidate proficiencies Philosophical underpinnings Unit Values Knowledgebase scholarshipService

The Conceptual Framework Establishes a shared vision Coherent Consistent with the unit mission Provides direction Knowledge-based Articulated

Conceptual Framework Themes Preparing informed, empowered, committed, and engaged educators (Georgia State University) Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning (Kennesaw State University) Preparing Critical Thinking Change Agents to Improve Academic Outcomes in Diverse Schools and Communities (Clark Atlanta University) Positively Impacting Learning Through Evidence- Based Practice (Valdosta State University)

Conceptual Framework Themes The Transforming Practitioner: To Know, To Do, To Be (Mercer University) Developers of Human Potential – Educating the Head, Heart, and Hands (Berry College) Reflective Educators for Diverse Learners (Georgia Southern) The Proficient Educator (Fort Valley State University)

Standard 4 Diversity Standard 1 Candidate Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions Standard 6 Unit Governance and Resources Standard 5 Faculty Qualifications, Performance, and Development Standard 3 Field Experiences and Clinical Practices Standard 2 Assessment System and Unit Evaluation Conceptual Framework Standard 7 Standard 8 Candidate Performance Expectations DATA

Standard 2 – A Closer Look Standard 2 – Assessment System and Unit Evaluation – addresses the unit’s assessment system to determine whether the system collects and analyzes data on applicant qualifications, candidate and graduate performance, and unit operations to evaluate and improve the performance of candidates, the unit and its programs. The unit’s Assessment System should generate candidate assessment data, as well as evaluative data related to unit policies and procedures. The system of assessment and unit evaluation should yield data that serves as evidence for meeting many of the components of the 5 other Standards.

Standard 2 – A Closer Look Data Expectations NCATE expects institutions to regularly and systematically collect, compile, aggregate, summarize, analyze, and use data throughout the full (five to seven years) accreditation cycle between onsite visits. When the BOE team conducts the onsite visit, it should find evidence that the institution has three years of data for continuing accreditation. Institutions that do not meet this minimum requirement will have an area for improvement (AFI) cited under Standard 2, indicating that the unit is not regularly and/or systematically collecting and summarizing assessment data.

Standard 2 – A Closer Look 2a. Assessment System….at the Target Level The unit, with the involvement of the professional community, is regularly evaluating the capacity and effectiveness of its assessment system, which reflects the conceptual framework, and incorporates candidate proficiencies outlined in professional and state standards; Decisions about candidate performance are based on multiple assessments made at multiple points before program completion and in practice after completion of programs; Data show a strong relationship of performance assessments to candidate success throughout their programs and later in classrooms and schools.

Standard 2 – A Closer Look 2b. Data collection, analysis and evaluation….at the Target level Assessment data from candidates, graduates, faculty and other members of the professional community are based on multiple assessments from internal and external sources that are systematically collected as candidates progress through programs; These data are disaggregated by program when candidates are in alternate route, off-campus and distance learning programs; These data are regularly and systematically compiled, aggregated, summarized, analyzed and reported publicly for the purpose of improving candidate performance.

Standard 2 – A Closer Look 2c. Use of data for program improvement….at the target level The unit has fully developed evaluations and continuously searches for stronger relationships in the evaluations, revising both the underlying data systems and analytic techniques as necessary; The unit not only makes changes based on the data, but also systematically studies the effects of any changes to assure that programs are strengthened without adverse consequences.

Standard Two’s impact on Standard One Evidence of candidate mastery of: Content knowledge Pedagogical content knowledge and skills Professional and Pedagogical knowledge and skills Impact on student learning Knowledge and skills for other school professionals Dispositions

PSC Requirements State Content Test Second Content Assessment Planning Assessment Clinical Practice Assessment Effect on Student Learning Assessment Dispositions Common Key Assessments GACE II Content Knowledge Assessment Portfolio Summative Evaluations Analysis of Student Learning Dispositions

Standard Two’s impact on Standard Three Accountability for clinical practice includes: The application of both entry and exit requirements for candidates Candidates’ demonstration of content, pedagogical, and professional knowledge aligned with standards Candidates’ demonstration of proficiencies in early field experiences Candidates’ application of the skills, knowledge, and professional dispositions defined by the unit in its conceptual framework, including the capacity to have a positive effect on P-12 student learning Candidates’ demonstration of skills for working with colleagues, parents and families, and communities.

Standard Two’s impact on Standard Four The assessment system will: Assess proficiencies related to professional dispositions and diversity Monitor the level of diversity among peers, professional education faculty, school-based faculty and faculty from other units

Standard Two’s impact on Standard Five The assessment system will: Include systematic and comprehensive evaluations of the professional education faculty

Standard Two’s impact on Standard Six Unit administrators are responsible for the development, operations and evaluation of an assessment system that will monitor and assess candidate performance, program efficacy and unit operations.

Standard Two’s Impact on Standard Seven Monitors data collection on: Admission and program exit Field and clinical experiences Technology integration

Standard Two’s Impact on Standard Eight Professional Content Standards for the Program – State and/or National Standards – Educator Preparation Standards Early Childhood Education Mathematics (6-12) Science (6-12) Special Education General Curriculum Educational Leadership PL How does the unit know? 1 KEY assessment: What other KEY assessments may also be included?