Assessment and Continuous Improvement in Teacher Education

UC has decided to once again secure Accreditation for Teacher Education from NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education)

The NCATE members have developed a set of standards that all member institutions agree to follow in order to receive accreditation

Every seven years the individual NCATE Units are expected to verify that they indeed are meeting the standards and are working to continuously improve their programs

UC verifies that the standards are being met by collecting data and making changes that support continuous improvement efforts This data must be collected at the program level, aggregated, and reported for the Unit Currently UC has 35 programs that make up this Unit

This data is placed on the web for the faculty and the appointed accrediting team to review

The accrediting team will also make a site visit to confirm the data presented The next visit is scheduled for autumn 2012 At that time they expect to see a minimum of three years of data

The CECH Office of Assessment and Continuous Improvement was established to set up a process for collecting and presenting the data The A&CI Office is expected to generate as much data as possible directly, but when necessary work with the programs to collect the needed data

The process established for collecting data relies on the following sources: 1. Courses and “NCATE artifacts” A. Every Teacher ED course is an NCATE course and must be aligned with the NCATE/SPA standards which should be apparent on the course syllabus I. All assignments must be aligned with the NCATE/SPA Standards

II. All key assessments (Examples: Lesson Planning, Content Knowledge, Unit Plans, and Case Studies), regardless of instructor, must utilize the same directions, scoring guides, and rubrics (not rating scales) III. Rubric scores must be turned in to the OACI by the end of each quarter (the OACI can provide an electronic version if desired) B. Value Added Assignment (some programs complete in field placement). C. Dispositions (Brief Reports or in class Disposition Form)

2. Field Placement A. Disposition Progress Report (Mentor) B. Final Candidate Evaluation (Mentor) C. Candidate Use of Technology (Mentor) D. Mentor Evaluation of Program (Mentor) E. Collaborative Assessment Log (Candidate with Mentor and University Supervisor) F. Educator Impact Rubric (Candidate) G. Value Added Assignment (Candidate) (Some Programs)

2. Field Placement Cont… H. Goal Setting Agreement (Candidate with Mentor and Supervisor) I. Evaluation of University Supervisor (Candidate) J. Evaluation of Field Experience (Candidate) K. Evaluation of Program (Candidate) L. ODE Summative Assessment (University Supervisor with Mentor) M. Evaluation of Placement and Mentor (Supervisor)

3. Other A. Student Satisfaction Survey (Candidate) B. Exit Survey (Candidate) C. Alumni Survey D. Employer Survey (School Personnel) E. Course Evaluations F. Program Demographics G. Faculty Vita H. Syllabi

3. Other Cont… I. Faculty Program Evaluations J. Faculty Research Efforts K. Graduate Employment Information from ODJFS and ODE Data Base L. Program Benchmark Information M. Use of Data for Program Improvement Form

Data posted on the website is reviewed annually by the program faculty with input from candidates (focus groups and exit surveys) and school partners (partnership panel meetings and employer surveys)

Faculty discussions about the data are documented and changes outlined on a continuous improvement plan report Closing the Loop – Programs share data and changes with professional community and students at Partnership Panel meetings, focus groups, and through listservs