1 / 35

Common Standard 2: Unit and Program Assessment and Evaluation

Common Standard 2: Unit and Program Assessment and Evaluation. October 1, 2008 10:30 am-3:00 pm. Topics to be Addressed . Revisions to the Common Standards Edits to the Common Standards—in process now Common Standard 2 Designing a Unit Evaluation and Program Assessment System.

ria-english
Download Presentation

Common Standard 2: Unit and Program Assessment and Evaluation

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. Common Standard 2:Unit and Program Assessment and Evaluation October 1, 2008 10:30 am-3:00 pm

  2. Topics to be Addressed • Revisions to the Common Standards • Edits to the Common Standards—in process now • Common Standard 2 • Designing a Unit Evaluation and Program Assessment System #1 Agenda, #2 PowerPoint

  3. Revisions to Common Standards • Commission adopted revised Common Standards in June 2007 • Revised Common Standards implemented as of July 1, 2008 • All approved institutions should review and revise own response to Common Standards

  4. Common Standards 2007 1: Educational Leadership 2: Unit and Program Evaluation System 3: Resources 4: Faculty 5: Admissions 6: Advice and Assistance 7: Field Experiences and Clinical Practice 8: Program Sponsor, District and University Field Experience Supervisors 9: Assessment of Candidate Competence

  5. Compared to Prior Standards • Evaluation System utilizing data (CS 2) • Assess candidate competence (CS 9) • Focus on K-12 Content Standards (CS 1, 3, 4, 7, 9) • Focus on learning for all students (CS 7, 9) • Focus on diversity and California’s students (CS 5, 7, 9) #3 Alignment Matrix 98-07

  6. Proposed edits • Concerns about the applicability of these standards to all types of credential programs and all types of program sponsors—so proposed edits • No change to the content—except in Common Standard 8 • Broadens language to address all programs and types of sponsors • Tier II, Level II, or Induction Programs • Colleges, universities, school districts, county offices of education and other entities

  7. Timeline for edits • Information item presented to the Commission on August 8 • Stakeholder feedback collected until September 25 • COA will review feedback at the October 10, 2008 meeting • Edits return to the Commission on November 6, 2008 for action • Glossary!

  8. Standard 2: Unit and Program Assessment and Evaluation The education unit implements an assessment and evaluation system for ongoing program and unit evaluation and improvement. The system collects, analyzes and utilizes data on candidate and program completer performance and unit operations. Assessment in all programs includes ongoing and comprehensive data collection related to candidate qualifications, proficiencies, and competence, as well as program effectiveness, and are used for improvement purposes.

  9. Sentence by sentence The education unit implements an assessment and evaluation system for ongoing program and unit evaluation and improvement.

  10. Sentence by sentence (continued) The system collects, analyzes and utilizes data on candidate and program completer performance and unit operations.

  11. Sentence by sentence(continued) Assessment in all programs includes ongoing and comprehensive data collection related to candidate qualifications, proficiencies, and competence, as well as program effectiveness, and are used for improvement purposes.

  12. Unit Evaluation System Admin ServicesProgram CTEL Program Multiple Subject Program

  13. Program Evaluation System • Design the Evaluation System • Collect Data • Analyze the Data • Utilize the Analysis for Program Improvements

  14. Design the System • Who will be assessed? • What will be evaluated? • What do we want to know about the candidates and the program (s)? • Who will provide data on the program? • When will the data be collected? • How will data be collected and stored? • How will data be analyzed and reported?

  15. Assessment of Candidate Competence Candidates preparing to serve as teachers and other professional school personnel know and demonstrate the professional knowledge and skills necessary to educate and support effectively all students in meeting the state-adopted academic standards. Assessments indicate that candidates meet the Commission-adopted competency requirements, as specified in the program standards. #4 Concepts in Common Standards

  16. Who will be assessed?(CS 9) • Candidates’ competence in areas appropriate for the credential • Performance on the TPA • Performance on class projects • Performance in student teaching/clinical experiences • Completer’s competence • Assessment by supervisor

  17. What do we want to know about candidates and programs? • About candidates? Common Standard 9 and the Candidate Competence Standards in the Program Standards • About programs? Common Standards 1 (leadership), 3 (resources), 4 (faculty), etc.

  18. What will be evaluated? • Admission (CS 5) • Program Design • Courses • Field Work (CS 7, 8) • Advising (CS 6) • Faculty (CS 4) • Recommendation for credentials • Assessment

  19. Who has the information we want? • Candidates • Program completers • Faculty/instructors • Field supervisors—program and district • Employers • Advisory Boards

  20. When to Collect Data? Institution and/or Program must decide: • Annually • Each Term • With each cohort • Beginning, middle and/or end of the program

  21. How to collect data? Overall question – What kind of data do we want? What data collection instrument would be most effective in collecting the data? • Surveys • Assignments • Evaluations • Focus groups

  22. Data Collection What kind of data will each instrument provide? • Open-ended (qualitative) • Multiple choice, scaled scores (quantitative) • A combination of both?

  23. Data Storage • Collection procedures will impact storage and analytical procedures • If you use electronic data collection instruments, the results can be easily stored. • Other collection procedures will require hand-entry. • Who will enter the data? • Who will have access to the data?

  24. Analyze the Data • Who has the skills to analyze the data, consider the questions? • What tools will be used? • How often will data be analyzed? • How do you want the data presented? By cohort? By program? By geographic location? All of the above? Other?

  25. Triangulating the Data Employer surveys Data from multiple sources helps locate program strengths and areas for growth: candidate competence data, completer and employer surveys, and faculty surveys Program self-study Faculty feedback MS Program Course Evaluations TPAs Focus Groups Key Assessments

  26. Utilize the Analysis for Improvement • How will results from each of the analyses be shared? As results of course evaluations? In a meeting or a written report? • With whom will the results be shared? • When?

  27. Utilize the Analysis for Improvement (continued) • Who will ensure that changes identified by the analyses are undertaken? How will decisions be made if the data indicates that changes should be made?—Will each professor decide? Does the faculty as a whole? Is it an administrative decision? • How will changes be noted for institutional history and accreditation activities?

  28. Unit Evaluation System • Unit evaluation system is composed of each program’s evaluation process… • When, what, who, how…

  29. Multiple Subject Program Unit Evaluation System Admin Services Program CTEL Program #5 Institution Evaluation Plan

  30. Revised Common Standards Use • Green cohort institutions may respond to either the 2007 Common Standards or the edited 2008 standards. • All other institutions will respond to the edited 2008 Common Standards for both Site Visits and Program Approval.

  31. Responding to a Common Standard Break the Standard into its component parts The language of the standard defines WHAT the institution must do The institution must describe HOW it is going to meet the what of the standard

  32. Common Standards in Accreditation Activities • Responses to the Common Standards are prepared for the Site Visit • Reviewers confirm the responses with interviews and other evidence on site • Also used in initial Program Approval process (CTEL, Ed Specialist, etc.) • Reviewers confirm with evidence provided in the document

  33. Evidence • What kinds of evidence will support the claims made in the response to Common Standard 2? • What additional evidence from programs might be needed? • Differences between evidence for Site Visit and Program Approval

  34. Resources PSD News To subscribe, send an email to psd-news-subscribe@lists.ctc.ca.gov Commission Web Page www.ctc.ca.govselectProgram Sponsors then Accreditation

  35. Resources • Biennial Reports http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/program-accred-biennial-reports.html • Program Assessment http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/program-accred-assessment.html • Site Visits http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/program-accred-site-visits.html

More Related