Its Complicated January 22 2015 Karen Symms Gallagher PhD Emery Stoops and Joyce King Stoops Dean 1 Mission To improve learning in urban education locally nationally and globally ID: 509172
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "To Whom and For What Do We Hold Our Teac..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
To Whom and For What Do We Hold Our Teacher Preparation Program Accountable? (It’s Complicated) January 22, 2015
Karen Symms Gallagher, Ph.D.Emery Stoops and Joyce King Stoops Dean
1Slide2
Mission: To improve learning in urban education locally, nationally and globallyVision: A world where every student, regardless of personal circumstance, can learn and
succeed
The USC Rossier
School
2Slide3
What Do We Mean by Accountability?USC Rossier believes in mission-driven accountability that continuously improves practiceUSC Rossier believes accountability decisions are based on multiple and varied measures that disaggregate across student, faculty, degree program and school levels
USC Rossier believes accountability measures are internally and externally derived3Slide4
Rossier CommitmentOur formal commitment to all graduates of USC Rossier is that we will provide our graduates with a range of resources as they start and build their careers – from access to materials from their programs to consultations to alumni networking to professional development programsThis is life-long and world-wide4Slide5
USC ContextUSCRossierMATFounded
188019092004Current Enrollment
on-campus; online
42,000
18,000
(
UG)2000
890
Demographics
13% Hispanic
4%
Black/AA
22% Hispanic
12% Black/AA
18% Hispanic
14%
Black/AAInternational13%7%7%FT Faculty37867823Degrees/Time to Degree91% in 6 yrs (UG)6 Masters (2 yrs)3 EdD (3 yrs)1 PhD (4 yrs)5 terms online13 months on campus
5Slide6
Masters of Arts in Teaching withCalifornia Teaching Credential5 Credential Options Elementary and Secondary (English, Social Sciences, Math and Sciences)2 Delivery FormatsOn-campus: Once per year start / FT / 13 monthsOnline: Now 3 starts / PT&FT / 15 - 24 monthsSame admissions criteria, curriculum, & facultyStudents assigned a school locally, 20 weeks Guided Practice (Student Teaching)
6Slide7
Online Learning at USC underMax NikiasC. L. Max Nikias2001+: As Viterbi School of Engineering Dean
Built the Distance Education Network (DEN)2005+: As ProvostDeclared that every
school would have an online program
Invested millions in technology
2010+:
As President
Established the following rules for online: For graduate and professional degrees only
Academic rigor, integrity and excellence above all
Normal admissions standards and regular tuition
USC retains sole responsibility for ensuring academic quality
No online programs for undergraduates
7Slide8
Growth in Number of Graduates
Between 2004 - 2010
Between 2010 - 2014
2200
8
fewer than 200Slide9
65% graduates are MAT with CA credentialTop CA employers – LAUSD, SDUSD, SFUSD, Green Dot, ICEFPlacements in 650 districts/361 CA districts in AY15
5% of placement sites had 10 or more MAT studentsStudents in 47 states and 38 countries
The
Evolution of the Online MAT
9Slide10
Placeholder
Live
Self Paced
Field Work
Social Networking
USC
RossierSlide11
MAT Virtual Classroom11Slide12
In Real Schools12Slide13
Guided PracticeTeaching EventPlanning lesson with mentor teacherTeaching lessonDebriefing lesson with mentor teacher8 formal teaching events are videotaped, viewed and archived
USC SupervisorEvaluates the teaching eventWeekly meeting via the LMS with USC supervisor, no more than 8 guided practice students, mentor teachersMultiple learning communities via social networks (Facebook) and LMS
13Slide14
AEGIS: DefinedData Collection
Quali
tat
iv
e
and Quant
i
tat
ive
measures
o
f
student
per
fo
rmance.Annual Review and ReportingKey indicators of candidateperfo
rmance
.
Data
An
alys
is a
nd
Need
s
A
ssessme
nt
An
alysis
of
c
an
did
ate
per
fo
rmance
f
r
o
m
multiple
indicat
o
r
s
Im
p
rov
ement
Planning
R
esponse to candidate datafrom multiple measure indicators
Implementation of Data & Formative AssessmentImplementation of theDean’s Charge based upon data collected and analyzed.
14Slide15
Office of Program Accreditation and Evaluation (OPAE)Coordinates accreditation & evaluation activities for all programs in USC RossierCollaborates with each program to collect and analyze data through the completion of Rossier’s Annual Program Report (APR)Collects data in areas related to program goals, candidate proficiencies, and alumni outcomes 15Slide16
Assessment SystemOverview of the Five Phases of the Assessment SystemAssessment System for Candidate Proficiencies
Assessment System for Faculty Expectations
Assessment
System
for Unit ExpectationsPhase
1
.
Data
Collection
(August
– June)Qualitative and quantitative data collection on key assessments and other indicators of candidate performanceIndividual faculty collection of data on course
evaluations,
scholarship,
and
service.
Internal
and
external
evaluations
and
reports
that
are
responsive
to
the
unit’s
operationalization
of
the
Mission
and
Strategic PlanPhase 2. Annual Review and Reporting (January – June)
Collection of Key Assessment and other indicators of candidate performanceFaculty completion of Annual Performance Review (FAPR)Unit’s reports to the University, Board of Councilors; Accreditation reports;
Federal Reports; Reports to other external organizations (national rankings)Phase 3. Data Analysis & Needs Assessment (June – July)Reflection by faculty and staff on Key Assessment results and other indicators and trends from the previous academic yearAnalysis of
FAPRs by
faculty subcommittees.
Faculty reflection
on individual
performance in
previous
year
Unit
Leadership
review of internal and external reporting data regarding resources, faculty, staff, and operational needs to meet the Mission and Strategic PlanPhase 4. Improvement Planning (July – August)Faculty and staff meetings with the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs to design responsive measures based on candidate achievement on Key Assessments and other indicatorsReview of individual FAPRs by Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs. Individual meetings with faculty to highlight areas of strength and identify areas for improvementUnit Leadership design responsive actions to facilitate the unit achievement of the Mission and Strategic PlanPhase 5 – Implementation of Data and Formative Assessment (August-June)Programmatic implementation of the Dean’s Charge and continuous monitoring of candidate proficiencies on Key Assessments and other indicatorsOffice of the Vice-Dean for Faculty Affairs monitors performance through course evaluations, scholarship, and serviceUnit Leadership implements and formatively monitors progress on internal and external evaluations and reports
(August – June)
(January – June)
(June – July)
(July – August)
(August
– June
)Slide17
What We Have LearnedSources of Data and InformationGates’ study of students’ use of feedback during GPWestEd 5-year longitudinal study of MAT (currently beginning year 4)Surveys & focus groups of alumni, MAT faculty, current students, GP teachers & administratorsPolicy studies from PACEObservations of all sections of selected MAT coursesPartnership feedbackCTC/NCATE accreditation process and feedbackImpact on classroom learning by our alumni
17Slide18
What We Have LearnedFrom our studentsPrepared to work in diverse classroomsFrom our graduatesPrepared to work with English language learnersFrom our GP partnersStreamline our orientation processes, offer refresher courses, keep sending well prepared GP studentsFrom MAT Faculty (FT, PT, Adjuncts)Implement a more comprehensive system to evaluate staff and faculty performanceFrom CTC/NCATEAccreditation without any stipulations
18Slide19
Barriers to Program Accountability and Continuous ImprovementState Policy NeedsPolitical commitment to statewide student and teacher databasesInfrastructure NeedsDevelopment and maintenance of a single system for data collection and storage at both school of education and university levelsK-12 Partnership NeedsDevelopment and commitment to multiple measures of teacher impact in classrooms
19Slide20
InsightsWe focus too frequently on the details of the program and overlook the program as a wholeAs teacher educators, we do hold our program responsible for preparing competent, caring and qualified novice teachers who can improve student achievement and learning – our vision. 20Slide21
Q & A21Karen Symms Gallagher, Ph.D.Emery Stoops and Joyce King Stoops Dean
To Whom and For What Do We Hold Our Teacher Preparation Program Accountable? (It’s Complicated)