EPP Quality Assurance System Handbook

Sam Houston State University College of Education Educator Preparation Program Quality Assurance System Handbook For Faculty, Staff, Students, and P-12 Partners

Introduction The Quality Assurance System (QAS) in the Sam Houston State University College of Education Educator Preparation Program (EPP) is a comprehensive system developed and maintained with input from internal and external stakeholders. It consists of strategic assessment measures resulting in the collection of valid data from multiple measures. Data are analyzed and shared with stakeholders to drive continuous improvement of initial teacher preparation and advanced educator preparation programs. Through this QAS, the EPP engages in a sustained and strategic process to facilitate the ongoing improvement of evidence-based practices and uses the results of inquiry and data collection to establish priorities, enhance program elements, and highlight innovations.

2

Table of Contents Educator Preparation Program and Quality Assurance Plan Overview Academic Programs in the Educator Preparation Program Accrediting Agencies Certifications Approved by the Texas Education Agency Quality Assurance Plan Glossary Quality Assurance Plan Personnel

Page 4 Page 4 Page 6 Page 7 Page 9 Page 13

Data Collection and Dissemination Information, Learning, and Assessment Technologies Data Reporting, Decision-making, and Program Improvement

Page 14 Page 14 Page 15

Stakeholder Involvement SHSU EPP Quality Assurance Partnerships Graphic Sam Houston Innovative Partner Schools (SHIPS) Education Advisors for Content (EPAC) Advanced Programs Advisory Councils College of Education Assessment Committee

Page 16 Page 16 Page 17 Page 19 Page 20 Page 20

Data Quality Initial and Advanced Programs Data Sources with Data Reliability and Validity Continuous Improvement Assessment Review Cycle

Page 22 Page 28 Page 29

Implementation of Program and Unit Assessments Initial Programs Gateways Advanced Programs Gateways and Program Transition Points

Page 32 Page 32 Page 33

Appendix A: SHSU ITP Milestones Report

Page 36

3

Educator Preparation Program and Quality Assurance Plan Overview Academic Programs in the Educator Preparation Program At Sam Houston State University, teacher candidates major in a Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts degree which are aligned to the Texas teacher and content standards and require teacher candidates to meet both academic major and certification requirements.

Bachelor of Science, Major in Early Childhood: PK-3 Certification Teacher candidates seeking early childhood certification in Texas major in Early Childhood: PK3. Teachers certified in PK-3 are qualified to teach in Pk-3rd grade classrooms.

Bachelor of Science, Major in Education, EC-6 Certification Teacher candidates seeking elementary certification in Texas can major in EC-6 Core, EC6 Bilingual, or EC-6 with SPED. All three majors are qualified to teach in EC-6th grade classrooms.

EC-6 Bilingual candidates are qualified to teach in a bilingual EC-6 classrooms and EC-6 with SPED candidates are qualified to teach in EC-12 SPED classrooms.

Bachelor of Science, Major in Education: 4-8 Certification Teacher candidates seeking intermediate/middle level certification in Texas major in 48 education and content in mathematics, science, social studies, ELAR, and Core (all contents).

Teachers with 4-8 certification are qualified to teach content specific to the major in grades 48.

Secondary Education: Teacher candidates seeking high school level certification in Texas major in 6-12 or 7-12 education and content in the following areas and qualify teacher candidates to teach in high school classrooms.

• Bachelor of Science, Double Major in Education and Interdisciplinary Agriculture • Bachelor of Science, Major in Agriculture with Teaching Certification in the following tracks: o Agricultural Business o Agriculture Engineering o Animal Science o Plant and Soil Science • Bachelor of Arts, Double Major in Education and English Language Arts and Reading • Bachelor of Science, Double Major in Education and History • Bachelor of Science, Double Major in Education and Mass Communications: Journalism • Bachelor of Science, Double Major in Education and Mathematics • Bachelor of Science, Double Major in Education and Composite Science (Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and Geology) 4

All-level P-12: Teacher candidates seeking all-level certification in Texas major in content in the following areas and qualify teacher candidates to teach in P-12 classrooms.

• Bachelor of Fine Arts Major in Art with Teacher Certification in the following tracks: o Animation with Teaching Certification o Graphic Design with Teaching Certification o Photography with Teaching Certification o Studio Art 2D with Teaching Certification o Studio Art 3D with Teaching Certification • Bachelor of Arts, Double Major in Education and Spanish • Bachelor of Music, Major in Music with the following tracks: o Choral o Choral/Piano o Instrumental o String • Bachelor of Science, Double Major in Education and Kinesiology (Physical Education) • Bachelor of Fine Arts, Major in Theatre with Teaching Certification

5

EPP Accrediting Agencies and Standards Sam Houston State University, the College of Education, the Educator Preparation Program (EPP), and individual programs within the EPP all undergo review by appropriate governance and accrediting agencies. Additionally, programs are aligned to the appropriate standards for state licensure and for national recognition, where appropriate. These are: • • • • • •

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) Texas Education Agency (TEA) / State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC) Council for Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) Specialized Professional Associations: o American Association for School Librarians o American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language o American Middle Level Education o Council for Exceptional Children o Educational Leadership Constituency Council o International Literacy Association / International Reading Association o National Association for Teachers of English o National Association for Teachers of Math o National Council of Social Studies o SHAPE America

State Standards required for each program with TEA accreditation: • All programs: o Texas Teaching Standards o Technology Application Standards • EC-3: Content EC-3, Science of Teaching Reading, Pedagogy & Professional Responsibilities • EC-6: Art EC-6, Physical Education EC-6, ELAR EC-6, Music EC-6, Health EC-6, Science EC6, Mathematics EC-6, Social Studies EC-6, Theatre EC-6, Science of Teaching Reading, Pedagogy & Professional Responsibilities • Core Subjects 4-8: ELAR 4-8, Science 4-8, Mathematics 4-8, Social Studies 4-8, Science of Teaching Reading, Pedagogy & Professional Responsibilities • Each individual 4-8 Content Certification must include the appropriate set of content standards, Science of Teaching Reading, Pedagogy & Professional Responsibilities • Each individual Secondary Certificate and All-Level Certificate must include the appropriate set of content standards, Pedagogy & Professional Responsibilities • Supplemental certificate programs offered at SHSU include the standards for Bilingual Supplemental and English as a Second Language supplemental.

• Advanced certificates include the state standards for Principal, Superintendent, Educational Diagnostician, Reading Specialist, School Counselor, and School Librarian.

6

Certifications Approved by the Texas Education Agency 1/26/22, 1:22 PM

Educator Certification Online System Report

View Approved Certification Programs by Entity

To view a list of certificate areas offered by an educator preparation program, please select an entity. After selecting an option, the screen may appear to do nothing. Please wait for the screen to bring up a table of certificate areas below the drop-down list.

Entity: Sam Houston State University

It will take a few seconds for the Results list to appear.

To view a list of all entity locations, click on the link: View Entity Locations Close Window Approved Certificate Areas for Sam Houston State University Agriculture, Food & Natural Resources (Grades 6-12) Art (Grades EC-12) Bilingual Education Supplemental-Spanish (Grades NA) Core Subjects with STR (Grades 4-8) Core Subjects with STR (Grades EC-6) Dance (Grades 6-12) Driver Education (Grades 6-12) Early Childhood (Grades PK-3) Educational Diagnostician (Grades EC-12) English Language Arts and Reading (Grades 7-12) English Language Arts and Reading with STR (Grades 4-8) English Language Arts and Reading/Social Studies with STR (Grades 4-8) English as a Second Language Supplemental (Grades NA) Family and Consumer Sciences (Grades 6-12) Gifted and Talented Supplemental (Grades NA) Health (Grades EC-12) History (Grades 7-12) Journalism (Grades 7-12) Languages Other Than English - Spanish (Grades EC-12) Life Science (Grades 7-12) Mathematics (Grades 4-8) Mathematics (Grades 7-12) Mathematics/Science (Grades 4-8) Music (Grades EC-12) Physical Education (Grades EC-12) Physical Science (Grades 6-12) Principal as Instructional Leader (Grades EC-12) Reading Specialist (Grades EC-12) https://tealprod.tea.state.tx.us/ECOS/SBECOnline/view_programs.asp?sid=0A7C280C1BDF47D3AD3953F5D00A5538

7

1/2

1/26/22, 1:22 PM

Educator Certification Online System Report

School Counselor (Grades EC-12) School Librarian (Grades EC-12) Science (Grades 4-8) Science (Grades 7-12) Social Studies (Grades 4-8) Social Studies (Grades 7-12) Special Education (Grades EC-12) Special Education Supplemental (Grades NA) Speech (Grades 7-12) Superintendent (Grades EC-12) Technology Education (Grades 6-12) Theatre (Grades EC-12) Trade and Industrial Education (Grades 6-12)

https://tealprod.tea.state.tx.us/ECOS/SBECOnline/view_programs.asp?sid=0A7C280C1BDF47D3AD3953F5D00A5538

8

2/2

SHSU Quality Assurance Plan Glossary Each acronym and commonly used vernacular for the EPP are defined below.

Initial Programs Definitions: Educator Preparation Program (EPP) = all programs leading to initial or advanced educator certifications 1. Teacher Preparation Program (TPP) = all programs leading to initial teacher certification a. Double Major = teacher preparation programs for candidates seeking secondary or all-level certification that award degrees in both the TC's content area and education b. Associate of Arts in Teaching (AAT) = an associate degree program at partner community colleges that prepares teacher candidates to enter the SHSU teacher preparation program c. EdAide Pathway = a pathway to teacher certification for current P-12 paraprofessionals that allows TCs to complete coursework at night or online and to participate in EdAide Field Experience in lieu of student teaching d. 4+1 TEACH Pathway= a pathway to teacher certification that allows teacher candidates to receive their bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and teacher certification in 5 years and to complete 4+1 Internship in lieu of student teaching. This pathway is supported by a Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) grant from the U.S. Department of Education e. Post-Baccalaureate Pathway = a pathway to teacher certification for secondcareer teacher candidates who receive their teacher certification as part of their Masters in Teaching and Learning 2. Teacher Candidate (TC) = university students seeking initial certification a. Resident = teacher candidate participating in YLR, Opportunity Culture, or T-CLAS b. Student Teacher = Teacher Candidate participating in student teaching c. Intern = teacher candidate participating in 4+1 Internship or Internship d. EdAide Candidate = teacher candidate participating in the EdAide program 3. Curriculum Topics a. BESL/TESL = teacher preparation courses that prepare teacher candidates to support emerging bilingual students b. Emerging Bilingual Students = P-12 students who are learning English as an additional language, also known as ESL, ELL, EL, and LEP c. SPED = teacher preparation courses that prepare teacher candidates to support P-12 students with special needs d. Science of Teaching Reading (STR) = research-based instructional practices that improve the literacy skills of P-12 students

9

e. Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) = a research-based approach to teaching that connects students' cultures, languages, and life experiences with what they learn in school External Partners = foundations and organizations that partner with the TPP to provide supports for teacher candidates 1. US PREP = a technical assistance center that provides human and monetary support for YLR 2. Raise Your Hand Texas (RYHT) = a foundation that supports Texas education through professional learning and scholarships for teacher candidates 3. WestEd = a research, development, and services agency that partners with TPPs to provide customized support with interpreting and using data, research, and/or policy related to teacher preparation 4. Teaching Works = a multi-year collaborative support network involving EPP faculty and staff focused on the design and implementation of practice-based strategies for longlasting change and development of systems and routines that will ensure ongoing learning and improvement both in individual courses and across the entire program.

5. Deans for Impact = an organization that works to ensure that every beginning teacher is good on day one, and on the path to become great over time by connecting with leaders of educator-preparation programs, helping them to transform their programs and sustain these transformations over time 6. Learning by Scientific Design = a resource provided by the Deans for Impact Network for which the EPP was competitively selected to participate. EPP faculty and staff participate in learning sessions, gather data using formative assessments of teacher candidates, and use these data to inform curricular changes that address learning science and its translation to rigorous instructional practice 7. Houston Teacher Preparation Pipeline Community of Practice = a collaborative group of Houston area Educator Preparation Programs that convene regularly to problem solve and plan for continuous improvement of educator preparation Advisory Committee = stakeholder committees who collaborate to co-construct the design, delivery, evaluation, and major policy decisions of the educator preparation program 1. Sam Houston Innovative Partnerships with Schools (SHIPS) = the advisory committee consisting of external stakeholders for the teacher preparation program 2. Education Preparation Advisors for Content (EPAC) = teacher preparation faculty and staff who are content area liaisons whose positions reside in colleges outside of the College of Education Field Experience = experiences in P-12 schools that occur prior to clinical teaching 1. Faculty Field Supervisor (FFS) = clinical educator employed by the university who supports and conducts T-TESS observations for field experiences prior to clinical teaching

10

Clinical teaching = the culminating clinical experience for teacher candidates 1. Yearlong Residency (YLR) = the culminating clinical teaching experience that takes place over the final 2 semesters of a teacher candidate’s preparation 2. Opportunity Culture (OC) = the culminating clinical teaching experience that takes place over the final 2 semesters of a teacher candidate’s preparation, in which the teacher candidate is paid a stipend by the host school district 3. Texas COVID Learning Accelerated Supports (T-CLAS) = culminating clinical teaching experience that takes place over the final 2 semesters of a teacher candidate’s preparation, in which the teacher candidate is a paid a stipend by the Texas Education Agency 4. Student teaching = the culminating clinical experience for teacher candidates that consists of one semester of daily field experience under the guidance of a certified teacher 5. EdAide Field Experience = the culminating clinical experience for teacher candidates who are enrolled in the EdAide program that consists of 490 hours of field experience under the guidance of a certified teacher coinciding with their paraprofessional employment 6. 4+1 Internship = the culminating clinical experience for teacher candidates who are enrolled in the 4+1 TEACH program that consists of teacher candidates completing a 1year experience as teacher of record 7. Internship = the culminating clinical experience for teacher candidates who are enrolled in the Post-Baccalaureate program that consists of teacher candidates completing a 1year experience as teacher of record Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System (T-TESS) = the teacher evaluation and support system approved by the Commissioner of Education for use in P-12 classrooms, adopted by the TPP to support the development of teacher candidates Mentor Teacher = educator employed by a school district supervising a teacher candidate during field experience or clinical teaching Supervisor = clinical educators who are employed by the university who provide supervision of teacher candidates in P-12 schools 1. Site Coordinator = supervisor who coaches TCs during Yearlong Residency, Opportunity Culture, and T-CLAS 2. University Supervisor = supervisor who coaches TCs during student teaching 3. EdAide Supervisor = supervisor who coaches TCs during Ed Aide Field Experience 4. Full Release Mentor (FRM) = supervisor who coaches TCs during 4+1 Internship 5. Field Supervisor = supervisor who coaches TCs during Internship

11

Advanced Programs Definitions: Educator Preparation Program (EPP) = all programs leading to initial or advanced educator certifications 1. Advanced Programs (AP) = programs leading to certifications as Educational Diagnosticians, Reading Specialists, School Librarians, Principals, Superintendents, or School Counselors 2. Advanced Certification = an educator certificate that is received after initial teacher certification has been secured 3. Advanced Educator Candidate (AEC) = university students seeking advanced certification Advisory Committee = stakeholder committees who collaborate to co-construct the design, delivery, evaluation, and major policy decisions of the educator preparation program 1. Advanced Advisory Committee(s) (AAC) = the advisory committee consisting of external stakeholders for advanced programs Practicum = the culminating clinical experience (160 hours) for advanced educator candidates 1. Field Supervisor = a currently certified educator, hired by the educator preparation program to observe advanced candidates, monitor their performance, and provide constructive feedback to improve their effectiveness as educators 2. Site Supervisor = an educator employed by a public school who guides, assists, and supports the candidate during the practicum and reports the advanced educator candidate’s progress to the candidate's field supervisor

12

EPP Quality Assurance Plan Personnel Faculty, staff, and administrators across offices and functions contribute to the quality assurance system of the Educator Preparation Program, ensuring high quality preparation and experiences for initial and advanced candidates, and involving program completers, current and prospective employers, and P-12 partners.

Position Title Associate Dean for Educator Preparation Services Director for Accreditation and Accountability Services Director for Innovative Partnerships

Field Experience Coordinator Data Analyst

Assistant for Assessment Certification Officer EPP Admissions and Benchmarking Coordinator Administrative Associate Associate Dean for Learning Initiatives and Student Support

Office of Educator Preparation Services Current Employee Function Dr. Jannah Nerren General oversight of the EPP functions. Works closely with and supervises EPP personnel. Works closely with school partners, content partners, and clinical based faculty.

OPEN Collects, organizes, and analyzes data related to educator preparation, ensures programs remain in compliance with TEA rules, and uses data for program improvement.

Ms. Jessica Jemison- Collaborates with and fosters relationships and Williams communication with school partners in the co-selection of placement sites for the various clinical teaching models, coselection of mentor teachers, and professional development for mentor teachers.

Ms. Pleshette Ruiz Collaborates with school partners to coordinate placements of candidates in field experiences and clinical teaching.

Mr. Andy Oswald Unit administrator for Tk20, coordinates course-based and field-based assessment, time logs, and field experience binders. Responsible for state, federal, and external reporting.

Mr. Chase Kennemer Assists with gathering and distributing data for the EPP and monitors and supports the completion of assessments.

Ms. Jean Hubbartt Works with initial and advanced candidates to monitor and support certification testing and processing of certification credentials with the Texas Education Agency.

Ms. Rachel Bennett Monitors admissions to the EPP and benchmarking at progression levels.

Ms. Nicole Boston Dr. Helen Berg

Supports the functions of the Educator Preparation Services office, such as travel, finance, and scheduling.

Supports student initiatives and programs from application to graduation, including ASPIRE Charles Butt Scholars, OC candidates, T-CLAS candidates, YLR candidates, and EdAide candidates.

13

Data Collection and Dissemination Information, Learning, and Assessment Technologies The EPP has an integrated system of technical platforms that support the quality assurance system. These platforms assist in the data collection for the QAS and are how data enter the system. This system relies primarily on the following technologies: Anthology Planning: The university for collecting and housing program data, course evaluations, and SACSCOC reports.

Banner: The university system for maintaining student data such as contact and demographic information, transcripts, application and admissions information, as well as course and enrollment data.

Blackboard: The Learning Management System used by the university for instructional purposes. It is used by online and hybrid courses, and as a supplemental instruction space for face-to-face courses.

COGNOS: The university system attached to Banner for running data reports based on information housed in Banner.

DegreeWorks: This web-based degree audit tool is the university system for monitoring progress toward degree completion.

Educational Certification Online System (ECOS): The web-based tool used by the Texas Education Agency and Texas EPPs to maintain candidate EPP admission, testing and certification data.

Tk20: A web-based assessment and data-management system used for completing coursebased and field-based assessments and evaluations, time logs, and candidate portfolios. This system is used by the EPP and is the primary vehicle for generation of assessment reports at individual candidate, program, and unit level.

Qualtrics: The university survey tool used for collecting, analyzing and disseminating data.

TEA Data Dashboard: The state system for reporting accountability data for each EPP in the state.

14

Data Reporting, Decision-making, and Program Improvement

Improvement of Existing Programs Faculty and Staff Development and Support

Creation of New Programs

Datainformed Decision Making

Recruitment and Retention of Quality Candidates, Faculty, and Staff

Develop and Enhance Quality Partnerships

Quality and Support of Candidates

Quality and Support of Completers

15

Stakeholder Involvement

SHSU EPP Quality Assurance Partnerships

Advanced Programs Advisory Councils

P-12 and Community Stakeholders

Sam Houston Innovative Partner Schools (SHIPS)

P-12 School District Partners

Education Partners Advisors for Content (EPAC)

SHSU Content Major Faculty

COE Assessment Committee

Program Coordinators, Content Major Faculty, Assessment Staff

Student Organizations

Student Ambassadors

DEI Advisory Council

CAEP Standards Committees

District Partners, EPP Faculty and Staff, Content Major Faculty, UG and Grad Students, Alumni, Community Partners

Sam Houston Innovative Partner Schools (SHIPS) The Sam Houston Innovative Partnership for Schools (SHIPS) is a partnership compromised of the Educator Preparation Program at SHSU and the independent school district partners in the region of Texas that is served by the university. The majority of these districts fall within a 75mile radius of the university. This group was established in order to create a mutually beneficial partnership between the EPP and school district partners that adds value to the institutions through the collaborative process of preparing future teachers for Texas. The SHSU College of Education is proud to partner with 81 area school districts in SHIPS. The group meets once each fall and spring semester in order to share information, make future plans, and consider issues that could have implications for SHIPS. The list of the SHIPS partners can be found here: SHIPS

18

Education Advisors for Content (EPAC) The Education Advisors for Content (EPAC) is a partnership comprised of faculty and staff from colleges other than the College of Education that house the content majors for secondary and all-level certification programs. This group was established in order to create a mutually beneficial partnership between the College of Education and content major colleges to increase communication that supports high-quality content and pedagogy for future secondary and alllevel teachers in Texas. The group meets once each fall and spring semester in order to share information, make future plans, and consider issues that could have implications for the EPP. The group includes representatives from the following: • Interdisciplinary Agriculture • Agriculture tracks: o Agricultural Business o Agriculture Engineering o Animal Science o Plant and Soil Science • Art tracks: o Animation with Teaching Certification o Graphic Design with Teaching Certification o Photography with Teaching Certification o Studio Art 2D with Teaching Certification o Studio Art 3D with Teaching Certification • English Language Arts and Reading • History • Mass Communications: Journalism • Spanish • Mathematics • Music tracks: o Choral o Choral/Piano o Instrumental o String • Kinesiology (Physical Education) • Composite Science (Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and Geology) • Theatre

19

Advanced Programs Stakeholder Groups The purpose and function’ of each of the advanced program stakeholder’s groups is to collaborate with the EPP on program-specific decision making. Data are shared regarding curriculum, enrollment, and state certification results. Feedback from stakeholders is used to ensure that curricular offerings are current and relevant to the needs of the field.

•

•

•

•

•

M.Ed. in Reading/Language Arts (Reading Specialist) • Current students, former graduates, Reading Specialists in the field, Principals, and Literacy Coaches M.Ed. in School Leadership (Principal) • Current students, former graduates, superintendents in the field, Region Service Center representative, community member (former administrator) M.Ed. in Special Education (Educational Diagnostician) • Region 4 Special Education Directors Stakeholder Group • Region 6 Special Education Directors Stakeholder Group • M.Ed. in Special Education (Educational Diagnostician) Stakeholder Group – consisting of special education directors, ISD evaluation managers, former graduates, and practicing ed. diagnosticians in the field M. in Library Science (School Librarian) • Current students, former graduates, school librarians in the field, Region Head of Library Services, representative of book publishing industry Superintendent • Current students, former graduates, superintendents in the field, Region Service Center representative, community member (former administrator)

College of Education Assessment Committee The purpose of this committee is to define and develop valid and reliable unit-level assessments for monitoring candidate, unit and program outcomes. Additionally, this committee will provide recommendations regarding data collection, analysis and reporting. The Chair of this committee reports to the Executive Council as appropriate. Membership on this committee is comprised of faculty and staff in the EPP and from content area majors for secondary and all-level certification programs. The committee meets once per month.

20

DATA QUALITY Selection or Development of Assessments The EPP-created unit assessments were developed and are maintained through a collaborative process that involves input from the College of Education (COE) Assessment Committee. This committee is comprised of faculty and staff from the COE and faculty from content area majors from other colleges. Extensive evaluation of the current literature and other models of unit assessments are conducted prior to the development of each unit assessment. Once created and vetted by the academic departments, assessments are phased-in through a pilot semester, revision, and finally full implementation. The COE Assessment Committee regularly reviews the assessments in use for potential revision or replacement. All EPP-created assessments have been evaluated using the CAEP sufficiency rubric for EPP-created assessments.

The proprietary assessments in the QAS were selected based on the requirements for certification by the Texas Education Agency. All certification examinations are included in this system. Additionally, the EPP has adopted the Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System (TTESS) as the performance assessment used throughout all field experiences in the program. A graduated model is used throughout each candidates’ progression through the field experiences, with candidates being assessed and receiving feedback on increasing elements of the T-TESS rubric until the final, capstone semester, in which they are assessed and supported with the full T-TESS evaluation rubric.

Additionally, the EPP QAS includes a number of surveys, both EPP-created and proprietary surveys developed and implemented by the Texas Education Agency. All EPP-created surveys have been evaluated for quality using the CAEP sufficiency rubric for EPP-created surveys.

21

Initial and Advanced Programs Data Sources & Data Reliability and Validity The EPP is vigilant to ensure data quality. Actionable measures are taken for each EPP-created assessment to ensure that data are relevant, verifiable, representative, and cumulative over time, and that interpretations of data are valid and consistent.

EPP-Created Assessments for Initial Programs: Assessment Title Capstone Portfolio

Administration Points

Gateway

Field Experience II

Gateway 4

Dispositions Assessment

by Candidate

Program Admission

Dispositions Assessment

by Faculty

Field Experience I

Dispositions Assessment

by Mentor

Gateway 1

Clinical Teaching

Gateway 3

Clinical Teaching

Field Experience I Clinical Teaching

Gateway 2

Pilot and Implementation Dates Pilot: Spring 2017 Full: Fall 2017

CAEP Standards Alignment CAEP R1.1

Pilot: Spring 2018 Full: Fall 2018

CAEP R.1.4

Pilot: Spring 2018 Full: Fall 2018

CAEP R.1.4

Pilot: Spring 2018 Full: Fall 2018

CAEP R.1.4

InTASC Standards Alignment InTASC 1-10

InTASC 9 and 10

InTASC 9 and 10

InTASC 9 and 10

Reliability Measure

Validity Measure

Interrater reliability – Pearson r

Lawshe Analysis

Interrater reliability – Pearson r

Alignment to Danielson Framework & TEA Code of Ethics, Lawshe Analysis Alignment to Danielson& Framework TEA Code of Ethics, Lawshe Analysis Alignment to Danielson& Framework TEA Code of Ethics, Lawshe Analysis

Interrater reliability – Pearson r

Interrater reliability – Pearson r

CAEP Sufficiency Level Sufficient

Sufficient

Stakeholders Involved in Development COE Assessment Committee Capstone Portfolio Ad Hoc Faculty Committee COE Assessment Committee Dispositions Ad Hoc Faculty Committee

Sufficient

SHIPS COE Assessment Committee Dispositions Ad Hoc Faculty Committee

Sufficient

SHIPS COE Assessment Committee Dispositions Ad Hoc Faculty Committee SHIPS

End of Course Dispositions Assessments

At completion of each EPP course

Secondary Unit Lesson Plan

Methods Block

Lesson Planning Assignment

Field II

Impact on Student Learning

Clinical Teaching

Through program

Gateway 4

Gateway 4

Gateway 5

Pilot: Spring 2018 Full: Fall 2018

CAEP R.1.4

2014

CAEP R1.3

2014

Pilot: Spring 2018 Full: Fall 2018

InTASC 9 and 10

InTASC 6, 7, 8

CAEP R1.3

CAEP R1.1

Interrater reliability – Pearson r

Factor Analysis

InTASC 6, 7, 8

Factor Analysis

InTASC 6 & 7

Factor Analysis

Alignment to Danielson& Framework TEA Code of Ethics, Lawshe Analysis Developed

by Panel of Experts, Lawshe Analysis Developed

by Panel of Experts, Lawshe Analysis Developed

by Panel of Experts, Lawshe Analysis

Sufficient

COE Assessment Committee Dispositions Ad Hoc Faculty Committee

Sufficient

Sufficient

SHIPS Secondary Faculty Committee COE Assessment Committee Faculty Committee COE Assessment Committee

Sufficient

COE Assessment Committee Impact Ad Hoc Faculty Committee

Proprietary Assessments for Initial Programs: Assessment Title

Administration Points

Gateway

T-TESS

Clinical Teaching

Gateway 5

TExES

Semester Before Clinical Teaching

Gateway 4

PPR

Clinical Teaching

Gateway 5

Pilot and Implementation Dates Pilot: Spring 2017 Full: Fall 2017

CAEP Standards Alignment CAEP R.2.1

InTASC Standards Alignment InTASC 1,2,3,4,5

Legacy

CAEP R.1

InTASC 1,2,3,4,5

Legacy

CAEP R.1.1, CAEP R.1.2

InTASC 1,2,3,4,5

23

Reliability Measure

Validity Measure

Established by Developers Established by Developers Established by Developers

Established by Developers Established by Developers Established by Developers

CAEP Sufficiency Level Sufficient

Stakeholders Involved in Development N/A

Sufficient

N/A

Sufficient

N/A

EPP-Created Surveys for Initial Programs: Assessment Title

Administration Points

Gateway

SHSU Mentor Teacher Survey

At completion of clinical teaching

Gateway 6

SHSU University Supervisor Survey

At completion of clinical teaching

Gateway 6

At program Completion

Gateway 6

SHSU Operations and Services Survey

Pilot and Implementation Dates Implemented 2009 Reviewed and revised 2021 Implemented 2010 Reviewed and revised 2022 Implemented 2013 Reviewed and revised 2022

CAEP Standards Alignment CAEP R2.2

CAEP Sufficiency Level Sufficient

Stakeholders Involved in Development

CAEP R2.3

Sufficient

Program Faculty and Education Preparation Services Staff

CAEP R2.4

Sufficient

Program Faculty and Education Preparation Services Staff

Program Faculty and Education Preparation Services Staff

Proprietary Surveys for Initial Programs: Assessment Title

Administration Points

Gateway

CAEP Standards Alignment

CAEP Sufficiency Level

Gateway 6

Pilot and Implementation Dates Legacy

Texas Education Agency (TEA) Principal Survey

Post-graduation

CAEP 4

Sufficient

TEA New Teacher Survey

Post-graduation

Gateway 6

Legacy

CAEP 4

Sufficient

TEA Novice Teacher Survey

Post-graduation

Gateway 6

Legacy

CAEP 4

Sufficient

EPP-Created Assessments for Advanced Programs: Assessment Title Advanced Dispositions

Evidence File

Point in Program

A2.1.7

Throughout

Pilot and Implementation Dates Spring 2020

CAEP Standards Alignment CAEP A3.3., A3.4

Reliability Measure

Validity Measure

1.0 (α)

Alignment to TEA Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Ethical Standards

24

CAEP Sufficiency Level Sufficient

Stakeholders Involved in Development Dispositions Ad Hoc Faculty Committee

School Leadership Portfolio

A1.1.9

Middle

Spring 2020

CAEP A1.1, A1.2, A2.2, A3.2, A3.3, A3.4 CAEP A1.1, A1.2, A3.3, A3.4

0.88 (α)

A1.1.8

End

Spring 2020

A1.1.7

Middle

Spring 2019

CAEP A1.1, A1.2, A2.2, A3.3, A3.4

0.82 - 1.0 (k)

A1.1.6

Middle

Spring 2020

CAEP A1.1, A1.2, A2.1, A2.2, A3.3, A3.4

1.0 (k)

A1.1.5

Beginning

Fall 2019

CAEP A1.1, A1.2, A3.3, A3.4

0.58 - 1.0 (k)

A1.1.13

Middle

Fall 2020

CAEP A1.1, A1.2, A2.1, A2.2, A3.3, A3.4

0.71 (α)

A1.1.12

End

Fall 2019

CAEP A1.1, A1.2, A3.3, A3.4

0.71-1.0 (α)

Action Research

Campus Literacy Improvement Plan

Intervention Project Plan

Seminal Research Performance Assessment for Curriculum Alignment and Student Outcomes Comprehensive Exam

1.0 (k)

25

for each professional field Alignment to AASL 2010 Standards

Sufficient

AASL standards-driven, Faculty Derived

Alignment to TEA Reading Specialist Standards; ILA Literacy Specialist Standards; Established by Developers Alignment to TEA Reading Specialist Standards; ILA Literacy Specialist Standards; Established by Developers Alignment to TEA Reading Specialist Standards; ILA Literacy Specialist Standards; Established by Developers Alignment to TEA Reading Specialist Standards; ILA Literacy Specialist Standards; Established by Developers Alignment to School Leadership TEA state standards

Sufficient

Faculty Committee

Sufficient

Faculty Committee, Literacy Professionals in the field

Sufficient

Faculty Committee, Literacy Professionals in the Field

Sufficient

Faculty Committee

Sufficient

Faculty Committee

Alignment to CEC Advanced Specialty Set Standards; Content validity was established, including relevance (r=0.99), clarity (r=0.92),

Sufficient

Program faculty, graduates, and ed. diagnosticians in the field

A1.1.3

End

Fall 2019

CAEP A1.1, A1.2, A2.2, A3.3

0.75 (k)

A1.1.4

Middle

Spring 2020

CAEP A1.1, A1.2, A2.2, A3.3

0.82 (k)

A1.1.15

Middle

Spring 2019

CAEP A1.1, A1.2, A3.3, A3.4

1.0 (k)

Educational Diagnostician Portfolio

Testing Work Sample

District Business and Financial Management

and factor (r=1.0), validity Alignment to CEC Advanced Specialty Set Standards; Content validity was established, including relevance (r=0.84) and clarity (r=0.94) validity Alignment to CEC Advanced Specialty Set Standards; Content validity was established, including relevance (r=0.84) and clarity (r=0.93) validity Alignment to ELCC standards

Sufficient

Program faculty, graduates, and ed. diagnosticians in the field

Sufficient

Program faculty and Ed. diagnosticians in the field

Sufficient

Stakeholder group, including program graduates and leaders in the field

Reliability Measure

Validity Measure

CAEP Sufficiency Level

Established by EPP: M.Ed. in Reading/Language Arts – 0.80 (k) M.Ed. in School Leadership – 0.76 (k) M.Ed. in Special Education – 0.73 (k) M. in Library Science – 1.0 (k) Superintendent – 0.62 (k) Established by EPP: M.Ed. in Reading/Language Arts – >0.55 (k) M.Ed. in School Leadership – 1.0 (k) M.Ed. in Special Education – 0.63 (k) M. in Library Science – 1.0 (k) Superintendent – 0.62 (k) Established by Developer: M.Ed. in Reading/Language Arts – 0.77 (α) M.Ed. in School Leadership – 0.60 (α)

Established by Developers

Sufficient

Established by Developers

Sufficient

Established by Developers

Sufficient

Proprietary Assessments for Advanced Programs: Assessment Title

Administration Points

AAC&U Oral Proficiency Rubric

Beginning of program

AAC&U Written Proficiency Rubric TExES Exams and TExES

Pilot and Implementation Dates Spring 2020

CAEP Standards Alignment CAEP A3.1, A3.2

Beginning of program

Spring 2020

CAEP A3.1, A3.2

End of program

See Evidence File A1.1.1 for each

CAEP A1.1., A1.2, A3.4

26

Representa tive Exams

certification exam’s dates

M.Ed. in Special Education – 0.78 (α) M. in Library Science – 0.71 (α) Superintendent – 0.69 (α)

EPP-Created Surveys for Advanced Programs: Assessment Title

Program Level

Administration Points

Gateway

Survey of SHSU Recent Graduate and School District Employed

Advanced

2-3 years post program completion

Post Program Completion

Survey of Recent SHSU College of Education Graduates' Employers

Advanced

2-3 years post program completion

Post Program Completion

Pilot and Implementation Dates Implemented 2014 Revised 2017

CAEP Standards Alignment

CAEP Sufficiency Level

Stakeholders Involved in Development

CAEP A5.4

Sufficient

Program Faculty and Education Preparation Services Staff

Implemented 2014 Revised 2017

CAEP A5.4

Sufficient

Program Faculty and Education Preparation Services Staff

27

Continuous Improvement The EPP regularly, systematically, and continuously assesses performance against its goals and relevant standards, tracks results over time, documents modifications and/or innovations and their effects on EPP outcomes.

Key activities in this process are the annual college-wide assessment days. Each semester, the EPP holds a daylong event to review assessment data at both the program and EPP levels. Previous events include: Fall 2021 – Accreditation Countdown Spring 2021 – Data Dive Fall 2020 – Data for Diversity Spring 2020 – Data, Donuts, and Demographics Fall 2019 – Artful Assessment Fall 2018 – Data Quest Data from the CAEP Annual Reporting Measures are readily available to all stakeholders on the SHSU website, at this location: Annual Reporting Measures

The College of Education Assessment Committee meets monthly to discuss, plan, and document modifications to the assessment system.

The EPP engages with external technical support providers to continuously assess and improve performance.

A recent activity in this area was the Teacher Preparation Inspection, undergone in XXX and resulting in an improvement plan (ITP) which the EPP regularly reviews for progress with the support of the US PREP technical assistance provider. The ITP can be found here: SHSU ITP and as Appendix A at the end of this handbook.

Assessment Review Cycles EPP-created unit assessments are scheduled for review for relevancy and effectiveness on a rotating schedule every three years by the College of Education Assessment Committee. At this time, assessments are evaluated for adherence to the current standards, reassessed for content validity using a Lawshe analysis, and checked for inter-rater reliability. In addition to this cycle of evaluation, calibration sessions for scorers are regularly held for key assessments. This cycle is described in Table 1.

Table 1: Assessment Title

Review Date

Capstone Portfolio Survey of SHSU Recent Graduate and School District Employed Survey of Recent SHSU College of Education Graduates' Employers Initial Dispositions Assessment by Candidate Initial Dispositions Assessment by Faculty Initial Dispositions Assessment by Mentor Initial End of Course Dispositions Assessments Impact on Student Learning Advanced Dispositions SHSU Mentor Teacher Survey SHSU University Supervisor Survey SHSU Operations and Services Survey Secondary Unit Lesson Plan Lesson Planning Assignment

AY 2017, 2020, 2023 AY 2017, 2020, 2023 AY 2017, 2020, 2023 AY 2018, 2021, 2024 AY 2018, 2021, 2024 AY 2018, 2021, 2024 AY 2018, 2021, 2024 AY 2018, 2021, 2024 AY 2020, 2023, 2026 AY 2022, 2025, 2028 AY 2022, 2025, 2028 AY 2022, 2025, 2028 AY 2022, 2025, 2028 AY 2022, 2025, 2028

All degree programs and academic support units complete annual assessment reports that are reviewed every three years by the College of Education Assessment Committee. These reports are housed in the Anthology Planning platform and are used to guide continuous improvement efforts and as evidence for regional accreditation for the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) accrediting body. These reports present data on goals, objectives, key performance indicators, results, and action steps for improvements each year. *Programs leading to educator certification are indicated by an asterisk.

The review cycle through 2030 is described in Table 2.

Table 2: Review Date

Degree Program Adult Education Certificate

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

Counselor Education PhD

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

Curriculum and Instruction MED

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

*Teaching and Learning MED

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

Digital Literacies Certificate

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

29

Dyslexia Certificate

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

Early Childhood Education Certificate

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

Educational Technology Certificate

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

Effective Online Instruction Certificate

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

Higher Education Leadership EDD

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

*Instructional Leadership MA/MED

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

Instructional Systems Design and Technology MED

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

*Education BS (formerly Interdisciplinary Studies BA/BS (Elementary EC-6)

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

Play Therapy Certificate

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

*Secondary Education (SED) minor

AY 2022, 2025, 2028

Comparative and Global Education MED

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

Counseling MA

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

Developmental Education Administration EDD

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

*Educational Leadership EDD Higher Education Administration MA/ Academic Advising Certificate/ Higher Education Assessment and Institutional Research Certificate

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

Instructional Systems Design and Technology EDD

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

*Education BS (Formerly Interdisciplinary Studies BS (Middle Level 4-8)

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

*Library Science MLS

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

Literacy EDD

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

*Reading/Language Arts MED

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

*School Counseling MED

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

*School Leadership MED (Principal Certification)

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

Special Education MA (Low Incidence Disabilities and Autism) *Special Education MED (Educational Diagnostician/ Bilingual (Spanish) Educational Diagnostician Certificate/ Special Education Transition Services Certificate

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

*Superintendent Certification TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) MED/ Second Language Instruction Certificate

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

College of Education – Dean’s Office

AY 2024, 2027, 2030

Ed Prep Services

AY 2024, 2027, 2030

Garrett Center for Transition and Disability Services

AY 2024, 2027, 2030

Counselor Education Department

AY 2024, 2027, 2030

Educational Leadership Department

AY 2024, 2027, 2030

Library Science and Technology Department School of Teaching and Learning

AY 2024, 2027, 2030

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

AY 2023, 2026, 2029

AY 2024, 2027, 2030

30

Programs with Specialized Professional Associations (SPAS) are reviewed every 7 years. This cycle is described in Table 3.

Table 3: Program ED DIAG

SPA CEC

Advanced Programs Status Recognized Through: Nationally Recognized with 3/15/2022 Conditions

ED LEADERSHIP: PRINCIPAL ELCC

Nationally Recognized

8/1/2028

ED LEADERSHIP: SUPERINTENDENT

ELCC

Nationally Recognized

8/1/2028

SCHOOL LIBRARIAN

AASL

Nationally Recognized

8/1/2028

READING SPECIALIST

ILA/IRA

Nationally Recognized

8/1/2028 *ILA/IRA no longer affiliated with CAEP

Program ELAR 7-12 FOREIGN LANGUAGE: SPANISH MIDDLE SCHOOL 4-8

Initial Teacher Preparation Programs SPA Status NCTE Nationally Recognized ACTFL Nationally Recognized

Recognized Through: 8/1/2028 8/1/2028

AMLE

2/1/2027

Nationally Recognized

SPECIAL EDUCATION EC-12 CEC

Nationally Recognized with 9/15/2022 Conditions

MATHEMATICS 7-12

NCTM

Nationally Recognized with 2/1/2024 Conditions

HISTORY 7-12

NCSS

Expired

KINESIOLOGY EC-12

SHAPE America

In Process

31

Composite Social Studies being proposed, with proposed revisions to History Will resubmit 9/15/2022

Implementation of Program and Unit Assessments Initial Programs Candidate Gateways

Gateway 2: Gateway 1: Program Entry

Gateway 4: Semester 1 YLR or Methods Block (Secondary Only)

Gateway 3: Field 2

Field 1

Gateway 1: Entry to EPP • 2.75 GPA • Initial Dispositions Assessment by Candidate Gateway 2: Field 1 Semester • End-of-Course Dispositions Assessment by Faculty Gateway 3: Field 2 Semester or • State Certification TExES Content Exam Gateway 4: Semester 1 Yearlong Residency or Content Methods for Secondary • Mid-Point Dispositions Assessment by Candidate • Mid-Point Dispositions by Field Placement Faculty • Mid-Point Dispositions by Mentor Teacher • End-of-Course Dispositions Assessment by Faculty • Capstone Portfolio Gateway 5: Semester 2 Yearlong Residency or Clinical Teaching for Secondary • Final Dispositions by Candidate • Final Dispositions by University Supervisor • Final Dispositions by Mentor Teacher • State Certification PPR Exam Gateway 6: Completion • SHSU Completer Survey • State New Teacher Survey (at one year) • State Principal Survey

32

Gateway 5: Semester 2 YLR or Student Teaching (Secondary Only)

Gateway 6: Program Completion

Advanced Programs Candidate Gateways and Progression Points Each advanced educator program in the Educator Preparation Program has unique characteristics and pathways. However, consistent across all advanced programs are the gateways of program entry requirements, required prescribed coursework, clinical practice (160 hours minimum) in the field for the particular discipline, and program exit requirements.

Program Gateways:

Gateway 2: Gateway 1: Program Entry

Coursework

Gateway 3: Clinical Practice

Gateway 4: Program Exit

Gateway 1: 3.0 Minimum GPA, Oral and Written Communication Assessment Gateway 2: Maintain minimum 3.0 GPA on all coursework and dispositions assessment Gateway 3: Supervised minimum of 160 field hours for clinical practice Gateway 4: State Certification Exam and 3.0 GPA Progression Points for Data Collection by Individual Program: Progression Data Admissions Data (Writing Sample, Oral Communication, GPA of 3.0 or higher) Monitor Course Grades (Minimum GPA 3.0) M.Ed. in Leadership (School Principal)

CAEP Standard

Point in Program

A3.1, A3.2

Beginning of Program

A3.2, A3.3, A3.4

Beg/Middle/End of Program

Dispositions Practicum Time Logs Performance Assessment for Curriculum Alignment and Student Outcomes TExES 268 Representative Exam State Certification Exam Employer Survey Completer Survey M.Ed. in Reading/Language Arts (Reading Specialist)

A2.1, A2.2, A3.3, A3.4 A2.1, A2.2 A3.3, A3.4

Beg/Middle/End of Program

A3.3, A3.4

Middle of Program

A1.1, A1.2 A3.3, A3.4 A1.1, A1.2 A3.3, A3.4 A4.1 A4.2 A2.1, A2.2, A3.3, A3.4 A2.1, A2.2 A3.3, A3.4 A1.1, A1.2, A3.3, A3.4, A5.2

Dispositions Practicum Time Logs Action Research

A1.1, A1.2, A2.2, A3.3, A3.4, A5.2

Campus Literacy Improvement Plan

A1.1, A1.2, A2.1,

Intervention Project Plan

A2.2, A3.3, A3.4, A5.2

A1.1, A1.2, Seminal Research A.3.3, A3.4, and A5.2 A1.1, A1.2 State Certification Exam A3.4 Employer Survey A4.1 Completer Survey A4.2 M.Ed. in Special Education (Educational Diagnostician) A2.1, A2.2, Dispositions A3.3, A3.4 A2.1, A2.2 Practicum Time Logs A3.3, A3.4 34

End of Program

Middle of Program End of Program End of Program End of Program Beg/Middle of Program Beg/Middle/End of Program End of Program

Middle of Program

Middle of Program

Beginning of Program End of Program End of Program End of Program Beg/Middle of Program Beg/Middle/End of Program

Testing Work Sample Educational Diagnostician Portfolio State Certification Exam Comprehensive Exam Employer Survey Completer Survey M. of Library Science (School Librarian) Dispositions Practicum Time Logs Portfolio State Certification Exam Employer Survey Completer Survey Superintendent Dispositions Practicum Time Logs District Business and Financial Management TExES 195 Representative Exam State Certification Exam Employer Survey Completer Survey

35

A1.2, A3.3 A1.2, A3.3 A1.1, A1.2 A3.4 A1.1, A1.2 A3.4 A4.1 A4.2

Middle of Program Middle of Program

A2.1, A2.2, A3.3, A3.4 A2.1, A2.2 A3.3, A3.4 A1.2, A3.3 A1.1, A1.2 A3.3, A3.4 A4.1 A4.2

Beg/Middle/End of Program

A2.1, A2.2, A3.3, A3.4 A2.1, A2.2 A3.3, A3.4 A1.1, A1.2, A2.2, A3.3, A3.4 A1.1, A1.2 A3.3, A3.4 A1.1, A1.2, A3.4 A4.1 A4.2

Beg/Middle of Program Beg/Middle/End of Program

End of Program End of Program End of Program End of Program

End of Program Middle of Program End of Program End of Program End of Program

Middle of Program Middle of Program End of Program End of Program End of Program

Appendix A: SHSU Initial Teacher Inspection Report

Sam Houston ITP Progress Quick Glance Milestones Document

36

!Overall Progress"#

37

38

!#$%&'#()#"

GOAL 1: Develop programming that builds competency through practice.

Common understanding and interpretation of teacher candidate competencies (an instructional rubric) (Highlights indicate a positive change in rating)

Not Yet Started

Emerging

Developing 1. Faculty are trained and calibrated (annually) on the TTESS and professionalism rubrics.

2. Faculty co-score TC videos.

3. TCs use video capture technology during formal observations.

4. Methods courses are redesigned using the DBR process.

39

Sustainable 5. Clinical Experiences are led by a full-time Site Coordinator. 8 walkthroughs and 4 PAs per year 6. Site Coordinators conduct weekly Clinical Seminars 7. Curricula that teaches and assesses key content and

competencies.

8. A clear intervention process is implemented when TCs are not meeting performance gate expectations.

9. Performance gates allow TCs to advance from one stage to another.

Focus for Goal 1 ● Develop process and system to continue calibrating faculty on T-TESS and dispositions rubrics. This includes co-scoring candidate videos on a regular basis. Create a yearly training and calibration schedule for T-TESS and inter-rater reliability. ● Continue to support faculty as they engage in curriculum design. ● Build on the high-quality feedback training and find ways to support supervisors in implementing best practices. ○ Address it in orientation for the Fall and do a review - pull written feedback from T-TESS and evaluate where to go TPI Recommendations: Implementing rigorous training in methods and practices of high quality oral and written feedback for all supervisors and mentor teachers, making sure that observation of candidate practice has a strong lens on student learning during observed lessons; monitoring the quality of these observation and feedback practices, and using the results promptly for candidate development and program improvement efforts.

Yearlong residency placement list and total candidates - 165 candidates in YLR Coursework redesign to allow for student teaching course during both YLR semesters - 4-8 Course Swap and EC-6 Course Swap The leadership team at SHSU has made revisions to the handbooks to include performance gates for T-TESS and professionalism dispositions.

Current YLR Handbook Field 1, 2 and 3 Handbooks - progression rubrics ● Field 1 Handbook 40

● ● ● ●

Field 2 Handbook Content Methods Lesson Template Add the Lesson Plan Template with Annotations Student Teaching Guidelines Fall 2019 o District Start and Orientation Dates There are strong rubrics in place to assess TCs key competencies: ● Professionalism/Dispositions Rubric and a plan for use of the professionalism/dispositions ○ Description to approach to supporting and assess candidates with dispositions ● T-TESS Evaluation Form ○ T-TESS Progression Rubrics ● T-TESS Rubric There has been a faculty co-scoring/norming event in which faculty normed on the T-TESS rubric using a video of a Sam Houston teacher candidate teaching. Also, multiple training sessions have been done with all supervisors on using T-TESS to provide high-quality feedback. Faculty and supervisor T-TESS training will occur in April 2021 and August 2021. ● High-Quality Written Feedback Webinar ● Co-Scoring Presentation for Faculty ● Pre-Conference Training-- including using student data to drive lessons (Student Achievement Chart) Faculty have met to look at coursework alignment and discussions about teacher educator effectiveness in Fall 2018. Faculty have been working in PLCs in the Spring of 2019 to address assignments and coursework and how they connect to the field. SHSU faculty participated in the June 2020 Curriculum Design Symposium. Also, faculty from SHSU were identified to serve as coaches in the curriculum work. Curriculum Design Symposium Agenda. Field block work (Field 2 handbook) is happening to address the competencies.

SHSU Faculty are working with TeachingWorks to revise curriculum and embed teacher educator pedagogies that align to the T-TESS competencies.

This work has a focus on rehearsals and practice-based coursework.

SWIVLs are being used for video capture in all of the pilot sites. Teacher Candidates are using the videos to self-reflect and prepare for postconference discussions.

Site coordinators conducted T-TESS cycles, walkthroughs, pre- and post- conferences with fidelity. Data was collected and shared with stakeholders through mentor training and governance. A growth plan and process was developed to support students and was added into the handbook. ● Governance Agendas A student teaching companion course is developed for 2nd semester; however, there is work to be done to develop an official 1st semester student teaching course. Also, there are efforts to ensure that the companion course is clearly tied to the needs of the teacher candidates and their performance assessment data. Site Coordinators have been meeting virtually with their cohort of students on a regular basis and providing support based on data collected from walkthroughs, progress reports and T-TESS cycles.

Culturally responsive teaching modules were created and introduced in the YLR -- CRT Report 41

Goal 1 Additional Evidence ● Reformed curriculum- Fall 2019 roll out ● Cohort model Junior 1: 1 day a week in the field Junior 2: 2 days a week Senior 3: 3 days a week Senior 4: 5 days Curriculum Work Pictures May 2nd joint faculty meeting to talk about the new curriculum and US PREP (all faculty). Program coordinators have been informed and are on board.

Then, working groups for field experience 1 and 2. Time to work together and plan--assignments and support for field experience Faculty are meeting monthly: Used 2 articles that they shared and discussed to help introduce cultural competence to faculty and Julie gave an example for faculty. A book is being ordered to serve as a resource of strategies for the faculty.

Doing a gallery walk through the school and looking at how it reflects all students Re-aligned some course to address cultural competence and teaching all students (not other students) Curriculum Design Symposium Agenda August 6th Orientation for Teacher Candidates Introduction and implementation of the SPS Assignment: Overview of SPS for TCs TC SPS Self-Surveys: K-2, 3-5, 6-12 T-TESS Training for TCs Co-Scoring Presentation for Faculty 42

Supervisor/SC Training Feedback Survey Supervisor/SC Training Agenda with Links to Resources Combined Residency Data Collection Dates

##!##$%&'#(*#" 43

GOAL 2: University and school district faculty members demonstrate commitment to Continuous Improvement The university systematically collects, analyzes, and uses pre-service teacher candidate data, K-12 school system feedback, and graduate data (attitudinal, observational, outcome) to make instructional and programmatic decisions.

Not Yet Started

Emerging

Developing 1. Site Coordinators use data to inform a. MT training topics b. Clinical Seminar topics c. Coaching w/ TCs during walkthroughs & PAs 2. Data is disseminated to faculty on a consistent basis. Types of data will include: district perception survey data, tc exit survey data, and graduate data as applicable.

3. Program leaders and 44

Sustainable

Deans convene at the end of each semester for ‘data day’ and actionable next steps are developed based on analysis.

4. Program Leaders use data to inform topics for bimonthly professional development sessions.

5. Site Coordinator effectiveness is evaluated and data is used formatively to support their development.

Focus for Goal 2 ● Continue to hold data days and create action plans based on the discussions. This could include additional data collection or work to better understand shared data. ● Create a structure and system to support site coordinators--collecting and using data to drive the support. A survey was created by site coordinators, but was not used by all or shared with leadership: SC Survey for TCs ● Review program data on a regular basis as a leadership team and use this to drive support for Site Coordinators, faculty, and Teacher Candidates.

Example program data shared at a leadership meeting TPI Recommendations: Creating a set of systematic structures and regular practices through which program leadership, at all levels, monitors the quality of coursework, candidate performance, and observation and feedback practices; using monitoring results to identify areas of improvement with a sense of urgency; and developing a strategic improvement plan with specific goals, timelines, performance benchmarks, and accountable responsible parties to strengthen program quality and candidate outcomes.

SHSU is working with WestED to improve data for continuous improvement practices. They have an initial goal to focus on how faculty are using data to drive their own instruction and coursework. Also, Learning by Scientific Design has engaged faculty in doing coursework revisions.

Crosswalk 45

SHSU has conducted a data use self-study, which has informed their data use practices. They are also engaged in a data project with US PREP, in which they are piloting a dashboard that will allow them to more seamlessly share data with stakeholders. The leadership is engaging in data discussions and are using these discussions to drive program changes. For example, the SHSU Site Report from EPIC was used as one piece of data to drive leadership discussions, as well as the TPI report.

SHSU comes together on a regular basis to review data and make plans for improvement: Data Day Documents. SACs reports include goals and objectives for the program. Also, SHSU brings back graduates (Bring ‘em Back Cats) and uses data from principal surveys to inform the professional development.

Site Coordinators are regularly using data to inform mentor training and are having rich discussions with district partners about teacher candidate data.

They have recently been trained to gather their own data/reports from TK20.

Example Mentor Training Presentation Second Example of Mentor Training Presentation SHSU leadership reviews written feedback and other data to inform professional development for site coordinators and supervisors. A survey was developed to help gain feedback from teacher candidates. SC Survey for TCs This feedback can be used to help support site coordinators in their growth and development. The RTS and Clinical Coach has been using anecdotal data from observations and discussions to help guide the training and support of the site coordinators. Professional development on high-quality written feedback was provided as a result of the data analysis.

High-Quality Written Feedback Site Coordinator Meeting Agendas Goal 2 Additional Evidence Monthly Leadership Meeting Agenda Data Day Documents

!#$%&'#(+#" 46

GOAL 3: The teacher preparation program ensures that their teacher educators are effective teachers of teachers.

The program establishes clear expectations for effective teaching for teacher educators, provides professional learning opportunities for teacher educators, and uses multiple measures to provide teacher educators with feedback.

Not Yet Started

Emerging

Developing 1. Course Instructors: a. Clear criteria established for teacher educators- Considering ATE Teacher Educator Standards b. Participate in professional development c. Effectiveness measured in multiple ways - Faculty peer evaluation process implementation beginning Fall 2021.

Adjunct Faculty engage in student 47

Sustainable

evaluation reflections.

Full time Faculty engage in student evaluation reflections through the DFES process.

2. Site Coordinators: a. Clear job description and selection process b. Attend SC training and faculty professional development c. Effectiveness measured in multiple ways 2. Mentor Teachers: a. Clear job description and selection process b. Attend 4 SC-led professional development sessions per year c. Effectiveness measured in multiple ways Focus for Goal 3 ● Facilitate professional development trainings with teacher educator faculty, as measured by training agendas ○ Continue connecting to the field through video use ● Employ multiple measures (i.e. teacher candidate evaluation, mentor teacher evaluation, and site coordinator evaluation) to determine teacher educator effectiveness.

TPI Recommendation: 48

Working to strengthen all program coursework by establishing and implementing research-based definitions of key teaching skills across the program; embedding the application of these definitions in all coursework in ways that include explicit and frequent modeling by faculty, and providing frequent opportunities for candidates to practice and apply their knowledge and skills through classroom teaching experiences.

The site coordinator role has been implemented with fidelity and there are written roles and timelines created to support the site coordinators and their development. There is still work to be done to clearly define who is supporting site coordinators in their daily work and ensuring their effectiveness. The Clinical Coach and RTS have provided site coordinators with training and support through a summer training and bi-weekly meetings. The site coordinators worked on a survey to gather feedback from teacher candidates regarding their role and the district perception survey is another measure to gather feedback. There is work to be done to develop other measures to support site coordinator growth.

The Teacher Educator Effectiveness Framework has been presented to faculty and areas have been addressed. Faculty engagement with data for teaching improvement and program improvement was measured in the Spring 2021 semester. Those data are here. Data were shared with the Executive Council and will be shared with all faculty in the Fall 2021 semester, to guide improvement of decision-making for use of data for continuous improvement.

SHSU is considering ATE Teacher Educator Standards and piloting a peer review process for teaching in Fall 2021.

In governance, the site coordinators worked with district partners to create a mentor training selection process and criteria. Written documents and processes were developed and templates created to support new site coordinators in developing similar practices with new district partners.

Mentor Selection Materials In addition, the leadership team has begun to discuss measures to assess the effectiveness of the teacher educator roles (site coordinator, mentor, and instructor). These measures are in the process of being developed and piloted.

Faculty have normed during the co-scoring event - Building a Shared Understanding of Teaching Competencies SHSU leadership reviews written feedback and other data to inform professional development for site coordinators and supervisors. A survey was developed to help gain feedback from teacher candidates. SC Survey for TCs This feedback can be used to help support site coordinators in their growth and development. The RTS and Clinical Coach has been using anecdotal data from observations and discussions to help guide the training and support of the site coordinators. Professional development on high-quality written feedback was provided as a result of the data analysis.

High-Quality Written Feedback Site Coordinator Meeting Agendas Kathy is providing on-going training for the supervisors and will be using written feedback to assess the quality and provide additional support.

Goal 3 Additional Evidence

49

All four SCs attended the June 2020 SC training: June 2020 Training Agenda SHSU faculty/SC attending the June 2019 SC trainings: Link to participant chart August 15- Faculty Retreat (introduction to US PREP and TEEF) Weekly Site Coordinator meetings with RTS Development of a TC Survey Governance Meeting Agendas

!#$%&'#(,#"

50

GOAL 4: The teacher preparation program prioritizes K-12 school systems and the communities they serve.

The university and school district partners engage in quarterly shared governance meetings and share in joint recruitment of teachers who meet the needs of the students in the communities.

Not Yet Started

Emerging

Developing 1. During collaborative governance meetings, university-school partners develop strategic teacher recruitment plans to include: Future Teachers Clubs Social media strategies Programming that addresses district and prospective teachers’ needs Utilization of district 51

Sustainable 3. The site coordinators plan and facilitate quarterly governance/partnership meetings between the district and university that include shared data and decision making

and university website 2. Site coordinators work with district partners to help graduates get positions in the school district in which they trained (in schools that serve low-income, Black, and Hispanic students) Focus for Goal 4 ● Maintain a clear, measurable, action-oriented recruitment plan in connection with districts with written plans and goals based on the needs of the district partners--building on the following work that has been started: ○ Bilingual teacher pipeline form has been disseminated to TCs in the district to promote their hiring in the district. Also, students are being sought after by the districts ■ Example of hiring efforts ○ Resume and interview practice materials are posted on Blackboard to support TCs ○ Events are created to help students with interviewing and resumes...also finances TPI Recommendation: Developing a shared vision for teacher preparation quality and strong P-12 student learning outcomes with partner school districts by articulating in writing a joint mission that addresses recruiting, preparing, and supporting well-prepared new teachers. A district-provider partnership should include clear aligned expectations about the goals and outcomes of teacher candidate clinical placement, with a well-defined strategy supporting consistently high goals for performance that is communicated to supervising teachers and classroom cooperating teachers.

The site coordinators are implementing governance with fidelity. They are sharing data and engaging the district partners in rich conversations. They are having discussions about recruitment and retention of teacher candidates. One of the challenges is the location of teacher candidates homes vs. the district. For example, none of the New Caney candidates are interested in being hired in the district because of the long travel distances.

Support or interviewing and resume writing was provided to teacher candidates by the site coordinator and college.

52

■ Sample TC Interview Video ■ Mock Interview Rubric ■ Sample Interview Questions ■ Tips for Interviewing There are conversations underway about recruitment strategies and this is a topic of discussion in governance.

SHSU has worked with two district partners to create paid residencies and plan to scale these positions in Fall 2022. List of paid residents in districts Goal 4 Additional Evidence Partnership Schedule Governance Meeting Agendas

53

!#$%&'#(-#"

GOAL 5: The teacher preparation program tracks graduate employment and effectiveness.

Graduates are confident in their ability to teach, get employed in high need schools, and demonstrate effective teaching.

Not Yet Started 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Emerging

Developing

Graduates are effective - VAM Graduates are retained as measured by year 1, year 2, and year 3 retention rates Graduates are employed in schools that serve low income, Black, and Hispanic students Candidates are confident in their ability to teach as measured by the Exit Survey Candidates are proficient in content as measured by state content exams Graduates are diverse (at least 30% of candidates are racially diverse ) Candidates are proficient in teaching pedagogy as measured by the T-TESS Rubric Candidates are proficient in dispositions as measured by the professionalism/disposition rubric

Focus for Goal 5 54

Sustainable

● Dr. Craig Morton will work closely with your data lead to gather, review, and share data in these areas.

Goal 5 Additional Evidence 2019 Data Report

55

!#$%&'#(.#"

GOAL 6: The teacher preparation program scales and sustains the transformed teacher preparation model.

Not Yet Started

Emerging

Developing 1. US PREP and program leaders communicate about transformation efforts publicly (videos, e-blasts, social media, publications).

2. New grants or funding to support programming.

3. US PREP and program leaders conduct 56

Sustainable 5. US PREP and Program Leaders build capacity in Program Coaches (i.e. PDFs) to train and support site coordinators and clinical quality components.

6. Program is financially sustainable.

•Site Coordinator

research on the most promising practices and disseminate learning by presenting at conferences (i.e.

AACTE, AERA, etc.) and write articles/publications.

salaries •PDF role/leader is in place •Video hardware/software (i.e.SWIVL) •Design Based Research continues •Data System: $15,000

4. All program components are scaled to impact all candidates in the teacher preparation program.

Focus for Goal 6 ● Identify and begin to support and train a coach for current and new site coordinators. ● By Spring 2021, create a plan for scale considering financial challenges and current context. ● Begin working to recruit and collaborate with district partners to develop pipelines and use social media to promote your residency program. ● SHSU has scaled the role of the SC to support 165+ YLR candidates. Three of the SCs are working as support systems for the new SCs. This structure will lead to the sustainability and further scale of the SC role. Also, the COE has established a plan for further scale to secondary programs.

Their research lead has presented with partners at conferences and has contributed to US PREP monthly communications. Also, leaders have presented on the innovation pilot and transformation work at several conferences--including at the June 2020 US PREP Convening ● SHSU Innovation Pilot Presentation There is not a strong social media presence, but this will be a focus as the partnerships develop more.

The RTS provided a sample MOU that details sharing the cost of the site coordinator role with the district partner. This could be an option for some districts.

Goal 6 Additional Evidence 57

Scale Documents

58